The Obama Blame-game Has Gone too Far as He Blames the US Military and Intelligence for His Own Mistakes

President Barack Obama gave an interview to CBS 60 Minutes on Sunday. He spoke about the difficulties inherent in his Syria policy, acknowledging that the US-led military campaign against ISIS and Nusra, the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, helps Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a man the United Nations has accused of war crimes and the US would like to see banished. Obama said : ''We are not going to stabilize Syria under the rule of Assad...On the other hand, in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, the Khorasan Group - those folks could kill Americans." But, ISIS, Nusra ahd Khorasan, targeted by US airstrikes, are the most significant military opposition to al-Assad. And that is Obama's problem -- if the US attacks them, he helps al-Assad. If he leaves them alone, they will continue to spread in Syria, brutalizing communities and plotting against the West. Yesterday, Obama was struggling under the weight of a "damned-if-you-do...damned-if-you-don't" dilemma largely of his own making. Consider two major decision points that Obama has faced and mishandled. ~~~~~ THE IRAQ TROOP WITHDRAWAL. In October 2011, President Obama announced that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by year's end. On 18 December 2011, the last convoy rolled out of Iraq and into Kuwait. In October 2011, Colonel Salam Khaled of the Iraqi Army 6th Brigade said : “Our forces are good, but not to a sufficient degree that allows them to face external and internal challenges alone. The loyalty of forces is not to their homeland. The loyalty is to the political parties and to the sects.” What was the Obama response in 2011? Officials said, "Iraqi forces are indeed prepared to preserve the nation’s stability." Dennis McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, told reporters : “One assessment after another about the Iraqi security forces came back saying these guys are ready, these guys are capable, these guys are proven.” But, Reuters published a report on 18 December 2011 taking a pessimistic view : "For Iraqis, the US departure brings a sense of sovereignty tempered by nagging fears their country may slide once again into the kind of sectarian violence that killed many thousands of people at its peak in 2006 and 2007. Prime Minister al-Maliki's shi'ite-led government still struggles with a delicate power-sharing arrangement between shi'ite, Kurdish and sunni parties, leaving Iraq vulnerable to meddling by sunni Arab nations and shi'ite Iran." And what was the Obama response on Sunday? In discussing Iraq, Obama said the US left the country after the war with “a democracy that was intact, a military that was well-equipped and the ability then (for Iraqis) to chart their own course.” However, Prime Minister al-Maliki “squandered” that opportunity over roughly five years because he was “much more interested in consolidating his shia base and very suspicious of the sunnis and the Kurds, who make up the other two thirds of the country....We are helping Iraq with a battle that's taking place on their soil, with their troops," the President said. "This is not America against ISIL. This is America leading the international community to assist a country with whom we have a security partnership." ~~~~~ REFUSAL TO ACT AGAINST AL-ASSAD. In August 2013, the Obama administration was trying to decide how to respond to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that was the most flagrant violation of Obama's 2012 "red line" for potential military action. But the possibility of intervention lessened after America's General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a 19 August 2013 letter to a congressman that the administration was opposed to even limited action in Syria because it believed rebels wouldn't support American interests if they seized power. Dempsey said the US military is clearly capable of taking out al-Assad's air force and shifting the balance of the war toward the armed opposition. But such an approach would plunge the US into the war without offering any strategy for ending what has become a sectarian fight. For America, the death toll and painful images were seen as again putting a spotlight on President Obama's 2012 pledge to respond forcefully to any chemical weapons use by the al-Assad government. In 2013, the Obama administration said it confirmed that Syrian forces committed such attacks, and the US then ordered a lethal aid package of small arms to be sent to some rebel groups, although it's unclear whether any weapons were ever delivered. Dempsey, in his letter, said : "Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides....It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not." Despite Dempsey's assessment, Obama recognized the Syrian opposition coalition as "the legitimate representative" of the Syrian people. That was the Obama position in August 2013. What is the Obama position in September 2014? On 60 Minutes, Obama said his first priority is degrading the extremists who threaten Iraq and the West. To defeat them, he acknowledged, would require a competent local ground force, something no analyst predicts will happen soon in Syria, despite US plans to arm and train "moderate" rebels. The US has said it would not cooperate with the al-Assad government. Yesterday, Obama said : "Right now we have a campaign plan that has a good chance of succeeding in Iraq. Syria is a more challenging situation." ~~~~~ The "no boots on the ground" mantra was questioned Sunday by House Speaker John Boehner, who said if local forces aren't trained to battle ISIS quickly enough, US troops would be required. "Maybe we can get enough of these forces trained and get 'em on the battlefield. But somebody's boots have to be there," the Republican Speaker said on ABC's "This Week." Boehner questioned Obama's strategy to destroy ISIS, saying that the US may have "no choice" but to send in American troops if the mix of US-led airstrikes and a ground campaign reliant on Iraqi forces, Kurdish fighters and moderate Syrian rebels fails to achieve that goal. Boehner said : "These are barbarians. They intend to kill us. And if we don't destroy them first, we're going to pay the price." ~~~~~ Dear readers, the most worrisome aspect of President Obama's constant shift from one "strategy" to another is his readiness to blame others for his own mistakes. "60 Minutes" interviewer Steve Kroft asked Obama how the threat coming from Syria and Iraq squares with the President's longstanding position that al-Qaida's leadership has been "decimated." Obama answered that there was an international network of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, headed by bin Laden. "And that structure we have rendered ineffective. But what I also said....is that you have regional groups with regional ambitions and territorial ambitions. And what also has not changed is the kind of violent, ideologically driven extremism that has taken root in too much of the Moslem world." While an "overwhelming majority of Moslems are peaceful," Obama said, "right now, there is a cancer that has grown for too long that suggests that it is acceptable to kill innocent people who worship a different God. And that...extremism, unfortunately, means that we're going to see for some time the possibility that...radical groups may spring up, particularly in countries that are still relatively fragile, where you had sectarian tensions, where you don't have a strong state security apparatus....We've got to get Arab and Moslem leaders to say very clearly: 'These folks do not represent us. They do not represent Islam.'" But the most dispicable blame-game Obama played Sunday was to unjustly place blame on the US intelligence and military communities for the mess he has got himself into. Asked how ISIS fighters had come to control so much of Iraq and Syria, Obama said it was "absolutely true" that the US overestimated the ability and will of the Iraqi army. He added that during the chaos of the Syrian civil war, "where essentially you have huge swaths of the country that are completely ungoverned, they were able to reconstitute themselves and take advantage of that chaos." Obama said his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has acknowledged that the US "underestimated what had been taking place in Syria." A sad comment from the President who likes to refer to himself as the commander-in-chief -- to blame the US Intel and military who work 24/7 to keep America and the world safe from terrorism. As I post this, ISIS is approaching Baghdad -- who will Obama blame for this catastrophe?