Tags: ISIS/Islamic State | War on Terrorism | Spending | ISIS | Obama | weapons

More Misguided Spending Won't Deter ISIS

By Friday, 26 September 2014 10:41 AM Current | Bio | Archive

Our famously detached president has recently decided to become very hands-on in the application of air power. Obama, like LBJ in Vietnam, is personally choosing the targets where he will employ U.S. aircraft.
The first display of Air Force One might that we have the figures on was a $700,000 close-support effort in Denver for endangered Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo. Udall is not in physical danger, but Republicans are trying to remove his behind from one of Colorado’s seats in the Senate. According to Judicial Watch, the president provided Udall with air cover in a Denver pizza parlor and a pool bar.
This was followed by the beginnings of a $1.5 billion-a-month air campaign in the Middle East against ISIS. Buildings were targeted here, too, but with one significant difference. The Denver buildings were occupied — otherwise how could the golfer-in-chief raise money? — but the ISIS facilities were vacant.
Much like when Air Marshall Bill Clinton punished an empty African aspirin factory in retaliation for an Osama attack, Obama waited until after dark when the only occupants of the ISIS building were discarded prayer rugs, beheading knives left in the sink to rust and members of the cleaning staff with poor timing.
The aftermath of the mission looked like a hostile takeover attempt of a Radio Shack store by agents from Best Buy.
As Ralph Peters pointed out here at Newsmax, Obama ruthlessly vaporized communication equipment instead of terrorists. That’s because destroying computers, modems, routers, cell phones, monster cable, Dr. Beats, and other electronic equipment is much higher on the administration priority list than killing some no-name, tea-towel wearing, rifle waver.
This successful strike was a mission-accomplished moment in the White House Press Office: Let’s see those head-choppers try an upload another decapitation video using dial-up in Fallujah!
But is making it harder for Islamic terrorists to multitask really a good use of expensive military resources?
The two primary hotspots facing the U.S. now are the Ukraine and Iraq/Syria. In one we have a region where the people most affected by the conflict are more than willing to fight. What they need are weapons and ammunition. In the other, the nations that are most threatened by the violence have plenty of weapons but an almost total unwillingness to use any.
So what does Obama do? He sends blankets and MREs to the Ukraine, instead of the weapons and ammunition they requested to resupply an army that’s been fighting alone. Then he orders airstrikes and 300 trainers into Iraq to join the other $26 billion wasted in an effort to build a fighting force out of people who won’t fight for themselves.
He would have had better results if he’d armed the clerks at Radio Shack.
To give you an idea of just how random the decision-making is in this White House, Obama is sending 3,000 troops to Africa to fight Ebola, which is 10 times the number going to the Middle East.
The decision that would have given taxpayers more bang for the buck, if you will, would have been to send weapons and ammunition to Ukraine where they’re fighting rebels funded and armed by Putin’s Russia. This ties Putin down and sends a message to our allies and our enemies that the United States can be counted on to resist aggression.
The situation in the Middle East is the polar opposite. There Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates have plenty of U.S. weapons that will soon be in the ISIS armory after their troops abandon them during the rout. In fact, the best use of U.S. troops there would be a short-term mission to repossess the weapons.
The United States now serves as the Foreign Legion for Arab oil despots. Our taxpayers and our troops shoulder the burden because the Arabs won’t.
Iran has more at stake in the ISIS fight than the U.S. ISIS is Sunni and the sworn enemy of Shiite Iran. Every dime Iran has to spend to defend its Shiite client state in Iraq is a dime it can’t spend in an effort to construct an atomic bomb.
Sending weapons to Ukraine and our fond regards to the Middle East keeps both of our major enemies, Iran and Putin, occupied at home. They’ll be worried about protecting their national interest while we monitor the situation from afar.
Then — as long as ISIS doesn’t do something major like refuse to replace divots on the fairway — we can keep our money and our troops at home.
Michael R. Shannon is a commentator, researcher (for the League of American Voters), and an award-winning political and advertising consultant with nationwide and international experience. He is author of "Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times (Now with added humor!)." Read more of Michael Shannon's reports — Go Here Now.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
Our famously detached president has recently decided to become very hands-on in the application of air power. Obama, like LBJ in Vietnam, is personally choosing the targets where he will employ U.S. aircraft.
Spending, ISIS, Obama, weapons
Friday, 26 September 2014 10:41 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved