White House Press Conference

It was, arguably, one of the most stunning Presidential press conferences in U.S. history.

As ISIS continues its rampage throughout Iraq and Syria, pillaging, raping and murdering on a massive scale, and threatening to launch a major terror attack on American soil, Mr. Obama openly admitted yesterday that his Administration had not developed any strategy for dealing with the crisis.

At this extreme late date, the President wants his advisers to provide “a range of options,” and admits that his decision is not immediately forthcoming. Various reports indicate that information was available for his review for up to four years.

Now that he cannot escape public knowledge of his negligence, what is his plan going forward? He stated that he plans to meet with his national security team. This begs the question: Why hasn’t he been meeting with these experts all along? This is a central part of his duties as Commander in Chief.

This isn’t a conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican question. If, at this very late venture, the President hasn’t already engaged in numerous, intensive discussions with his key personnel on this deadly problem, then he hasn’t just made an incorrect decision on a particular challenge; he has utterly failed to do his job.

House Armed Services Chair Howard McKeon noted “We need the President to explain to the American people what is at stake, what our objectives are, and the strategy for how to achieve them.”

The leading ENT spe buying viagra in ukts provide the most modern voice/speech therapy in Kolkata by using computerised speech therapy system. Patients should pay more attention to the diet as much as possible can even leave the penis looking and feeling better, not to mention firing on all tadalafil 20mg for sale cylinders. It might likewise quickly cause pale blue or smudged vision or affectability viagra pills from canada to light. It discounts on viagra helps to slow aging process in males and improves libido, sex power, and stamina. One would hope that after his frightening admission of inattention, Mr. Obama would spend the rest of this week in the White House making up for lost time. But that is not occurring. He will spend today attending Democrat fundraisers in several states.

Intelligence officials and military affairs commentators note that ISIS’s rise was not unexpected: They emphasize that this disaster had been brewing since 2009.

Mr. Obama’s premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq directly led to the vacuum ISIS filled. The President’s own defense personnel, including both uniformed members of the military as well as the Secretary of Defense, have voice alarm at ISIS’s progress. Why has the President ignored these key figures?

What has the President been doing during this period? There is a disturbing pattern discernable in the Oval Office. We still do not know where the President was during the Benghazi attack. His reaction to Russia’s expansionism in Eastern Europe has been strangely muted. He has yet to admit that the Obama/Clinton “Reset” strategy was a dismal failure, as Moscow arms to the teeth and displays no reluctance to employ its vast military machine. As this article goes to press, Russian tanks have invaded Ukraine, with no credible reaction from Mr. Obama. (Important note: Mr. Obama withdrew all American tanks from Europe this year; NATO no longer has a credible deterrent to the Kremlin’s military.) He has barely discussed the growing Russian, China, and Iranian influence in Latin America, just as he has failed to address Beijing’s growing aggressiveness and military might in any manner other than the most marginal ways.

The American people face an urgent question. What steps can be taken to deal with a commander in chief who clearly fails to take his duties seriously?

One question can be answered—how the President escapes public rebuke for his complete failure to perform his duties. Most of the major media, which strongly supported Mr. Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, has abandoned its journalistic ethics and has, essentially, served as a protective shield for this White House.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.