Here it is. John Bolton is now saying what had been
predicted. It is this: “Send US troops,” which is only the title of his latest
article. The subtitle goes like this: “Beating ISIS requires Americans in
combat.” It was published on September 15, 2014 in the New York Post.
The call for mission creep was predicted; what was not
predicted was the justification he will come up with to do the mission creep.
We have it now and it is made of two parts. They are as follows:
First, he says that the 2011 withdrawal of US troops from
Iraq diminished America's influence on Maliki who alienated the Sunni tribes,
thus allowed sectarian animosities to flare up which caused the disintegration
of Iraq and the entry of Syria's ISIS into that country. He posits that had
American troops remained in Iraq
three years ago, the Iraqi factions would have worked together better than they
do now because they would have seen that America was committed to their
cause.
This is so laughable it forces the following two questions:
Given that when the Iraqi troops saw ISIS coming, they dropped their weapons
and ran away, does it mean that ISIS feels America
is committed to their cause more than that of Iraq ? Or could it be that the
Iraqis were relying on America
to defend them whereas the ISIS troops had no
one to rely on but themselves? Think about it John.
Second, another reason that Bolton gives for doing mission
creep is that America 's
national security depends on defeating ISIS .
Thus, to rely on someone else's ground troops to defeat ISIS is to rely on
someone else to defend America 's
national security, he says. And having come up with this smart ass idea, he
takes it to an absurd extreme by daring President Obama to “say that, if those
forces aren't up to the task, he'll accept the Islamic State's continued
growth.”
But then Bolton being the
Jew that he is, commits the typical Jewish hara-kiri by slitting his own belly
trying to have it both ways. He does that by admitting implicitly that Obama never
said or even thought of accepting the Islamic State's continued growth. He
explains this part like this: “it courts disaster to rely on local ground
forces and resort to Americans when all else fails … that would mean, as Obama
would doubtless say that we'd enter the ground fight only after ISIS' troops
were tested and proved effective against their opponents.” How badly does it
hurt to commit hara-kiri, John?
The fact is that history will record it was the Jews who
dragged America into a cul-de-sac from which there will be no easy way to score
a big victory, or to save face in a big way. America and the world will have to
accept the scoring of small victories, and ultimately compromising with
whatever forces will be standing after the battles will have exhausted all the
parties involved.
This will be contingent on the Jews in America
remaining quiet to let the cool heads navigate the difficult period ahead. It
is also contingent on Israel be restrained from committing a stupid act that
might inflame the local passions, thus cause other nations to tell America it
will have to go it alone given that it can supply Israel with the means to
disrupt what they do, but cannot control it from using those means to do
foolish things.
John Bolton's article shows why the Jews of America must
remain quiet during the period ahead. It is that he put in black and white a
set of ideas which are typical of what the Jews have been doing all along. They
told America
how to start an adventure but never described an exist strategy or a plan B in
case things went badly. It is that they always believed a plan of this kind
constituted a strategy because a divine act to save them will be their plan B,
an act that will turn the adventure into a brilliant strategy.