Every dollar that Obama spends to fight ISIS is one dollar less for Iran to spend on fighting Sunnis and one dollar more for it to spend on Israel bombing and US terrorism.
It's very odd thinking about Barack Obama shaping the modern meaning of war powers. Virtually everything he does makes us angry. To us he's a Corporate Democrat.
Yet he's been there, exercising the Commander in Chief Power for more than 6 years. And of all the Presidents in the last 20 years, he IS a trained legal scholar, a past editor of Harvard Law Review who, I think, will take the shaping of the use of the Commander in Chief Power seriously, having had to unwind the mess created by his immediate non-lawyer predecessor and the neocon jerks and vain, egomaniacal military officers who surrounded him.
Instead of writing the typical post-presidency book, I wish President Obama would take the time to write a formal law review article on the Commander in Chief Power, because that would cement his practical/scholarly views in stone for future reference. His views would be citable in Federal court in the future, to persuade future Presidents and the Federal courts on questions and problems we cannot even imagine today.
Yet he's been there, exercising the Commander in Chief Power for more than 6 years. And of all the Presidents in the last 20 years, he IS a trained legal scholar, a past editor of Harvard Law Review who, I think, will take the shaping of the use of the Commander in Chief Power seriously, having had to unwind the mess created by his immediate non-lawyer predecessor and the neocon jerks and vain, egomaniacal military officers who surrounded him.
Instead of writing the typical post-presidency book, I wish President Obama would take the time to write a formal law review article on the Commander in Chief Power, because that would cement his practical/scholarly views in stone for future reference. His views would be citable in Federal court in the future, to persuade future Presidents and the Federal courts on questions and problems we cannot even imagine today.
2
In a word, Obama's proposal reflects...AMBIVALENCE.
1
OK, but can you either blame him or fault him for trying to keep his options open, given the often disastrous 'laws of unintended consequences'? Would that his more decisive but consistently wrong predecessor had been more 'ambivalent'!
President Obama likes his neo-conservative powers to direct our Pentagon to do his bidding during foreign conflicts. Who wouldn't, especially when he has been frustrated by successive majority-Republican Congresses re his domestic agenda since he got into office 6 years ago?
Plus, he knows our mostly-Republican Congress mostly likes the Pentagon and its mighty hand in Washington, DC. That is except for a few die-hard libertarians who think the Federal government should fit inside of a bathtub so they can do a mercy-killing drowning of it. But that is political rhetoric.
Our Federal gov't is never going away because even more Republicans like the rich tax breaks they get from it, and the public-private partnerships between their companies and the Federal government, also known by their real name: corporate welfare programs.
And so it goes inside the Beltway. We have a social programs liberal and a slight war hawk of a President in his lame duck years, aligning things for when the Clintons return to power in 2017. Jeb? 49.9% of the vote isn't enough. No cigar.
3
Leaving aside for a moment, the pros and cons of the President's proposal, I'd like to know from the get-go how it's going to be paid for. I don't want the cost just put on the Visa card and then a year down the road, Congress cuts food stamps, aid to education, Social Security, Medicare and the repair of crumbling bridges and highways to pay for it.
If we're going to do this, whatever it is, let's pay for it upfront. If it takes tax increases, that's fine. Then the American people will know what they're buying without the later sticker shock from running up the national debt.
If we're going to do this, whatever it is, let's pay for it upfront. If it takes tax increases, that's fine. Then the American people will know what they're buying without the later sticker shock from running up the national debt.
Getting back to first issues, the war against ISIS is presently viewed as authorized by legislation passed almost 15 years ago in response to 9/11. Lawyers who parse language in a world where common sense does not exist consider this appropriate. That you can't declare war on ISIS before ISIS exists is a common sense argument revealing that the lawyers are wearing no clothes. Simple and straightforward war declarations are more than adequate to get the job done. The present proposals are overly narrow in response to the overly broad 2002 version. That is not the best response. We need to go back to what we always did before 2002 -- declare war against the enemy and leave it at that.
I saw this war movie before in Vietnam. And I didn't like the plot line the first time around. I have grave reservations about the journey down this road which this resolution will lead for our country whether we want to admit it or stay in denial. And I find it ironically that the boomer generation now in power will be making the same military blunder that they so deeply opposed and marched against during the Vietnam War. This video shows three boomers and tells the whole story. Vice President Joe Biden got even more deferments than former Vice President Dick Cheney during the Vietnam War. Secretary of State John Kerry was a decorated Vietnam veteran and came back to testify before a Senate committee and asked them, "How do you ask a man to be the the last man to die for a mistake?" He was the rock star of the anti-war protest at the time. But he forget his own rhetorical question when he voted as senator for the Iraq War resolution. And President Obama said recently in an interview that the news reporter must learn to discern the subtle differences between early boomers such as Biden and Kerry and latter ones such as him. He seems to be forget that LBJ was a liberal Democratic President. So I get a really bad feeling about this resolution. The last time I felt like this was when Congress passed the Iraq War resolution. And I hope I am wrong and just overreacting when it comes to the issue of war.
2
Interest in which Military Industrial Complex player is getting their equipment or services purchased, seems to be the only pattern that I can discern in President Obama's "Commander in Chief" activities.
Right now, we seem to be focused on drones - if you can drone it - do it; that seems to be the order of the day.
Obama's chosen Consigliere, Secretary of State John Kerry, is a know master of, not just changing and flipping, but "vibrating" polices. Back in the old days. before everything was computerized, we used a flashing "Strobe Light" - a device that would make moving objects appear to stand still - to check the ignition timing on our cars; nowadays, you would need a Strobe Light to figure out what our foreign policy is.
For example, Syria's Bashar al-Assad seems to have been bad yesterday, maybe not so bad today. Iran - good guys or bad guys? We are supporting, Haider al-Abadi, their current puppet in Iraq, but our "Greatest Ally", Benjamin Netanyahu, won't be happy, unless we let him to drop a plutonium filled chamber pot on Iran. Is he invited to speak to Congress, or is he not?
Without a clear foreign policy, it's not surprising that President Obama can not produce a cohesive military plan. Who do we like? Or not like? Who are we going to shoot at? Who knows - certainly not the President
Right now, we seem to be focused on drones - if you can drone it - do it; that seems to be the order of the day.
Obama's chosen Consigliere, Secretary of State John Kerry, is a know master of, not just changing and flipping, but "vibrating" polices. Back in the old days. before everything was computerized, we used a flashing "Strobe Light" - a device that would make moving objects appear to stand still - to check the ignition timing on our cars; nowadays, you would need a Strobe Light to figure out what our foreign policy is.
