You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Obama Needs an ISIS War Czar Before It's Too Late
2015-09-17
Eight years ago, then-Senator Obama excoriated the Bush administration's mishandling of Afghanistan, which he characterized as the most important front in the global war on terror. At the time, the criticism had merit. In 2007, the war in Afghanistan was under-resourced, with a dysfunctional and disjointed command structure, and with no civil-military campaign plan in place to defeat the insurgency.

Today, absent a course change, that is precisely the trifecta that Obama himself is set to bequeath to the next president unless he makes immediate changes.
Posted by:Blossom Unains5562

#9  how long till Obama gets voted out?
Posted by: anon1   2015-09-17 18:32  

#8  What Darth said but with the observation that POTUS IS THE ISIS WAR CZAR. He owns this crap sandwich regardless of the MSM saying otherwise
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2015-09-17 14:52  

#7  Another howler:

The opposite of this approach is what ensued during the Bush administration’s disastrous first year in Iraq, when the slapdash Coalition Provisional Authority and an equally slapdash military headquarters stumbled from crisis to crisis, largely disconnected from each other, without a campaign plan.

Left out of the equation was a passive-aggressive State Department that was fundamentally opposed to the run-up of OIF, tried to scuttle the initial moves into Iraq (they had a major role in Turkey's refusal to allow the 4th ID in,) and had no desire to either administer or support efforts to rebuild the Iraqi government.

Subsequently that fell to the military, which proved the adage that one can use a screwdriver as a chisel and vice-versa, but neither is much good at their original purpose after prolonged use.
Posted by: Pappy   2015-09-17 11:44  

#6  We don't need a czar, we need a CIC.

And it is already too late.
Posted by: DarthVader   2015-09-17 11:35  

#5  "Czars" are political cover for not wanting to make decisions. Studies, staff meetings, et al are largely because the person occupying the position doesn't want to make the call, but certainly wants the pay, perks, and titles that go with the office.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-09-17 09:08  

#4  We don't need another frickin czar. Czars are just un-American. We need a Commander-in-Chief with a spine and we need to unleash a general such as George Patton if we have such a person in today's PC climate. Where's that guy, what's his name? Oh Yeah, General James Mattis, the guy that said: "I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all." He might want to amend this quote to say, "I'm coming to kill all you MFns terrorists. No nation building this time."
Posted by: JohnQC   2015-09-17 07:25  

#3  Ditto Pappy. If you turn the baseball field into a trout pond, people will soon stop coming to the games. Behavioral change has always been Champ's goal. Any guesses as to what might be prompting or encouraging his efforts? Could 'hope & Change and 'affirmative action' be enablers ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2015-09-17 06:06  

#2  Today, absent a course change, that is precisely the trifecta that Obama himself is set to bequeath to the next president unless he makes immediate changes.

Did Messrs Fontaine and Serchuk consider the possibility that "structural incoherence" might be the strategy and Mr. Obama bequeathing the "trifecta" to his successor might be the objective?
Posted by: Pappy   2015-09-17 02:00  

#1  As commander-in-chief, the bammer is the war czar. What we need is a new commander-in-chief. Come on January 2017.
Posted by: Helmuth, Speaking for Big Foot4718   2015-09-17 00:15  

00:00