WaPo: Obama’s War Strategy ‘Underpowered’ Compared to Bush’s
Rarely is one President Bush credited by the mainstream news media to have done anything better than President Barack Obama, let alone both Bushes. The Washington Post provided one of those occasions in a Tuesday editorial on Obama’s plan to confront ISIS.
Following the execution of two American journalists by ISIS, an Islamic terrorist network largely based in Iraq and Syria, Obama has authorized military airstrikes and called on U.S. allies in the region to lend their support, including ground troops. So far, few have volunteered, with both Turkey and Germany deciding to sit this one out.
In its editorial, the Post said that Obama’s so-far bare coalition against ISIS is looking “meager” and “underpowered” compared to the Persian Gulf War under President George Bush (41) and the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the second Bush (43):
IN LAUNCHING two previous wars in Iraq, the United States assembled formidable coalitions of dozens of countries. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Oman were among the Arab states that deployed substantial ground forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Though derided by some as a “unilateral” U.S. action, the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was supported by troops from 39 countries, nine of which deployed more than 1,000 soldiers.
By those standards, the results thus far of the Obama administration’s efforts to marshal an alliance to fight the self-described Islamic State look meager. In Paris on Monday, two dozen governments pledged to help fight the extremists “by any means necessary, including military assistance.” But only a handful — not yet including Britain — have so far agreed to participate in air combat missions in Iraq, and none has yet signed on to support prospective U.S. air strikes in Syria. Nor is any sending combat troops. …
[T]he alliance the administration is constructing looks underpowered.
[Photo via Shutterstock]
