Posted on Oct 6, 2015
Would the US Be In Seven Wars if the GOP had its Way?
2.87K
8
16
1
1
0
"President Barack Obama likes to paint Republicans as warmongers and portray himself as the diplomat-in-chief who ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though those conflicts continue and seem certain to outlast his time in office.
In a little-noticed White House video released last month, Obama insisted that he even knows exactly how many wars the United States would be in if he had listened to his hawkish GOP critics.
“Right now, if I was taking the advice of some of the members of Congress who holler all the time, we’d be in, like, seven wars right now,” he told a small group of veterans and Gold Star mothers of slain U.S. military personnel.
“I’m not exaggerating. I’ve been counting. We’d be in military actions in seven places around the world,” he emphasized.
The Sept. 10 meeting occurred behind closed doors in the White House Roosevelt Room, but the president’s comments were made public in a White House-produced video shared via social media.
Asked by Yahoo News to substantiate Obama’s remarks, a National Security Council spokesman first listed seven places to which the president has sent combat forces on a range of missions: Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Indeed, part of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal sales pitch hinged on his willingness to use deadly force overseas, intervening around the world far more aggressively than his critics say he’s willing to.
But that was plainly not what the president was talking about last month when he insisted that he was not exaggerating and had been counting how many additional conflicts Republicans wanted the U.S. to be engaged in.
“The point is that some of our critics think massive ground forces are the answer to any security challenge anywhere in the world for undefined ends,” NSC spokesman Ned Price told Yahoo News. “Our response has been to deploy boots on the ground for discrete missions when necessary for pre-defined and narrow purposes.”
He did not share Obama’s list of supposed GOP-sought conflicts.
That’s not to say that key Republicans are less hawkish than the president. Far from it: They’ve called for U.S. ground troops to carry out combat missions in Iraq, for more aggressive military action in Syria, for Washington to provide lethal aid to Ukraine’s military as it clashes with Russian-backed separatists and for Obama to send warships to the South China Sea as a counter to Beijing’s expansive territorial claims.
Nor is Obama alone in escalating the partisan rhetoric in Washington, D.C., and being dismissive of opponents. The verbal battle over the nuclear agreement between six world powers and Iran included GOP portrayals of Obama as the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism, or as an accomplice to a new Holocaust.
Still, Obama’s comments suggest that the president — who has never hesitated to clash verbally with his critics — is planning to stay in “rhymes-with-bucket list” mode, as he has described himself, for his last year and a half in the White House."
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/gop-would-have-us-in-seven-wars-right-now-090043699.html
This is just another reason President Obama will be remembered as a great president.
In a little-noticed White House video released last month, Obama insisted that he even knows exactly how many wars the United States would be in if he had listened to his hawkish GOP critics.
“Right now, if I was taking the advice of some of the members of Congress who holler all the time, we’d be in, like, seven wars right now,” he told a small group of veterans and Gold Star mothers of slain U.S. military personnel.
“I’m not exaggerating. I’ve been counting. We’d be in military actions in seven places around the world,” he emphasized.
The Sept. 10 meeting occurred behind closed doors in the White House Roosevelt Room, but the president’s comments were made public in a White House-produced video shared via social media.
Asked by Yahoo News to substantiate Obama’s remarks, a National Security Council spokesman first listed seven places to which the president has sent combat forces on a range of missions: Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Indeed, part of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal sales pitch hinged on his willingness to use deadly force overseas, intervening around the world far more aggressively than his critics say he’s willing to.
But that was plainly not what the president was talking about last month when he insisted that he was not exaggerating and had been counting how many additional conflicts Republicans wanted the U.S. to be engaged in.
“The point is that some of our critics think massive ground forces are the answer to any security challenge anywhere in the world for undefined ends,” NSC spokesman Ned Price told Yahoo News. “Our response has been to deploy boots on the ground for discrete missions when necessary for pre-defined and narrow purposes.”
He did not share Obama’s list of supposed GOP-sought conflicts.
