Obama is willing to send bombers and intel and support personnel, but refuses (at the present time) to commit combat troops to the effort. The reasoning?
"..this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region... America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat."You see, it's not really our fight, well, it's kind of our fight, but just because we're leading the fight doesn't mean it's our fight. It's your region, so it's only fair that you guys put up the bulk of the
Man! That really ranks up there with "I have not just yet begun to fight!" doesn't it? More like, "Damn the torpedoes, you guys go on ahead, I'll catch up with you!"
Other than a sophomoric "fairness" argument, I have not heard Obama make the case for why any country should commit ground troops to a war where we will not.
America is seen by most of the world as a land of wealth. People we consider as being "below the poverty line" have a standard of living envied by most of the third world. One of the criticisms of the Viet Nam war, advanced by good liberals, was that the draft was "unfair" because the sons of the wealthy were able to avoid it. The sons of poor people died in disproportionately high numbers to the sons of the wealthy. The son of Senator Al Gore did go to Viet Nam, but as a REMF with a typewriter, well behind the battle lines. I don't believe that he has ever heard a "shot fired in anger". And George W. Bush, even though he was trained as a fighter pilot, still caused apoplexy among liberals as being "AWOL from Viet Nam".
How much will the world, Mr. President, view your request for ground troops from poorer nations to engage in mortal combat, while the sons of the 'affluent' sit home and play Mortal Kombat? "Unfair"?