So, Where’s the Oil?

As Iraq takes control of the US military’s last base in the country, the question no one is asking begs an answer: Where’s all the oil? The liberal media hammered away at the idea that the war in Iraq was all about oil and Obama (accompanied by cheerleader Biden) has been taking credit for success in Iraq. Therefore, it should follow that we are successfully leaving Iraq laden with millions of barrels of oil.

US defense secretary, Leon Panetta, told departing troops at Baghdad International Airport: “After a lot of blood spilled by Iraqis and Americans, the mission of an Iraq that could govern and secure itself has become real”. In a speech to returning troops in North Carolina, President Obama said:  “Everything that American troops have done in Iraq…has led us to this moment of success”. In these, dare we say, “Mission accomplished” speeches, there is no mention of oil.

How can a war for oil be labeled a success when we are leaving with no oil? The military is leaving behind equipment in Iraq valued at approximately $580 million in an effort to save $1 billion in shipping costs, but not one dollar in shipping costs is being used for oil. There are no tankers lined up to bring home the spoils from our “war for oil”.

Renewed bombing attacks at Iraq’s Rumaila oilfield have halved output but the US military is leaving those oilfields for Iraq to protect. Aren’t they our oilfields now? Doesn’t “success” in Iraq mean we won the “war for oil” and we should protect it?

This raises the possibility that the media and the far left may have been wrong. If not, President Obama must then be lying about our “success” in Iraq. We can expect the persistent demand from the left of “No blood for oil” to now turn into an indignant complaint of “No oil for blood” – or an apology is in order.

Waiting…waiting…waiting…waiting…

David J. Hentosh

Obama’s Failure on Iran

Obama took office with the promise of using his special brand of diplomacy rather than force to deal with aggressive nations such as Iran. The increased sword rattling of Iran is a direct result of Obama’s soft diplomatic policy and has enabled Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons to continue.

Britain is now preparing for the possibility of military action being taken against Iran while Israel is making it clear that it will not allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapon capability. An upcoming report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear capabilities is expected to increase international concern and make military action more realistic.

A senior Whitehall official in Britain expressed concern that Iran has been resilient in the face of sanctions and said Iran appears to be “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why”. It is no coincidence that Iran’s aggressiveness has increased as Obama’s chances for re-election have decreased. Iran took full advantage of Obama’s toothless policy for three years and is now trying to make as much headway as it can before a new administration takes over and takes a harder stance.

Britain officials recognize that the US could handle this alone, but also know that Obama is highly unlikely to “accelerate towards military action” with elections on the near horizon, so they are preparing for a “strategy of pressure and engagement” to thwart Iran’s nuclear program. Israel is preparing to take action against Iran, but Obama does not appear to be interested in offering assistance or approval.

China, too, is taking advantage of weak US policy and has been providing missiles and other advanced arms to Iran in direct violation of UN sanctions. The UN has proven itself to be almost useless without US support, so there is very little incentive for China to stop. With complete troop withdrawal from Iraq imminent, Iran is anticipating use of those weapons in the near future. Obama’s policies have made it all possible.

David J. Hentosh

Obama Re-defines “Days” – And Much More

Back in March, Obama told us and members of Congress that his initiated U.S. military action in Libya would take “days, not weeks” and then we would be out and taking only a supporting role. These have become the longest “days” in history, currently lasting over a month. NATO just announced it has extended the mission in Libya for another 90 days, so we’ll see how far “days” can be stretched.

This highly intelligent nuance of Obama is, of course, way over the heads of average Americans. Many also foolishly thought that “Kadafi must go” actually meant he must go. Obama obviously meant he must go in “days” which, of course, guarantees him to be correct – eventually.

Obama has his own definition of “supporting role”, too, so he will not be pinned down with something as simple as that on the Libya mission. Using his personal definition of “war”, Obama also says he will not ask Congress for approval as stipulated by the War Powers Resolution because he has deemed that his commitment in Lybia is too small to merit Congressional approval.