For example, Syria's Bashar al-Assad seems to have been bad yesterday, maybe not so bad today. Iran - good guys or bad guys? We are supporting, Haider al-Abadi, their current puppet in Iraq, but our "Greatest Ally", Benjamin Netanyahu, won't be happy, unless we let him to drop a plutonium filled chamber pot on Iran. Is he invited to speak to Congress, or is he not?
Without a clear foreign policy, it's not surprising that President Obama can not produce a cohesive military plan. Who do we like? Or not like? Who are we going to shoot at? Who knows - certainly not the President
3
Utter folly! ISIL is, in many ways, "a state within a state". It had been smoldering for quite awhile before it began active and aggressive warfare in a weakened Syria and Iraq - the latter handed to it on a silver platter by the ill-fated US invasion and Iraqi failed leadership. It is funded by the deep pockets of mid-east oil, especially from Iraq. "Defeating" ISIL is not a strategy - it's a cliche.
1
It's sad that once again, we are provoked and rise to the provocation just as desired, and will continue,to inflict great suffering on that part of the world without any possible result except another disastrous one.
We don't learn, it seems. We don't do what would serve our real interests and those of the world. We jump like puppets to the puppeteer. Isis calls, we answer yes, sir.
We don't learn, it seems. We don't do what would serve our real interests and those of the world. We jump like puppets to the puppeteer. Isis calls, we answer yes, sir.
1
Yet another daunting request from this incredibly incompetent administration. Given his record of international diplomacy, Congress should not be willing to give him approval to go to the men's room.
Sorry, but I don't trust this president. He has been bombing and sending troops to the Middle East and Africa without any conversation with Congress. This latest game - 'seeking authorization to...' - is pure politics. A game he has been playing his entire presidencey, regardless of what party controlled Congress.
And as usual, the NYTimes is trying to spin it in Obama's favor. Pretending that he is really trying to cut executive power is an insult to any reader with an ounce of intelligence.
And as usual, the NYTimes is trying to spin it in Obama's favor. Pretending that he is really trying to cut executive power is an insult to any reader with an ounce of intelligence.
Jordan has now taken up the fight against ISIS with the support of its citizens, and they have been joined by the Saudis (to some extent). We need to bow out and let the Middle East take over and handle the problems posed by ISIS and other terrorist groups. Let it be their fight for their people, not a war imposed by the United States.
All the wasted lives, money, and effort over more than a decade have led to what? Chaos and disorder in the Middle East.
Sometimes I think about how our own country could have benefitted from the money we burned trying to win a war that was never going to be winnable. I think about the lives lost to death or permanent trauma. I think about how all of this could have been avoided had we never gone to war in the first place. Yet the war drums continue to beat.
All the wasted lives, money, and effort over more than a decade have led to what? Chaos and disorder in the Middle East.
Sometimes I think about how our own country could have benefitted from the money we burned trying to win a war that was never going to be winnable. I think about the lives lost to death or permanent trauma. I think about how all of this could have been avoided had we never gone to war in the first place. Yet the war drums continue to beat.
3
Someone needs to step in and tell the President, "don't pick at it, you're only going to make it worse".
3
A full-scale ground campaign is needed to defeat ISIL. The troops fighting that war should come from Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. If the president's proposal was simply to get the approval of Congress to provide air support for Jordanian,Turkish, Iranian, Iraqi and Saudi troops in their all-out war against ISIL, I could along with it. This murky proposal, which continues to seek ISIL's "defeat" with the US leading a "limited" charge, while the armies of the states most affected by ISIL's incursions remain on the periphery of the battle, is unacceptable.
1
No, No, No, a thousand times NO! There is no Middle East solution that includes the United States. The only solution come from letting the Sunnis and Shia Islamic Sects fight their religious war to determine which Sect speaks for Muslims everywhere.
Infidels have no place in making this determination.
Infidels have no place in making this determination.
1
The battle against ISIS is most definitely something the US needs to get into. But not with soldiers. Establish some sort of peace corp. Win the hearts and minds of the people. Aid education. Send health care workers.
But that won't happen. The President probably doesn't have that sort of authority. How ridiculous is that? He can bomb without Congress' approval, but he needs their cooperation to send aid.
But that won't happen. The President probably doesn't have that sort of authority. How ridiculous is that? He can bomb without Congress' approval, but he needs their cooperation to send aid.
Jeff, ISIS doesn't want peace, education, or healthcare from the US. They are happy to take money and weapons and then use that to attack and terrorize the globe. Your idea that the middle east is interested in a brokered peace and a nice life for all is foolishly naive. Obama is already naive when it comes to the middle east, please don't feed that fire.
1
ISIS would like nothing better than the adoption of your plan. No air attacks, no weapons to its enemies but lots of Americans for hostage taking. BTW, how many do you think will volunteer?
Dear President Obama,
Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war. Hold their feet to the fire for them to make that declaration. Americans have the right to know what we are getting into especially specific answers to the following questions:
1) Who will be fighting this war? Reinstate the draft so this responsibility is shared equally among the citizens.
2) What are the goals and what is the end game? In other words--what is the US attempting to accomplish in this war?
3) How are we going to pay for this? Will taxes be raised on the wealthy? Will bonds be issued?
4) Who will be profiting from this war?
This is Congress' duty and responsibility to the US and the Constitution. Let's no be wishy-washy about this. Hold Congress' feet to the fire and have them take responsibility for this.
Congress has the Constitutional duty to declare war. Hold their feet to the fire for them to make that declaration. Americans have the right to know what we are getting into especially specific answers to the following questions:
1) Who will be fighting this war? Reinstate the draft so this responsibility is shared equally among the citizens.
2) What are the goals and what is the end game? In other words--what is the US attempting to accomplish in this war?
3) How are we going to pay for this? Will taxes be raised on the wealthy? Will bonds be issued?
4) Who will be profiting from this war?
This is Congress' duty and responsibility to the US and the Constitution. Let's no be wishy-washy about this. Hold Congress' feet to the fire and have them take responsibility for this.
4
Six months of air attacks - and now he needs authorization? It's simply meant to be a trap for the Pubs, not a path to winning a war.
2
Barack Obama has had to deal with a tough heritage. I really think he has done what he could, considering the disaster in the whole Middle East, Pakistan and now Africa. Many American citizens are rightly disgusted by devastating wars justified by lies and that obviously led to the present state of things.
But today's reality must be dealt with before it is entirely and dramatically out of control.
What this president tries to do aims at allowing while limiting, which is considered either stupid for war mongers or a malignant trap leading to another war for those who consider the country is not threatened by ISIS.
