Obama hits 40% approval in AP poll, loses ground on foreign policy

Obamahits40%approvalinAPpoll,loses

Bootsontheground:Obamasending“smallnumber”

Boots on the ground: Obama sending “small number” of Special Forces troops to assist Iraq; Update: 275 personnel

posted at 5:21 pm on June 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Via Guy Benson, who reminds me that this isn’t the first time the White House has advertised the smallness — the “unbelievable” smallness — of an intervention to make it easier to sell to voters.

Supposedly the troops they’re sending are only going to train and advise the Iraqis. What’s the advice, exactly? “Don’t run away“?

It’s not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It’s also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation’s north, where the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has overrun several cities in the worst threat to the Shiite-led government since U.S. troops left in 2011…

The mission almost certainly would be small: one U.S. official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission — meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but not officially be considered as combat troops.

The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission is “non-operational training” of both regular and counter terrorism units, which the military has interpreted to mean training on military bases, not in the field, the official said.

That’s the ostensible purpose of the mission. Now, what’s the real purpose? A hundred Special Forces troops aren’t going to be a gamechanger in an advisory role, especially with Baghdad already being threatened by ISIS. If Obama’s going to risk a second Mogadishu by putting them in harm’s way, knowing how little appetite America has for more U.S. casualties in Iraq, he’s got a good reason. One possibility: These guys are supposed to liaise somehow with anti-jihadi Sunni elements in areas controlled (or soon to be controlled) by ISIS, in hopes of kickstarting a new “Awakening” and getting American arms flowing to the resistance. Says the Daily Beast, “some of the people fighting with Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are former U.S. allies who could be turned against the hard-core fanatics—if they can be identified.” Another possibility is to pave the way for airstrikes. Hitting ISIS from the air is harder than some people think, not just because things are so fluid on the ground but because the Shiite government is an even less reliable partner right now than it used to be:

Ideally, you’d want to base your aircraft as close to your targets as possible, to maximize the number of sorties each plane could fly, instead of spending hours en route to the targets. The U.S. may press Maliki for permission to base U.S. aircraft inside Iraq, if the White House agrees that doesn’t violate President Obama’s bar on putting combat troops inside the country. They also could be based in the Kurdish north of the country, or in neighboring nations.

But missiles without good intelligence to guide them to the right targets are simply indiscriminate IEDs that could kill friendly forces, or even civilians. That’s why some military experts argue there need to be U.S., or at least allied, spotters on the ground—no one is willing to trust targets selected by Maliki’s military—to ensure destruction happens in the right place. “You could put [U.S.] Special Forces on the ground with the Iraqis to advise them and get frontline intelligence and to control air strikes,” says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who served as chief of U.S. Central Command. But that, too, could run afoul of Obama’s bar on U.S. troops on the ground inside Iraq.

If you want trustworthy intelligence inside Iraq, your only option is American troops. The Special Forces team is probably there mainly for surveillance, to pick up tips on ISIS movements and relay them to American air assets. And of course there’s a third possibility in honor of the McCain/Graham spat, that U.S. troops are on the ground to coordinate with Iranian military elements that are already inside the country and, maybe, to provide a U.S. counterweight to Iran in influencing Maliki’s maneuvering. And if worse comes to worst and ISIS ends up overrunning Baghdad anyway, hey — you’ll have 100 of the best troops in the world right there to help get everyone out of the embassy before the barbarians run wild and start chopping off heads.

Update: For what it’s worth.

BREAKING: Obama sends letter to Congress, advising "up to approximately 275 U.S. Armed Forces personnel are deploying to Iraq."

— Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) June 16, 2014

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: AP, boots, intervention, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, obama, special forces

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Bootsontheground:Obamasending“smallnumber”

Boots on the ground: Obama sending “small number” of Special Forces troops to assist Iraq

posted at 5:21 pm on June 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Via Guy Benson, who reminds me that this isn’t the first time the White House has advertised the smallness — the “unbelievable” smallness — of an intervention to make it easier to sell to voters.

Supposedly the troops they’re sending are only going to train and advise the Iraqis. What’s the advice, exactly? “Don’t run away“?

It’s not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It’s also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation’s north, where the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has overrun several cities in the worst threat to the Shiite-led government since U.S. troops left in 2011…

The mission almost certainly would be small: one U.S. official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission — meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but not officially be considered as combat troops.

The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission is “non-operational training” of both regular and counter terrorism units, which the military has interpreted to mean training on military bases, not in the field, the official said.

