Can a newspaper\’s editorial board be perceptive and obtuse at the same time?
Well, let\’s look at the lead editorial in today\’s New York Times and see.
You can use this link to read it all (and I hope you do). But here are key excerpts – in rust, with my comments in blue:
Aweek ago, PresidentObama stood before the American people and promised that theexpanding fight against the Islamic State – a vicious Sunni militantgroup known as ISIS or ISIL that is terrorizing parts of Iraq andSyria – would not mean a commitment of American ground troops. “AsI have said before, these American forces will not have a combatmission,” he said. Completelyaccurate. So far, so good.
OnTuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, had a very different message when hetestified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “If wereach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqitroops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I\’ll recommend thatto the president,” he said, citing a potential attempt to retakethe strategic important Iraqi city of Mosul as an example. Ditto. Completely accurate.
Thereis no way to read this other than as a reversal from the firmcommitment Mr. Obama made not to immerse the country in anotherendless ground war in the Middle East. Way togo, guys. You got that 100% right.
Eventhough General Dempsey\’s remarks were conditional, the Obamaadministration has turned on a dime in record time and opened thedoor to deeper, more costly American involvement even before thestrategy is fully sketched out. And this is happening withoutCongress ever giving Mr. Obama the authority to wage war. Rightagain. This is some kind of a record for the Times\’ editorial board.
Sowhat changed in the last week? Has there been some new intelligenceassessment about the Islamic State\’s strengths that requires anurgent shift in policy? Has the administration run into difficultypersuading Arab countries and others to join its mission, whichcannot succeed without their support? Or was General Dempsey leavinghis options open to a ground war, as military leaders like to do,despite what Mr. Obama has promised? That\’syour list? Aren\’t you leaving something out?
Ifthere is any lesson to be taken from recent military conflicts, it ishow easily the country can slip into an intractable war, withconsequences that cannot be fully foreseen, and the fight against theIslamic State is more complicated and multidimensional than most. Goodpoint – but are “consequences that cannot be fully foreseen” anargument against fighting the war, or for it?
Thealarming uncertainty that General Dempsey has injected into the stillevolving military strategy makes it even more important that Congresscarry out its constitutional duty and debate and vote on the newmission in Iraq and Syria. Speaking ofabout-faces, congratulations on your sudden interest in congresscarrying out its constitutional duty. Where the %&#$^! were youon the 18 or so unilateral changes in ObamaCare, on amnesty forillegal aliens, and on all the other issues where President Obamaignored congress\’s constitutional duty as if it didn\’t exist?
Amazing. The Times correctly perceives that President Obama\’s years-long commitment to no troops being on the ground has been reversed in a matter of days…..but demonstrates a startling level of obtuseness by its inability to figure out that his plummeting poll numbers on foreign policy and protecting us from terrorism (including the Times\’ own poll, which I\’ll talk about in the next blog) have something to do with it.
It is closing in on 6 years of the Obama era. Everyone has had all this time to see how the President operates. If the Times hasn\’t come to understand that Barack Obama moves where the polls move by now, I guess it never will.