It is neither. Barack Obama is just still dealing with a tough heritage, with sensibilities. And consequently tries to do things right, the way a democracy should.
But today's reality must be dealt with before it is entirely and dramatically out of control.
What this president tries to do aims at allowing while limiting, which is considered either stupid for war mongers or a malignant trap leading to another war for those who consider the country is not threatened by ISIS.
It is neither. Barack Obama is just still dealing with a tough heritage, with sensibilities. And consequently tries to do things right, the way a democracy should.
1
He declared victory in Iraq and pulled out, thus losing a war we had won.
This is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a ¨limited war.¨ Either you are at war, and you kill lots of innocent people, and your own countrymen, or you are not. Think carefully about our vital national interests before going to war. This is obviously a silly PR stunt by Obama, without any substance. Then again, most of his foreign policy decisions seem to result from one of two factors: (1) petty domestic political concerns; or (2) Obama´s outsized ego. Congress should reject this nonsensical initiative out of hand, and tell Obama to decide if he is taking the U.S. to war against ISIS or not. Then Congress should decide whether we are going to war, or not, per the U.S. Constitution.
4
Apparently, Iraq & Saudi Arabia are "uncomfortable" with
large contingents of US troops.How comfortable would they be with ISIS
in Baghdad or Mecca or Medina? And how many Americans are uncomfortable with having them there?
I think that it is time to get all Americans out of there & shake their dust
from our feet.
Really arm the Kurds & Jordan, advise them & let them solve their own problems.
large contingents of US troops.How comfortable would they be with ISIS
in Baghdad or Mecca or Medina? And how many Americans are uncomfortable with having them there?
I think that it is time to get all Americans out of there & shake their dust
from our feet.
Really arm the Kurds & Jordan, advise them & let them solve their own problems.
2
"perpetual war footing"? The US has been at war with the world since December 7, 1941. Ike warned us about the Military Industrial Cancer more than fifty years ago. Yet, we still march merrily off to war at the drop of a grenade. Don't worry about the lessons of Viet Nam or Iraq/Afghanistan, we have the glorious victories of Grenada and Kuwait to rally the spirit of America.
How ironic that the nation that stopped the militarism of Hitler and Japan in its tracks has morphed into the most invidious military imperialism the world has endured to this point in history.
How ironic that the nation that stopped the militarism of Hitler and Japan in its tracks has morphed into the most invidious military imperialism the world has endured to this point in history.
2
What is the current cost to the US tax payer of:
1/ "more than 1,900 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State over the last six months " including keeping aircraft carrier fleets in the region to support/carry out the bombing campaign as well as the US (Florida) CenCom staff that keeps the drones , etc. flying.
2/ The 2500 US boots on the ground in Iraq and their support groups.
Answer: Not much compared to the $3 trillion that the completely unnecessary invasion of Iraq has cost the USA plus of course the 4400 US lives that were lost + the 30,000 wounded troops + the 100,000 + Iraqi civilians that were killed.
Obama is still the peace POTUS but he is the C.O. of a very aggressive nation whose Congress is controlled by AIPAC. eg. Invading Iraq based on the lies cooked up by Wolfowitz in his Office Of Special Plans by Feith , Perle , Edelman & 19 other AIPACers. FYI, both Feith & Perle were charged by the FBI with passing US secrets to Israel in their prior gov`t jobs.
1/ "more than 1,900 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State over the last six months " including keeping aircraft carrier fleets in the region to support/carry out the bombing campaign as well as the US (Florida) CenCom staff that keeps the drones , etc. flying.
2/ The 2500 US boots on the ground in Iraq and their support groups.
Answer: Not much compared to the $3 trillion that the completely unnecessary invasion of Iraq has cost the USA plus of course the 4400 US lives that were lost + the 30,000 wounded troops + the 100,000 + Iraqi civilians that were killed.
Obama is still the peace POTUS but he is the C.O. of a very aggressive nation whose Congress is controlled by AIPAC. eg. Invading Iraq based on the lies cooked up by Wolfowitz in his Office Of Special Plans by Feith , Perle , Edelman & 19 other AIPACers. FYI, both Feith & Perle were charged by the FBI with passing US secrets to Israel in their prior gov`t jobs.
1
Most people forget our President campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war". He contended that America's interest required military action in Afghanistan and that the war in Iraq depleted resources from the Afghan effort. The President's withdrawal, years later, from Afghanistan only made sense if he believed America had won that war. The withdrawal could not be justified by some implied notion that the Afghan war was never legitimate in the first place, or that wars are necessary until they begin to take too long. In the current situation either our President believes militarty action is warranted or he does not. If he believes military action is warranted his obligation as commander in chief is to deploy all assets to succeed with the proposed military action. I am afraid he is instead seeking to curry political favor with the appeasment wing of his party while giving lip service to the notion of defending the free world against terrorists. This is not leadership.
Boy... This article is a real dog wagger. He is basically asking for unlimited power to strike anywhere, any time within 3 years. Aside from the ridiculous end date on his war plans, where are the handcuffs?
2
I thought the president had a "phone and a pen" and that he was going to use those to act unilaterally avoiding Congress. No? Perhaps he's declaring war on Republicans. No? Ah, he's fighting the "JV" he described last year--they are well matched against him since no president before has been so junior varsity in thought and deed.
1
No boots on the ground, close Guantanamo, confusing combat restrictions--all politics, politics, politics. Yet President Obama always speaks derisively of politics. I wish he had sent some time in uniform. That would have given him a more realistic point of view.
2
I find it very hard to believe that the President of the United States is calling the shots militarily. Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex, and it seems to me plausible that it is this conglomerate of trillon-dollar interests which is actually behind the decisions on miliatary action by the U.S. I know that most Times readers will scoff and call this a "conspiracy theory"; but a conspiracy theory is not proof there is no conspiracy. On the contrary, with such power and money at stake I cannot see how there could not be one.
1
If astute, intelligent people understand the methodology of President Obama, they already know he is a master strategist. His track record of sabotaging sabotage by the GOP is legendary.
If, in fact, he has been making secret deals with Iran, perhaps, the reason is because he views Iran as key to creating a more stable middle east. We all know who in the Middle East hates Iran most: Israel.
Why else would there be such a depth of coincidence that the same GOP who loathes and detests this president would invite the Senator Netanyau of the newest US state of Israel to speak at a Congressional meeting and slap the president in the face by not consulting with him first as has been done for the past 235+ years?
If the president makes deals, it isn't for personal gain since there is NO personal gain forthcoming from Iran.
