I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.So, we get it. Barry knows more than everyone about everything. So why is it that he was so eager to cancel weapons programs that he now is relying upon in the air campaign against ISIL?* I've been sitting on this for a month, but it still bears noting: When the U.S. first started hitting ISIL targets in Syria, a primary weapon was Tomahawk cruise missiles. They are powerful, accurate, and difficult to stop, all of which make their use a natural choice. So of course, Barry wants to cancel that program:
The problem, as we reported back in March, is that the Tomahawk was slated by Obama to be phased out of the Navy's inventory, with no timely replacement ready. Under his budget proposals, the Navy, which as recently as last year had plans to buy 980 more Tomahawks, the primary cruise missile used throughout the fleet, would see purchases drop from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.
Doing the math, we see that Obama has already consumed in one night of strikes 47% of next year's planned purchases. The naval inventory will soon be depleted at this rate unless we crank up the arsenal of democracy and stop beating our swords into solar panels. As Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker calculates, the U.S. supply of roughly 4,000 Tomahawks would be exhausted in about 85 days at that rate of use.
Barry used a lot of Tomahawks against Libya a few years ago, too. For a guy who wants to cancel Tomahawk production, he sure uses the fuck out of them, doesn't he? Maybe he got his Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to eliminate the U.S. stocks of Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Anyway, Tomahawks aren't the only weapon Barry wants to cancel but needed to hit ISIL in Syria:
A Syrian campaign is going to be tougher than the effort in Libya, where there was no sophisticated air defense weaponry to worry about, which is why the Air Force chose to use the F-22 Raptor for the first time in combat. Its ability to evade radar detection plus its high-speed maneuverability make it ideal for high-risk environments.Yeah, we don't need no stinking Raptors. We'll never fight another country that has aircraft to compete with ours, right? Not like China is building up its military. Or that Russia is building up its military. All we'll need to worry about in the future is a bunch of goat-herders with no airplanes, right? So let's cancel the best fighter aircraft ever built.
I wouldn't worry about all this, though. We'll probably never need the Tomahawk or the Raptor ever again. Barry knows best, right? Why does anyone ever listen to this guy about anything?
* The media and administration usually call the group ISIS -- the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIS calls itself ISIL. The difference is not inconsequential. The key is the Levant -- the Levant historically includes not only Syria, but a good chunk of Turkey, pretty much all of Lebanon, some of Jordan, some of Egypt and, of course, all of Israel. That is what they are claiming as their caliphate, not just Iraq and Syria. Given how ISIL has been killing pretty much everybody in territory it controls who is not a Sunni Muslim who agrees with them, what do you think the survival odds for Israelis are if these assholes win? Or Christians, or Shiites, or anybody else who isn't a nutbag Islamist?