Though so far the indications are that the escalation of French airstrikes against the ISIS capital of Raqqa isn’t amounting to much, the White House is eager to not only endorse the strikes, but to claim partial credit for everything France hits, assuming they end up hitting anything of value.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted the only reason France can strike ISIS targets at all is because President Obama started “investing” in such strikes over a year ago, and that no French strikes would be possible at all without US support.
“There should be no denying that the only reason that the French are in a position to carry out this kind of response is because of the early investment in our military and our intelligence that the president ordered more than a year ago,” Earnest insisted.
This appears to be a significant shift in talking points for the White House, after over a year of airstrikes against ISIS in Syria have done virtually nothing, they are now trying to spin this as “investment” into the attacks they are launching now. With the new strikes mostly hitting empty buildings and open fields, however, this narrative too may backfire, with the “investment” not yielding any real return.
I didn't notice the United States running any SEAD missions against ISIS since they seem to have no airforce and no other air defences to speak of, so this is nothing more than stupid bluster from the White House.
Obama and the Republican Congress began the Syrian bombing campaign one year ago and this escalation has only increased the flow of refugees to Europe and the U.S. Washington need only. stop the bombing and stops funneling arms to the Syrian rebels and the Syrian refugee crisis would be solved.
All this may be true. French air strikes may much depend on U.S. intelligence and the like and the super power U.S. wants to make sure it gets credit for it.
But in a strange way it smacks of American bragging and arrogance and the arrogance is what is fueling the mideast mess right now.