When the president's deals with Iran show once again his "on the mark strategies" the GOP and US right wing will seethe with rage and continue their childish, spiteful revenge. The only thing worst to the GOP than a bi-racial president in their white White House is a female. And, that's their next big back room target. All the proof you need of that is how little criticism the GOP and right are shoving in Kerry's face. One might suppose that since Kerry fits their GOP template, he is being criticized less, lest that create blowback on the white males of the GOP.
If, in fact, he has been making secret deals with Iran, perhaps, the reason is because he views Iran as key to creating a more stable middle east. We all know who in the Middle East hates Iran most: Israel.
Why else would there be such a depth of coincidence that the same GOP who loathes and detests this president would invite the Senator Netanyau of the newest US state of Israel to speak at a Congressional meeting and slap the president in the face by not consulting with him first as has been done for the past 235+ years?
If the president makes deals, it isn't for personal gain since there is NO personal gain forthcoming from Iran.
When the president's deals with Iran show once again his "on the mark strategies" the GOP and US right wing will seethe with rage and continue their childish, spiteful revenge. The only thing worst to the GOP than a bi-racial president in their white White House is a female. And, that's their next big back room target. All the proof you need of that is how little criticism the GOP and right are shoving in Kerry's face. One might suppose that since Kerry fits their GOP template, he is being criticized less, lest that create blowback on the white males of the GOP.
Everything this president does is half-baked. The NY Times and the other true believers call him "thoughtful" and "deliberative" and "calm." In fact, he's confused -- confused over what the challenge is, what to do about it, and (most importantly to this White House) how to sell it.
In September Obama lectured the country that "his" way of fighting terrorism is the best way -- that long gone were the days of "shoot first and aim later" (straw man as usual) counterterrorism policy. His evidence? Yemen. Which he said has shown that "his" way has been "working for years."
Yesterday the US frantically departed the US embassy in Sanaa after the country collapsed under the pressure of Iranian backed Houthi militia and an assortment of Sunni jihadi groups.
Score another one to our "thoughtful," deliberative," and "calm" (and clueless) lecturer in chief.
In September Obama lectured the country that "his" way of fighting terrorism is the best way -- that long gone were the days of "shoot first and aim later" (straw man as usual) counterterrorism policy. His evidence? Yemen. Which he said has shown that "his" way has been "working for years."
Yesterday the US frantically departed the US embassy in Sanaa after the country collapsed under the pressure of Iranian backed Houthi militia and an assortment of Sunni jihadi groups.
Score another one to our "thoughtful," deliberative," and "calm" (and clueless) lecturer in chief.
4
In the opening paragraph: "Wednesday did something that few if any of his predecessors have done: He asked Congress to restrict the ability of the commander in chief to wage war against an overseas enemy."
I would say the wording "few if any" has to be replaced with the word "none."
This is because no real commander in chief of armed forces sets a war framework that telegraphs to the enemy the things that we will not do.
There is something very wrong with this President.
I would say the wording "few if any" has to be replaced with the word "none."
This is because no real commander in chief of armed forces sets a war framework that telegraphs to the enemy the things that we will not do.
There is something very wrong with this President.
2
Seems to me that Obama, knowing he only has two years left in office, is trying to constrain future POTUS in what they can and can't do with our military. Must be re-requested every 3 years by the sitting POTUS? And of course with only two years left it won't affect him. But the limits put in it will constrain other POTUS.
Obama, worst POTUS Ever........
Obama, worst POTUS Ever........
and why did BO take the troops out of Iraq. If you believe that the US is the worlds police, US troops in Iraq could have contained this conflict to Syria. If you don't believe that the US is the world police why should we get involved at the point.
Syria is destroyed, hundreds of thousand of civilians are dead and millions are refugees and the US stood back and did nothing. Why get involved now?
Say what you want about Iraq but the lack of commitment to a plan is the problem. It has been 70 years since the war in Europe ended and the US still has a military base in Germany. What is the "calculus" for ending operations in Iraq to change your mind and go back?
Syria is destroyed, hundreds of thousand of civilians are dead and millions are refugees and the US stood back and did nothing. Why get involved now?
Say what you want about Iraq but the lack of commitment to a plan is the problem. It has been 70 years since the war in Europe ended and the US still has a military base in Germany. What is the "calculus" for ending operations in Iraq to change your mind and go back?
Mo Brooks' comments," to give the appearance that we're fighting when we're not doing what is necessary to win", has the eery ring of Viet Nam to it. How many unwinnable wars must the country fight before we learn the lesson and avoid committing forces to fruitless efforts?
Even without the 2001 authorization The President always has the ability to carry out military operations against terrorist groups based on the War Powers Act of 1973. The unapproved authorization is good for 60 days and if we have a Congress that wants to shirk it's duty by not addressing the issue within that 60 day period then the resulting US impotency lies directly on Congressional members' shoulders.
1
Our Constitutional Law Scholar president has the duty to follow the law and stop his unauthorized war on the 61st day. He is a smart man and he is a lawyer. He knows what he should have done, but his base keeps giving him a pass.
Congress should rescind all of the current legislation and start fresh. By leaving the 2001 resolution in place, Congress "achieves" yet another area of non-accountability: the administration can claim that its activities are covered by the old resolution, and Congress can criticize at will, since many of the current office holders were not in Congress in 2001. Only by starting with a blank sheet of paper, and having the current members of Congress put their names behind their votes, will Congress be accountable for our military actions.
Mr. Obama, requesting this limit of No Boots on the Ground, is just in case our next president is a Republican.
2
Something stinks in Washington. Obama has already been bombing isil, and had no problem attacking Libya, which was no threat to us at all. Suddenly he needs Congressional authorization? What, EXACTLY, is in the bill? The power to declare ANYONE a threat and attack them? The ability to attack anyone, anywhere, for any reason? Like Ukraine, while pretending it is about isil? Vote no. If he wants to attack a specific group, he can get authorization for that group. That's the nature of the highest law in the land. We were never meant to be the world's police or bully.
8
It's the Democratic double standard. Blame and shut down the Bush era paperwork, but basically ask for the same thing...all the while ignoring the fact that he created this whe mess by pulling the troops despite everyone's concerns and doing a jig over the "Arab Spring" and encouraging this across the region. Without realizing it ( or maybe he does...), he might be the biggest state sponsor of terrorism out there.
2
I could not care less about a (D) or an (R) after someone's name. What I care about is all the anti-American, traitorous activities on both sides. The poor are being given bread and circuses, the middle class is being systematically wiped out, and the top 1% is hauling it all to the bank. When they stop providing the bread, watch out.
