Thursday, January 16, 2014

Another ally disses the Most Equal Comrade's regime

The other day, you'll recall, the Israeli defense minister ripped Secretary Global Test a new one.  Now comes a UK defense advisor with this unsparing assessment of the MEC:

Sir Hew Strachan, an expert on the history of war, says that the president’s strategic failures in Afghanistan and Syria have crippled America’s position in the world.

President Obama is “chronically incapable” of military strategy and falls far short of his predecessor George W. Bush, according to one of Britain’s most senior military advisors.

Sir Hew Strachan, an advisor to the Chief of the Defense Staff, told The Daily Beast that the United States and Britain were guilty of total strategic failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s attempts to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels “has left them in a far worse position than they were before.”
The extraordinary critique by a leading advisor to the United States’ closest military ally comes days after Obama was undermined by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who questioned the President’s foreign policy decisions and claimed he was deeply suspicious of the military.
Strachan, a current member of the Chief of the Defense Staff’s Strategic Advisory Panel, cited the “crazy” handling of the Syrian crisis as the most egregious example of a fundamental collapse in military planning that began in the aftermath of 9/11. “If anything it’s gone backwards instead of forwards, Obama seems to be almost chronically incapable of doing this. Bush may have had totally fanciful political objectives in terms of trying to fight a global War on Terror, which was inherently astrategic, but at least he had a clear sense of what he wanted to do in the world. Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world,” he said.

Pathetic.  Everybody smells weakness.

5 comments:

  1. As if the war years from '02 thru '08 are any kind of grand ideal for which to strive. But, alas, we will never know what might have been had the trrue victor in the election of 2000 run the show for 8 years. There would have nbeen an entirely different set of players in the international military mix. Still, I once heard your adored Rush try to claim that '00 was the peoples' repudiation of Clintonian amorality.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd venture to guess that rather than everybody smelling weakness more are weary of endless wars that they feel have nothing to do with them. It is quite doubtful this Brit beaureaucrat speaks for the majority there. He's just another hawk. Like you/your ilk. You know who you are. So do we. We tossed you out of power. And we would not let you back in last time. Maybe next time. Ofv course tyou will cry that there may not be a next time. In that case, it has nbot beenb nice knowing you. Hawks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry about the typos, I compose these responses on my cell phone while performing my daily constitutional duties on the toilet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, but you're mistaken. It is true that there is a contingent of humanity that doesn't care to consider the increasing possibility that they'll get murdered in their beds, but most people are more tuned in to what's going on than that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes indeedie, that is exactly what the presidential elections of '00, 08 & '12 demonstrated.

    ReplyDelete