That’s the ostensible purpose of the mission. Now, what’s the real purpose? A hundred Special Forces troops aren’t going to be a gamechanger in an advisory role, especially with Baghdad already being threatened by ISIS. If Obama’s going to risk a second Mogadishu by putting them in harm’s way, knowing how little appetite America has for more U.S. casualties in Iraq, he’s got a good reason. One possibility: These guys are supposed to liaise somehow with anti-jihadi Sunni elements in areas controlled (or soon to be controlled) by ISIS, in hopes of kickstarting a new “Awakening” and getting American arms flowing to the resistance. Says the Daily Beast, “some of the people fighting with Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are former U.S. allies who could be turned against the hard-core fanatics—if they can be identified.” Another possibility is to pave the way for airstrikes. Hitting ISIS from the air is harder than some people think, not just because things are so fluid on the ground but because the Shiite government is an even less reliable partner right now than it used to be:

Ideally, you’d want to base your aircraft as close to your targets as possible, to maximize the number of sorties each plane could fly, instead of spending hours en route to the targets. The U.S. may press Maliki for permission to base U.S. aircraft inside Iraq, if the White House agrees that doesn’t violate President Obama’s bar on putting combat troops inside the country. They also could be based in the Kurdish north of the country, or in neighboring nations.

But missiles without good intelligence to guide them to the right targets are simply indiscriminate IEDs that could kill friendly forces, or even civilians. That’s why some military experts argue there need to be U.S., or at least allied, spotters on the ground—no one is willing to trust targets selected by Maliki’s military—to ensure destruction happens in the right place. “You could put [U.S.] Special Forces on the ground with the Iraqis to advise them and get frontline intelligence and to control air strikes,” says Anthony Zinni, a retired four-star Marine general who served as chief of U.S. Central Command. But that, too, could run afoul of Obama’s bar on U.S. troops on the ground inside Iraq.

If you want trustworthy intelligence inside Iraq, your only option is American troops. The Special Forces team is probably there mainly for surveillance, to pick up tips on ISIS movements and relay them to American air assets. And of course there’s a third possibility in honor of the McCain/Graham spat, that U.S. troops are on the ground to coordinate with Iranian military elements that are already inside the country and, maybe, to provide a U.S. counterweight to Iran in influencing Maliki’s maneuvering. And if worse comes to worst and ISIS ends up overrunning Baghdad anyway, hey — you’ll have 100 of the best troops in the world right there to help get everyone out of the embassy before the barbarians run wild and start chopping off heads.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: AP, boots, intervention, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, obama, special forces

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

APreportertoStateDep’tspokesman:Seriously,can

AP reporter to State Dep’t spokesman: Seriously, can you identify a single accomplishment since 2010?

posted at 7:21 pm on April 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Joe Schoffstall and Noah Rothman, the reporter in question is Matt Lee and no, this isn’t the first time he’s been, shall we say, unimpressed with an answer from State. The “QDDR” he mentions is the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a self-audit by State every four years of its long-term goals abroad and how it’s doing in meeting them. The very first QDDR was published in 2010 after it was ordered by — ta da — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. What makes this question significant, in other words, isn’t that Lee is so combative with spokesman Jen Psaki or that Psaki’s as stumped as the rest of us are when forced to name a Hillary accomplishment. What makes it significant is that, I suspect, the QDDR will itself be cited by Team Hillary next year when they’re asked to list her achievements. The mere fact that she ordered the review, whether or not State learned anything from it, will be submitted as proof that she’s Ready To Lead. Remember this exchange when it happens.

While we’re looking ahead, here’s David Frum anticipating the rest of the Clinton 3.0 strategy, specifically as it applies to the “is she too old?” question:

Hillary Clinton is not the victim of a double standard. She is the beneficiary of a double standard…

[A] question that commentators generally agreed was relevant in 1984, 1996 and 2008 is a question that Hillary Clinton supporters now deem insulting, offensive and unfair to women…

Hillary Clinton asks two things of us. On the one hand, she wants to be judged exactly as we’d judge a similarly accomplished man in politics. On the other hand, she wants us always to remember that the hopes of all womankind are fixed on whether she personally gets the job she wants…

In that one highly specific sense, then, the Hillary Clinton standard is always single: whatever it takes.

Enjoy this clip while you can, because starting around a year from now, it’ll be the very essence of sexism to ask a question like this.

Tags: AP, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, matt lee, psaki, qddr, State Department

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Poll: Majority of Americans not too confident in Big Bang theory

Poll:MajorityofAmericansnottooconfidentin

APpollgivesGOPslightedgeinmidterms

AP poll gives GOP slight edge in midterms

posted at 10:01 am on April 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Surprised that this is news? Don’t be. Despite all of the talk about Republican advantages in the upcoming midterm elections, we have so far not seen much evidence for it — except, perhaps, Democratic desperation over ObamaCare. The Real Clear Politics poll average actually has Democrats edging Republicans by 1.6 points in March, with eight polls either breaking even or giving Democrats a margin-of-error lead.