2
Obama asks for approval... Gotta love a Commander in Chief who wants to do battle with an arm and a leg tied behind his back and behind. What a surprise. Reminds of a very funny scene from a Monty Python movie: "come back here, you coward!!" says the warrior with no arms or legs.
1
Too bad, actually, that the proposals for such limits in Iraq in 2003 were all voted down by republicans.
"...Representative Adam B. Schiff [D]...“It’s...quite carte blanche...have a lot of work on that"...Republicans...saying the measure was...too limited in its authority...also...its conception of what will be required..."
My...talk about your political flip-flops and incongruities...With a Democrat in the White House, Democrats are actually wanting to restrict presidential war-making authority while the Republicans are wanting to expand that authority? What madness is this?
But...Politics...had never lowered its ugly head. Both parties are ignoring the realities of current events and instead are looking forward to January 2017, hedging their bets on which party they believe will be walking into the White House to take up residence and thus clarifying this apparent incongruity.
My...talk about your political flip-flops and incongruities...With a Democrat in the White House, Democrats are actually wanting to restrict presidential war-making authority while the Republicans are wanting to expand that authority? What madness is this?
But...Politics...had never lowered its ugly head. Both parties are ignoring the realities of current events and instead are looking forward to January 2017, hedging their bets on which party they believe will be walking into the White House to take up residence and thus clarifying this apparent incongruity.
1
Congress will present its own version which The President will reject. He has no interest in an enemy he refuses to identify. The last American beheaded, Obama was off to the golf course. ISIS is just another annoyance. Without the strong and consistent language condemning radical Muslim combatants, this half hearted policy will fail.
2
How do you defeat an enemy that is barbaric, lacking any moral and ethical bearings? An enemy that offers a purpose to the young, isolated, disillusioned and the unemployed of the world. Some 20,0000 foreign fighters have joined Isil’s fight , carrying on its brutal mission. As the president asks for a revamped war powers act, congress must do its constitutional duty and debate the merits of the request. It is time to put partisanship aside and ask, can America stomach another war? Does Isil present a threat to the US now or in the future? Isil is taunting the US, hoping for direct engagement against the "Great Satan"! Isil is a regional problem; a problem within the Islamic world. If Islamic extremist turned violently against those who parodied Islam; then the Islamic world must galvanize and declare a jihad against those who perverted the Islamic faith ! US intervention would only benefit Isil, foster anti-western sentiment and increase Isil’s recruitment.
1
What a bunch of malarkey!
The President is unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions. He wants someone else to blame.
That is the kind of Commander in Chief we have. It is that simple.
The President is unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions. He wants someone else to blame.
That is the kind of Commander in Chief we have. It is that simple.
5
So you don't want Obama involving Congress in any decision-making process. Is that right? Takes away your best justification for hating him, doesn't it?
Tonkin Gulf redux. Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth, POTUS qua charlatan. His role in drone assassinations long ago indicated his repugnance for peace. The present statement, skillfully providing cover, takes his permanent-war doctrine (pace Baker) a further step.
No one asks, what was the causation of ISIL? US policy from at the very least the 1980s in Afghanistan in support of the Taliban as part of the Cold War has led to a War on Terrorism with many side-consequences, not least intensified militarism, large-scale interventions, exercises in regime change, and, oh yes, massive surveillance of the American people.
Our Nobel Peace Laureate is Dr. Strangelove and J. Edgar Hoover in one. ISIL is a blessing in disguise, by keeping US societal tensions high and making renewal of the Cold War the present reality. In the besotted US policy/military mind-set (contagiously spreading), Russia and China somehow become connected to ISIL. America craves an Enemy, in fact, the more the better.
No one asks, what was the causation of ISIL? US policy from at the very least the 1980s in Afghanistan in support of the Taliban as part of the Cold War has led to a War on Terrorism with many side-consequences, not least intensified militarism, large-scale interventions, exercises in regime change, and, oh yes, massive surveillance of the American people.
Our Nobel Peace Laureate is Dr. Strangelove and J. Edgar Hoover in one. ISIL is a blessing in disguise, by keeping US societal tensions high and making renewal of the Cold War the present reality. In the besotted US policy/military mind-set (contagiously spreading), Russia and China somehow become connected to ISIL. America craves an Enemy, in fact, the more the better.
5
What is the objective of President Obama's new war or the Bush-Cheney Regime?
It is to exterminate people we perceive as our enemies. Nearly a quarter of the world's population are Muslims.
If each new extremist group arising from remnants of exterminated groups & each are more dangerous than the last then let’s finish the extermination once and for all. Let’s enact the same WWII civilian draft (no deferments) of men/woman up to age 38. Let’s see if Americans view the terrorist threat in the same light & how long they support perpetual war?
Americans at home have already gone to the shopping malls yet our wars in the Muslim world have entered our 14th year.
It is to exterminate people we perceive as our enemies. Nearly a quarter of the world's population are Muslims.
If each new extremist group arising from remnants of exterminated groups & each are more dangerous than the last then let’s finish the extermination once and for all. Let’s enact the same WWII civilian draft (no deferments) of men/woman up to age 38. Let’s see if Americans view the terrorist threat in the same light & how long they support perpetual war?
Americans at home have already gone to the shopping malls yet our wars in the Muslim world have entered our 14th year.
2
Some of the comments here are hysterical. Has it dawned on anyone that war will end when the other guys stop waging it. United States involvement is defensive. We are not colonialising. When Islamic terrorists stop killing, the United States can stop warring. Until then, what is the United States to do, allow people to be slaughtered?
9
It makes no sense. The President's proposal limits the power he already has according to your article. Congress should not approve his proposal and just tell him he has a pen and a phone and an existing authorization left over from 2001 and 2002 that gives him all of the power he needs to wage a proper war against ISIS and has all the resources he needs already to do so. He is Commander in-chief isn't he? first off, the President should start calling ISIS by the name we all know and hate and not ISIL. that would be a start.
4
It is suspicious. He has had no problem doing whatever he wants until now.
1
Seems to me that Mr Obama is doing the right thing to get unlimited authorization. He needs Congressional Republicans to give it to him, and the only way to get them to endorse unlimited authorization is to make it their idea. There's nothing wrong with that as a bargaining tactic. Mr Reagan famously - and very correctly - noted that “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”
4
President Obama is following his own trend of squandering the 'crown jewels', American exceptionalism, American leadership and now the power of the US presidency. He is busy transforming the US into another European country. He and the Euripeans live in a world that doesn't exist, while the real world (angry Russia, Islamic extremism, expansive China, massive fear-based migrations, cyber warfare, WMD proliferation, not to mention old fashioned corruption) is beating on the doors that are being removed. How ya gonna come?