That’s not to say that key Republicans are less hawkish than the president. Far from it: They’ve called for U.S. ground troops to carry out combat missions in Iraq, for more aggressive military action in Syria, for Washington to provide lethal aid to Ukraine’s military as it clashes with Russian-backed separatists and for Obama to send warships to the South China Sea as a counter to Beijing’s expansive territorial claims.
Nor is Obama alone in escalating the partisan rhetoric in Washington, D.C., and being dismissive of opponents. The verbal battle over the nuclear agreement between six world powers and Iran included GOP portrayals of Obama as the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism, or as an accomplice to a new Holocaust.
Still, Obama’s comments suggest that the president — who has never hesitated to clash verbally with his critics — is planning to stay in “rhymes-with-bucket list” mode, as he has described himself, for his last year and a half in the White House."
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/gop-would-have-us-in-seven-wars-right-now-090043699.html
This is just another reason President Obama will be remembered as a great president.
Republicans
Warfare
United States
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
The President must be joking, because as we speak there are current US military operations in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen (that's six countries) and we were previously in action in Libya. That makes seven. Not to mention smaller scale stuff in Uganda and North Africa, or Abu Sayaf in the Philippines.
So what he's saying is that if "warmongering Republicans" were in charge, then we'd also have been engaged in seven countries.
It appears to me that he wants it both ways, by implying that Republicans are bad for wanting to exercise military force in certain circumstances, while he paints himself as pragmatic for doing the same thing. That is about as specious an argument as I've heard in a long time.
So what he's saying is that if "warmongering Republicans" were in charge, then we'd also have been engaged in seven countries.
It appears to me that he wants it both ways, by implying that Republicans are bad for wanting to exercise military force in certain circumstances, while he paints himself as pragmatic for doing the same thing. That is about as specious an argument as I've heard in a long time.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
1SG (Join to see) - Are you saying that regular and numerous US combat units would do well in those four countries?
Thanks for bumping the thread by the way.
Walt
Thanks for bumping the thread by the way.
Walt
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
1SG (Join to see) - One of the things that is a cultural thing in the Marine Corps is to not complain about something unless you have a solution. What is your solution to the problems you see with the president’s course of action?
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
It is painfully obvious to me that the President is not really interested in any of those foreign problems, and is only committing enough to try and stave off collapse. In order to "win" you must articulate objectives; in order for the military to accomplish any mission, clear endstate must be defined. One thing Korea, Vietnam, OIF, OEF, Libya, Syria, etc have in common is unclear and/ or shifting endstate.
Once goals have been defined, you owe it to the men and women you are sending to give them everything they need to accomplish that.
the President has done neither of those well, arguably at all.
Now that that's out of the way, you are conveniently missing my point that the President has done precisely what he disparages Republicans for wanting to do, embroiling the US in seven different conflicts.
What say you, Walt?
Once goals have been defined, you owe it to the men and women you are sending to give them everything they need to accomplish that.
the President has done neither of those well, arguably at all.
Now that that's out of the way, you are conveniently missing my point that the President has done precisely what he disparages Republicans for wanting to do, embroiling the US in seven different conflicts.
What say you, Walt?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Painting republicans as warmongers is a long tradition without merit. The Democrats have been in power during all of the Major Wars, Republicans the smaller ones, it doesn't seem there is a black and white line on who calls on the services the most. There is a clear line on who funds them, and uses the military as a diplomatic tool.
Republicans believe talk softly and carry a big stick, or you can get a lot more from a king word and a gun than a kind word alone.
Democrats seem to think that by disarming totalitarian regimes will do the same.
Republicans believe talk softly and carry a big stick, or you can get a lot more from a king word and a gun than a kind word alone.
Democrats seem to think that by disarming totalitarian regimes will do the same.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Yep, small war limited scale.
We were winning last time I was over there. Something happened around 2009 that changed the conflict.
We were winning last time I was over there. Something happened around 2009 that changed the conflict.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Yet another troll post from RP's resident troll. Best to just not respond. Eventually he'll go away.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google