Obama’s actions in Pakistan and drone strikes in Yemen could be curtailed if he followed the War Powers Resolution on Lybia, so don’t expect administration concessions. It is highly likely that Obama will do all he can to make Congress forget that resolution, or maybe he will just re-define it. If a Republican administration takes over, it’s a sure thing the resolution will return in full.

The mainstream media certainly seems to be running on Obama time and has fully accepted “days” to mean “weeks” or even “months” if necessary. They are used to re-defining anything to help Obama’s agenda. This was evidenced with the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner when the media redefined “mission” to mean the entire Iraq conflict. The fact that the carrier’s mission was, indeed, accomplished (hence, the carrier’s homecoming) was no obstacle. Facts are pliable under the magic of progressive ideology.

David J. Hentosh

Obama to Proclaim “Mission Accomplished”

Although President Obama will probably refrain from using the words “mission accomplished” in his planned speech on Iraq at the end of August (except, maybe, in a sarcastic way), it is certain to be his underlying message. Convincing the public that he has completely succeeded in Iraq (without giving President Bush any credit) will certainly come with enough spin to cause motion sickness.

Obama’s “mission” in Iraq was to get the US military out – period. He promised to do so during his presidential campaign and he received much flack from the left for not doing so immediately. Reality stopped him from fulfilling such a foolish promise, so he is now going to use rhetoric to convince supporters that he has, indeed, finally accomplished his “mission”.

With 50 thousand troops to remain in Iraq, it will take a lot of spin to prove this accomplishment. That has already been set in motion by proclaiming all combat troops have now left Iraq. The media has echoed this pronouncement dutifully and Obama will state it with pride. It is, however, a rhetorical ruse.

The remaining troops in Iraq are still combat troops whose mission has been designated as one of mentoring. That does not mean they are not combat troops and it does not mean they could not revert back to a full combat role if necessary. In fact, it can be expected that some of those troops will engage in combat when the expected struggle for power intensifies after the withdrawal of so many US troops.

The promise Obama is making about removing those troops, too, by the end of August next year is already being mitigated by stating that the situation at that time may require troops to remain longer. The preparation for reneging on another naïve promise is already underway and the media is fully engaged in the rhetoric.

Don’t expect Obama to receive any of the ridicule from the media about a “mission” being accomplished that Bush received. That would threaten the investment the media has in Obama. It is the only investment that is still providing dividends these days.

David J. Hentosh

Make/Break for Obama

The propelling force for Obama’s successful election campaign was his promise of getting out of Iraq quickly. He failed to do it quickly when reality trumped idealism after his election, but he continued to make it a prime goal. The far left was not happy with the delay, but they will surely celebrate when August 31 rolls around because Obama has confirmed that all American combat troops will withdraw from Iraq by that date.

It is doubtful Obama will utter the words “mission accomplished”, but it will certainly be an accomplishment and a make/break point for his presidency. If all goes well in Iraq, it may help him get re-elected in 2012. If all does not go well, it could be the end for his administration because Obama’s eggs are in the Iraq basket.

Even if the Afghanistan war (aka “Obama’s war”) begins to sour badly, it will be the outcome in Iraq that will determine Obama’s standing with American voters. He has taken credit for the successful Bush surge and he will now have to shoulder responsibility for the outcome in Iraq.

Deadly attacks and violence increased sharply this past month in Iraq, probably due to the expectation of the US withdrawal. There will be a power struggle and it may easily get out of hand quickly. If it does, chaos will reign and all that has been achieved in Iraq will have been useless. The only success will be that we have left Iraq.

Our “successful” withdrawal from Vietnam directly resulted in the deaths of almost 3 million people. This withdrawal from Iraq could very well challenge that benchmark if it goes bad. We should all hope it doesn’t because it would be a huge loss for the US and not just a political failure to be spun for partisan purposes. Our country may never be able to recover from another loss of that magnitude, so a successful withdrawal resulting in an independent, non-violent Iraq should be the hope of all.

David J. Hentosh