3
Every time I hear POTUS, the pundit class, or the sunshine civilian patriots (so eager for war, but loathe to serve) talk about spending vast sums of treasure and blood on yet another military adventure in Southwest Asia (SWA), I am reminded of President Obama's comments regarding our Cuba policy, paraphrased as such: "I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for [now over 25 years] and expect a different result."
Well said, Mr. President.
Twenty-five years of military action in SWA, so let's try a different approach, perhaps? Our exceptional American civilians may be eager to war, but beware of men and women, sitting in well-appointed offices in Washington, D.C., who make life and death decisions about faraway places they know very, very little about. Not once has it ended well.
Well said, Mr. President.
Twenty-five years of military action in SWA, so let's try a different approach, perhaps? Our exceptional American civilians may be eager to war, but beware of men and women, sitting in well-appointed offices in Washington, D.C., who make life and death decisions about faraway places they know very, very little about. Not once has it ended well.
4
This article hints at his approach to military conflict.. He ask for power to enter into conflict but doesn't set his goals. So far the only thing he has said to be his aim is to degrade ISIS. War is to destroy so much of the enemy they give up. As Collen Powell said about Saddam's 500,000 man army, '"cut them of and then kill them." One of the problems in Vietnam was that under Johnson's leadership as commander in chief, we had no plan to win. You would think that we would have learned a lesson after that. But, here we are again. There is no stated intention to win or destroy. He wants to send in special forces to kill some leaders. That's it and that won't be much more than a bump in he road for ISIS. There will be others to take over. One recent report stated that their ranks have have been filled by other fighters at the very least as many as killed by bombs. ISIS flaunts its power with parades down streets in broad daylight with their AKs and flag held high. We should not risk our soldiers lives for a cause that has no intention to destroy or defeat ISIS. Otherwise we may see helicopters on an other roofs carrying people away safety.
3
Apparently Mr. Obama does not intend to defeat the IS, so he does not need any resolution to restrict the ability of the commander in chief. i. e. himself, to wage war against an overseas enemy. But Mr. President wants to impose his politics to his successor and to justify his own not-intervening now and in the future. Should for example Iran attack Israel. Europe, South America, Africa, or some other of its allies, the US would only be spectator of the scene without any possibility to intervene without breaking the law. If Obama does trust his own ability to take the right decisions, so he may leave. He need not to change the law for that matter.
Should the congress be silly enough to sign this absolutely insane and self-defeating resolution that no leader in the world would accept, so the Americans are just opening the doors to the destruction of the western society, including theirs.
It is not understandable and unbelievable how it comes that such people as the dems, Biden, Kerry, the senate, and others are unable to reflect on and analyse the dramatical consequences such an abnormal apparently innocent and grandiose but irresponsible resolution may signify.
Hopefully the Congress will not sign this crazy paper. Think further, please!
By the way, is that not a strange coincidence when considering the duration of three years first concerning the immigrant "amnesty" which will cost the US huge sums of money . and now the "IS-Please do what you like" law proposition?
Should the congress be silly enough to sign this absolutely insane and self-defeating resolution that no leader in the world would accept, so the Americans are just opening the doors to the destruction of the western society, including theirs.
It is not understandable and unbelievable how it comes that such people as the dems, Biden, Kerry, the senate, and others are unable to reflect on and analyse the dramatical consequences such an abnormal apparently innocent and grandiose but irresponsible resolution may signify.
Hopefully the Congress will not sign this crazy paper. Think further, please!
By the way, is that not a strange coincidence when considering the duration of three years first concerning the immigrant "amnesty" which will cost the US huge sums of money . and now the "IS-Please do what you like" law proposition?
2
There is no "essential contradiction" in the President's position. Prohibiting full-scale ground war, and permitting special operations against terrorists, are mutually complementary in this new age of sub-national warfare. This column is one more example of a gratuitously negative interpretation of Obama's subtle but transformative and innovative Presidency.
7
Obama ALREADY has all the authority he needs under the 2002 legislation. This is a not so subtle attempt to get the GOP involved in a "war" which we shouldn't even be in - we did "win" in Iraq and then Obama/Clinton bungled the "status of forces" agreement - that, to date, has been badly managed with no long term strategy or goals.
That the State Department would disarm our Marines as we were fleeing Yemen is mind numbing, but illustrative of the White House micromanaging our military with bad consequences (aka Benghazi).
In short, I wouldn't even bring up this self-defeating "War Powers Act" for a vote.
That the State Department would disarm our Marines as we were fleeing Yemen is mind numbing, but illustrative of the White House micromanaging our military with bad consequences (aka Benghazi).
In short, I wouldn't even bring up this self-defeating "War Powers Act" for a vote.
3
If you are open about things laying all things on the table you are transparent If you are not then you are not transparent. Listening already to some of this already it seems to be the Republicans seem to think there is a difference. I personally think ISIS or ISIL are no longer the threat they were. Their barbaric actions have turn almost every government in the Middle East and Near East against them.
I feel sorry for the families whose lost a family member but the hypocrisy of the Republican Party after lying the people of the United States about Iraq which is the catalyst to the formation of ISIS is primarily their fault and should bear the blame for the deaths. Last but not least 3 Muslims students were murdered a couple of days ago have to be mentioned and mention Nationally.
I feel sorry for the families whose lost a family member but the hypocrisy of the Republican Party after lying the people of the United States about Iraq which is the catalyst to the formation of ISIS is primarily their fault and should bear the blame for the deaths. Last but not least 3 Muslims students were murdered a couple of days ago have to be mentioned and mention Nationally.
1
The Republicans think it doesn't give enough power? I wonder if they'll use that excuse to not give any power?
It's very appropriate that Congress consider and debate the President's proposed bill. For too long, Congress has avoided its constitutional role in the declaration of war and ignored the legal restrictions on presidential warmaking contained in the 1973 Warpowers Act. This institutional laxity is facilitated by our all volunteer armed forces which enable over 98% of the American public to look away from the reality of the death and sufferings of our soldiers and their families.
4
Who was violating the War Powers Act? Obama. Since he is clearly an intelligent man and a constitutional law scholar, why didn't he voluntarily stay within the law? That's the real question.
Nice game, but nothing else.
When has a war ever ended on schedule and within the limits of its budget?
Of course the war will go on much longer and will not bring the desired result.
But Obama here suggests that he is fully in control for that "simple tiny war".
In real life he and his successor will be up in blood for a long time as they will fight someone who has an unlimited supply of soldiers and weapons as one can see from the Afghan Taliban war.
This is no more than a sales trick.
And a shabby one at that.
When has a war ever ended on schedule and within the limits of its budget?
Of course the war will go on much longer and will not bring the desired result.
But Obama here suggests that he is fully in control for that "simple tiny war".
In real life he and his successor will be up in blood for a long time as they will fight someone who has an unlimited supply of soldiers and weapons as one can see from the Afghan Taliban war.
This is no more than a sales trick.
And a shabby one at that.
3
There is no way to bomb or shoot enough to get peace. War only kills and destroys. it is this constant destruction that sets up hatred and paves the way for extremists who know there has been too much killing.
The only way to overcome extremism is to show that our way of life is better. We need to build hospitals, pave roads, build schools, help develop areas with clean water and assist in production of decent food. When this is accomplished, the followers of hate will stop and change course.
STOP THE KILLING! We will never regain the respect of the world by continuing destruction. Enough of funding our military that always calls out for more.
The only way to overcome extremism is to show that our way of life is better. We need to build hospitals, pave roads, build schools, help develop areas with clean water and assist in production of decent food. When this is accomplished, the followers of hate will stop and change course.
STOP THE KILLING! We will never regain the respect of the world by continuing destruction. Enough of funding our military that always calls out for more.
2
USA did build roads and schools and hospitals in AF. How's that working out?
1
I think Mr Obama has decisively taken good look at the security policies and the welfare of his citizens into consideration before the implementation of or actions on matters of security.
1
Despite the prohibition of combat operations this story sounds like a lot of American soldiers who will die or be captured by ISIS. Only recently, President Obama withdrawal of troops from the Middle East and now he returns them back...
1
Obama still doesn't get it. Wars are prosecuted either until we win or lose, we don't make an appointment like going to the barbers. Will the Left complain about him handing a war to the Next President should a Democrat be elected as much as they complained about the one left to Obama? The first sentence of this article says more about who is this action is intended for. The President seems unable to see Islamic doctrine as the underpinnings of ISIS's actions or at least mention it. A Jewish grocery in France is attacked by a Islamo-terrorist but he won't say that. A man shoots 33 members of our military screaming "Allahu Akbar" while does it and that's a "work place incident. If you won't define the enemy how do you plan to defeat him?
4
I think what he is suggesting makes perfect sense. The limits are ultimately political in that they can be overcome but at a high political price. They define the US role in reasonable terms and require that allies take action in their own defence (and the defence of each other) by limiting the anticipated US role. If you believe ISIL needs to be confronted but ate worried about it going to far, this is as close to perfect a solution as you will find for this type of war. This seems to be something republicans should easily get behind. If you don't believe ISIL it's a serious threat, then just have the courage to say so, don't hide behind the false assertion that the authority is too broad, the position some democrats are taking ( cowardly in my view).
1
Normally we see anti war protesters, but as time goes by we will see pro war protests. Maybe Obama should resign if he continues to be an incompetent ideologue incapable of protecting our allies and America. Playing not to lose and leading from behind is his only real plan and its just not working.
2
We should attack now, sooner is better than later and the terrorists are winning. Radical Islam is a clear and present danger to our allies and to America. This is not the time for timid half measures that are not designed to win. ISIS today has a strength of 180,000 up from 30,000 only 6 months ago. Now is the time to strike.
Obama is simply trying to involve the elected officials by asking to go to war in the Arab World, the U.S. is already in the war, so it is a political formality to ask Congress, politicking, to make us citizens feel we are involved in something we ordinary citizens actually have no control over, that we need to ask Rothschild, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, the banks who collectively own Congress through their campaign contributions, advertising budgets and so on.
Now it is another issue about why there is a war all over the Arab World, and Europe, and Africa.
Now it is another issue about why there is a war all over the Arab World, and Europe, and Africa.
I appreciate Obama's desire to eradicate ISIS; clearly something that needs to be done. However, as history has shown in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, a limited war with no forethought given to the political solution will only result in disaster. The assure a positive political outcome, we must be willing to commit troops on the ground long enough to keep order and allow civilian authority to take root. Our untimely departure from Iraq created a vacuum which allowed ISIS to take over a large portion of that country and a similar fate awaits Afghanistan. Our long term military presence in Europe and Japan after WWII and Korea in 1953 have allowed those countries to develop strong, stable democracies and economies. I hate to imagine what would have happened if the US pulled out of Europe immediately after WWII or Korea in 1953.
I'm all for going after ISIS but not unless the ultimate political objectives are as well planned as the military missions.
Where's George Marshall when we need him?
I'm all for going after ISIS but not unless the ultimate political objectives are as well planned as the military missions.
Where's George Marshall when we need him?
2
ISIS is an example of why we have tactical nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Just mentioning the possible use of them would lead to an armistice as it did in Korea when they were mentioned by President Eisenhower. Then United Nations forces could go in and disarm ISIS.
It's painfully obvious that these ISIL fighters are quite prepared to give their lives - and the lives of as many innocent people as possible - to their cause. If you threaten them with nuclear annihilation their response will be something similar to "Cool! Bring it on! We'll all instantly become martyrs!!"
1
Every past war declaration has been simple and straightforward: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."
For the first time, we are looking at a declaration of war that resembles a complicated pre-nuptial agreement. If the party of the first part does this then the party of the second party can do that if and only if ... and so on and so forth. All of history is being ignored. Insanity. Pure insanity.
For the first time, we are looking at a declaration of war that resembles a complicated pre-nuptial agreement. If the party of the first part does this then the party of the second party can do that if and only if ... and so on and so forth. All of history is being ignored. Insanity. Pure insanity.
1
I doubt the president has any military advisers that have said "war is not the answer."
1
the president himself is that man. point out one war he has started.
Libya. He owns it 100%, as well as the chaos it unleashed on SubSaharan Africa.
Repealing Public Law 107-243 doesn’t mean much. The 2002 AUMF was based on the threat posed by Saddam’s regime and authorized enforcing Iraq’s compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire UN Security Council resolutions. As such, Operation Iraqi Freedom was triggered by Saddam's noncompliance with the UN mandates. Today, Saddam’s regime is gone and the UNSC determined in 2010 that Iraq was compliant with the UNSCRs.
PL 107-243 has had little to do with US-Iraq relations since the US-Iraq, 2008-2011 SOFA went into effect. The 2002 AUMF was effectively retired when Iraq was determined to be compliant with the UNSCRs in 2010. Notice that President Obama didn’t say anything about repealing the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, nor did he place an end-date on the SOFA that Obama signed with Iraq last year.
