Strategy Part II

I put a post up a few days ago on Obama's gaffe in stating he didn't have a strategy to deal with ISIS.  You can read it here.   It's been a bit surprising to me that the MSM has persisted with this story.  Usually they can't pay attention for more than a day and then move to the next thing.  And usually they give him every break in the book so he is not held accountable.

The issue of a strategy to deal with the Islamic Jihadists and the turmoil in the Middle East is vitally important.  The U.S. obviously has a strong national interest in the region and needs to exert leadership to ensure that the balance of power is maintained.  In the last several years that balance has been upended pretty dramatically.  But this isn't something that will be addressed during the next news cycle.  It's not short term.  That's called tactics.  Instead, we must have a long term strategy that is consistent and reflects our national interest.  I'm a big fan of George Friedman at STRATFOR.  He has produced a great, short overview of his thoughts on a strategy the U.S. could and should employ against the Islamic State.  You can read it here.  Here is the link:
"<ahref="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/virtue-subtlety-us-strategy-against-islamic-state">The Virtue of Subtlety: A U.S. Strategy Against the Islamic State</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."

The conclusion says it all:

U.S. strategy is sound. It is to allow the balance of power to play out, to come in only when it absolutely must -- with overwhelming force, as in Kuwait -- and to avoid intervention where it cannot succeed. The tactical application of strategy is the problem. In this case the tactic is not direct intervention by the United States, save as a satisfying gesture to avenge murdered Americans. But the solution rests in doing as little as possible and forcing regional powers into the fray, then in maintaining the balance of power in this coalition. 

Such an American strategy is not an avoidance of responsibility. It is the use of U.S. power to force a regional solution. Sometimes the best use of American power is to go to war. Far more often, the best use of U.S. power is to withhold it. The United States cannot evade responsibility in the region. But it is enormously unimaginative to assume that carrying out that responsibility is best achieved by direct intervention. Indirect intervention is frequently more efficient and more effective. 

It takes into account the need to think long term, tries to steer clear of tactics, and sets a framework for our long term strategy.  And by long term I mean generational.  Everyone should face that fact that this issue isn't going away.  Those of us in the West are going to have to face this issue for decades.  Sorry to burst your balloon.  Let me know if you disagree...and why.

BTW, I'm starting to feel a sweeping landslide for the Republicans is coming in November.  There are many who will rationalize it as being normal for a President in the 6th year of his Presidency to have a tough off year election.  I think it's more than that.  Americans expect their President to be competent, attentive, dedicated, and truthful.  Obama has shown he is none of those things.  The Democrats may pay big time for that in a few months.