So yes, a Republican edge here actually is news:

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll holds bad news for President Barack Obama, but as the November elections draw closer, there are ominous signs for congressional Democrats as well. …

Preferences for control of Congress are tight, but Republicans have gained on Democrats since January. Thirty-six percent in last month’s poll said they would rather see the Democrats in charge of Congress and 37 percent chose Republicans.

Democrats held a narrow advantage on that question in January, when 39 percent favored the Democrats and 32 percent the Republicans. …

The shift stems largely from a change among those most interested in politics.

In the new poll, registered voters who are most strongly interested in politics favored the Republicans by 14 percentage points, 51 percent to 37 percent. In January, this group was about evenly split, with 42 percent preferring Democrats and 45 percent the Republicans.

The trust questions are probably a bigger problem than Democrats would like to think. Republicans are up four on the economy, 28/24, and surprisingly lead on immigration now, 26/25. Democrats led on immigration in December, 27/23. On the other hand, Democrats lead on managing the federal government by 24/22, education by 25/18, same-sex marriage by almost double at 31/17, and abortion at 30/22. Republicans hold more traditional leads in federal budgets (27/22) and national security (34/16).

In other words, the GOP had better not be ordering the drapes for the Senate Majority Leader’s office just yet. They are in good position in terms of the specific races, but they need a national wave to cement their status — and it’s not yet here.

The 2016 race doesn’t get a great deal of attention, just a rundown of favorability on the most likely names we’ll see in that cycle. To no one’s surprise, Hillary Clinton gets the most favorable reaction at 46%, but also the second-highest unfavorable reaction too at 39%. Joe Biden’s 34/43 beats her in that category, while Chris Christie’s 26/38 comes close. Hillary is the only one on the list not to be underwater, although most of the potential candidates either have pluralities or majorities too unfamiliar with them to choose one way or the other. There isn’t anything in this poll that should discourage anyone from entering … except perhaps Joe Biden, who’s as known as he’s ever going to be.

Tags: 2014 election, 2016 election, AP, generic ballot, polls

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

APpollshowsObamaCaresupporthitsnewlow

AP poll shows ObamaCare support hits new low … of 26%

posted at 8:01 am on March 28, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats who still think that defending ObamaCare makes for a great midterm strategy will be shocked, shocked by the latest AP-Gfk survey results. The rest of us … not so much. Support for the law dropped to a record low in this polling series, and even the slight improvement in the perception of its implementation leaves it far below the Democratic base numbers:

Public support for President Barack Obama’s health care law is languishing at its lowest level since passage of the landmark legislation four years ago, according to a new poll.

The Associated Press-GfK survey finds that 26 percent of Americans support the Affordable Care Act. Yet even fewer — 13 percent — think it will be completely repealed. A narrow majority expects the law to be further implemented with minor changes, or as passed.

Even the good news is remarkably bad:

Impressions of the health care rollout while low, have improved slightly.

While only 5 percent of Americans say the launch of the insurance exchanges has gone very or extremely well, the number who think it has gone at least somewhat well has improved from 12 percent in December to 26 percent now. The exchanges offer subsidized private coverage to people without a plan on the job.

Democratic candidates had better avoid having the President on their campaign trails, too, at least on this issue. Barack Obama’s approval rating for his handling of health care — a longtime Democratic policy stronghold — is now 39/61. Democrats’ lead on trust for working on health care has fallen to a margin-of-error 30/26, a loss of six points in the gap since December.

The 26/43 for ObamaCare is almost identical to December’s 27/44. That means that the three months of supposedly “fixed” operation of Healthcare.gov has changed few minds. The law has never been popular, as the series shows — disapproval peaked at the 2010 midterms, 41/52 — but its popularity has never been this low. The “strongly support” number is at its lowest, too, at 13%. That number has never been higher than 21% in this series, but it was still at 16% at the start of the rollout.

The individual mandate draws most of the opposition in the poll. A plurality of 49% oppose it outright, and 41% want it repealed. The rest of it has more support, especially the provisions that keep young adults on their parent’s family plan until 26 and the must-issue provision for those with pre-existing conditions. That might point the way to a so-called “fix,” except that the individual mandate is needed to have those two provisions along with “community pricing” that forbids insurers from calculating premiums based on individual risk. One of those things would have to go without the mandate.

Finally, keep the poll composition in mind while considering the support numbers. The D/R/I split is 30/27/24, with AP’s usual large number of “none of these” (16%). ObamaCare support doesn’t even manage to get to the number of Democrats in the survey. If Democratic incumbents plan to defend ObamaCare to the general electorate, they may need to start with their own base first.

Tags: 2014 election, AP, ObamaCare, polls

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair