I\’m not used to saying this….but the New York Times has an editorial in today\’s edition that is right on target.
It speaks of our air strikes – sure to be successful in hitting targets, but equally sure of not stopping ISIS unless there are ground troops as well – and invokes our utter failures in Yemen and Libya – both of which this administration ludicrously tout as successes (along with Somalia).
Please click here to read it all. But, in the meanwhile, here are the editorial\’s key points:
DismalLessons From Libya and Yemen
Asthe United States barrels into a new war against Sunni extremists inIraq and Syria, it has been easy to overlook the unraveling of Libyaand Yemen.
Fordistinct and complex reasons, both countries appear to be on anirreversible path toward becoming failed states. While the Obamaadministration’s quest to destroy the Islamic State terrorist groupis more urgent and ambitious in scope than its military interventionsin Yemen and Libya, the dissolution of order in both nations offerssobering lessons.
Americanairstrikes can deliver swift and decisive results on the battlefield.But without a feasible morning-after plan or dependable stateinstitutions to support, shifting the dynamics on the battlefieldoften makes things worse.
Themilitaryaction against the Islamic State has been impressive, withAmerican and allied Arab fighter pilots leveling logistic hubs andoil refineries used by the terrorist group, also known as ISIS. Butthere have been insufficient and poorlyarticulated answers to the question that matters the most: Whathappens next?
Whenthe United States and allies started bombing Libya, Mr. Obamadecided, overthe objection of top legal advisers, that he did not needexplicit permission from Congress.
Somelawmakers protested at the time, but not strenuously enough. Thatdisregard for Congress\’s power to declare war partly paved the wayfor Mr. Obama to launch the new campaign in Syria withoutauthorization.
Qaddafi’srelatively swift ouster initially made the outcome in Libya looklike a foreign policy victory for the Obama administration. Butfighting among rival militias, and a broader conflict betweenIslamists and their opponents, have plunged the nation into a newcivil war. The United States abandoned its embassy in Tripoli thissummer, a painful retreat almost two years after an Americanambassador and three of his colleagues were slain in an attack inBenghazi.
Whiledangerous Al Qaeda offshoot organizations in tribal areas of southernYemen have been weakened by drone strikes, calling Yemen a successstory is absurd. A band of Shiite rebels has recently taken controlover much of Sana, the capital, showing how hard it is for the UnitedStates to shore up a weak state, particularly given the highlyunpopular American drone campaign.
OnThursday, the State Department announced it was pulling out all butessential government personnel from Yemen and urged American citizensthere to leave.
Theadministration and most lawmakers agree that destroying the IslamicState is crucial. They would do well to dissect the lessons fromother American military interventions that have fallen short of theirgoals. The dismal state of Yemen and Libya are powerful examples. Sofar, officials seem content to focus instead on the narrowsuccess of dropping bombs on targets.
The only thing the Times is missing, is its ideas about what to do instead, and what to do after ISIS is beaten back – which I have a feeling we disagree on.
But, regardless, the above words ring true, and the Times editorial board is to be commended for putting them out.
Good for the Times. And shame on so many other mainstream media venues which see the same things the Times does but desperately continue to cover up for this woefully inept, incompetent administration.
