UnNews:Obama admits "no strategy" for Middle East

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Obama admits "no strategy" for Middle East

Every time you think, you weaken the nation —Moe Howard

UnNews Logo Potato
Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 03:47:59 (UTC)

F iconNewsroomAudio (staff)Foolitzer Prize

Feed-iconIndexesRandom story

29 August 2014

Obama Bobblehead

Although the White House strategy is null, its occupants are unanimous about it.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Obama made the astonishing declaration that "we don't have a strategy yet" regarding Syria.

In response, he was booked to receive a Profiles in Courage award, Time put him on the cover as the "Person, Thing, or Abstraction of the Year" — the only time in the magazine's history when the annual award was clinched in August — and Norway teed up a second Nobel Peace Prize. "Of course we are against war," said a spokesman in Oslo. "But, if we have to have one, a war conducted with total aimlessness could conceivably result in fewer casualties."

The president exhibited the brutal frankness during a briefing where reporters speculated that he was about to roll out a "full scale" strategy to explain the current bombing in Iraq. White House Press Secretary Josh Isuzu tweeted, "POTUS was explicit -- as he has been in the past -- about the comprehensive strategy we'll use," which would be the explicit comprehensive absence of one. The President did send John Kerry back to the Middle East to consult with "a bunch of folks" and perhaps devise a strategy to explain what the U.S. is doing. This means that the President has stopped channeling Jimmy Carter and has begun channeling Ross Perot; and that Mr. Obama will have hours of conversations, consensus of multiple Working Groups, and thick white papers, to explain any whim he elects to follow.

On Wednesday, the press secretary suggested a strategy like the one for Iraq was being devised for Syria. "The elements of that strategy would not be entirely dissimilar," Josh said — suggesting even-handed randomness on multiple fronts.

Military experts have suggested a "strategy" would involve giving bombs to the Syrian faction we were bombing in 2013 because it was gassing its own people until we found out the people were actually gassing themselves. These experts stress that ISIS has been taking shape for four years, though at no time was it clear that it would require a strategy. Defeating it — or, as Mr. Obama delicately put it, nipping it "in the bud," which it is not in — would be a strategy. Mr. Obama has stated that the U.S. will "collaborate with our partners in the Middle East," but it would impede collaboration if a single ally insisted that the joint military response have an actual purpose. This is in contrast to Mr. Obama's statement in 2011 that America was "leading from behind," which left the door open to the possibility that someone in front might have a strategy.

Mr. Obama even suggested he would give Congress "a chance to weigh in" before any declaration on a future fundraising tour that he doesn't need Congress's approval to act. Many Republicans in Congress do have a strategy: to march to "victory in November" without taking a stand on stuff like Syria.

edit Sources

Personal tools