The anti-ISIS campaign is being conducted with post-Saddam Iraq as an ally, not against Iraq as a threat. Nor is the anti-ISIS campaign enforcing Iraq’s compliance with UNSCRs. Basically, US forces will be acting in the same role with Iraqi forces that was envisioned for the residual US force had one stayed in Iraq in 2011.
PL 107-243 has had little to do with US-Iraq relations since the US-Iraq, 2008-2011 SOFA went into effect. The 2002 AUMF was effectively retired when Iraq was determined to be compliant with the UNSCRs in 2010. Notice that President Obama didn’t say anything about repealing the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, nor did he place an end-date on the SOFA that Obama signed with Iraq last year.
The anti-ISIS campaign is being conducted with post-Saddam Iraq as an ally, not against Iraq as a threat. Nor is the anti-ISIS campaign enforcing Iraq’s compliance with UNSCRs. Basically, US forces will be acting in the same role with Iraqi forces that was envisioned for the residual US force had one stayed in Iraq in 2011.
The defeat of ISS should be lead by middle eastern nations: Jordan, Emirates and the Kurds & not the US.
Same goes for France and Germany re: Russian aggression.
We lack too many things to name to wage a war
Same goes for France and Germany re: Russian aggression.
We lack too many things to name to wage a war
7
You either fight a war to WIN or you don't fight at all. Absolutely immoral to do otherwise.
The paraphrased words of a great American general should be heeded:
"When a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate." - Colin Powell
The paraphrased words of a great American general should be heeded:
"When a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate." - Colin Powell
7
Endless war—STOP! STOP!
First and foremost, the 2001 resolution must be repealed.
Then Congress can have a thorough discussion and evaluation of ISIS and what threat it poses to the United States and whether war should be authorized in the name of the people of the United States of America.
But first, stop this endless war insanity.
First and foremost, the 2001 resolution must be repealed.
Then Congress can have a thorough discussion and evaluation of ISIS and what threat it poses to the United States and whether war should be authorized in the name of the people of the United States of America.
But first, stop this endless war insanity.
5
This whole episode is so utterly bizarre that it gets to the heart of why our politics are so dysfunctional. Consider the setup, if you will:
A sitting US President--whose party is in the minority of both the Houses of Congress--is asking a legislature controlled by the opposition for authorization to deploy combat forces abroad. He not only promises them a limited engagement in both time and scope, but even asks them to limit his authority and narrow the scope of his executive power--save for some boilerplate legalese weasel words, just in case he needs some added flexibility. Bear in mind: not only was this their campaign slogan in the last election, it was their entire party platform and rallying cry for the better part of the decade.
So of course, the opposition party says no--because he's asking them to limit his power TOO MUCH, and they DON'T want to impair his ability to effectively lead the nation--which was precisely what they promised they'd do (and have more or less aucceeded in doing) since they first took control of Congress
And what does the President's own party say to all of this? They are upset--because they wanted the President to ask Congress to limit his power even MORE than what he ultimately asked
So here we are. The GOP won't endorse Pres. Obama's proposal, because they want him to have all the power and authority he needs to succeed. But the Democrats won't endorse Pres. Obama's proposal because they worry he might abuse it.
Okay...seems legit.
A sitting US President--whose party is in the minority of both the Houses of Congress--is asking a legislature controlled by the opposition for authorization to deploy combat forces abroad. He not only promises them a limited engagement in both time and scope, but even asks them to limit his authority and narrow the scope of his executive power--save for some boilerplate legalese weasel words, just in case he needs some added flexibility. Bear in mind: not only was this their campaign slogan in the last election, it was their entire party platform and rallying cry for the better part of the decade.
So of course, the opposition party says no--because he's asking them to limit his power TOO MUCH, and they DON'T want to impair his ability to effectively lead the nation--which was precisely what they promised they'd do (and have more or less aucceeded in doing) since they first took control of Congress
And what does the President's own party say to all of this? They are upset--because they wanted the President to ask Congress to limit his power even MORE than what he ultimately asked
So here we are. The GOP won't endorse Pres. Obama's proposal, because they want him to have all the power and authority he needs to succeed. But the Democrats won't endorse Pres. Obama's proposal because they worry he might abuse it.
Okay...seems legit.
10
The article states:
"The proposed legislation Mr. Obama sent to Capitol Hill would impose a three-year limit on American action that has been conducted largely from the air and, while allowing Special Operations commandos and other limited missions, would rule out sustained, large-scale ground combat.
It would also finally repeal the expansive 2002 congressional measure that authorized President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq."
Also stated:
"While his draft resolution would rescind the 2002 authority, it would leave in place a separate measure passed by Congress in 2001 authorizing the president to conduct a global war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
With that still the law of the land, Mr. Obama and the next president would retain wide latitude to order military operations in the name of fighting terrorism."
It is this latter authorization that must be rescinded.
"The proposed legislation Mr. Obama sent to Capitol Hill would impose a three-year limit on American action that has been conducted largely from the air and, while allowing Special Operations commandos and other limited missions, would rule out sustained, large-scale ground combat.
It would also finally repeal the expansive 2002 congressional measure that authorized President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq."
Also stated:
"While his draft resolution would rescind the 2002 authority, it would leave in place a separate measure passed by Congress in 2001 authorizing the president to conduct a global war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
With that still the law of the land, Mr. Obama and the next president would retain wide latitude to order military operations in the name of fighting terrorism."
It is this latter authorization that must be rescinded.
2
You neglect to mention it would cover the next President as well.
1
It's a bad world out there, and our President has a lot more actionable intelligence than we ordinary citizens do.
I disagree with the guns vs. butter argument that many commentators are making that says we should be spending money on education, infrastructure, etc. instead of the "military industrial complex". This is because the GOP majority in Congress will do everything it can to prevent any benefits from dribbling down on us mere mortals, in any case, and also that Mr. Obama is correct in that we cannot ignore the evil that is ISIS.
I trust the President not to be reckless with American blood and treasure during this campaign. (And I thank God it's Obama, and not bomb bomb John McCain or Mitt Romney, who was compromised by accepting Sheldon Adelson's money, who is in charge.)
I disagree with the guns vs. butter argument that many commentators are making that says we should be spending money on education, infrastructure, etc. instead of the "military industrial complex". This is because the GOP majority in Congress will do everything it can to prevent any benefits from dribbling down on us mere mortals, in any case, and also that Mr. Obama is correct in that we cannot ignore the evil that is ISIS.
I trust the President not to be reckless with American blood and treasure during this campaign. (And I thank God it's Obama, and not bomb bomb John McCain or Mitt Romney, who was compromised by accepting Sheldon Adelson's money, who is in charge.)
4
I have never heard Obama use the acronym ISIS.
2
Once we fell down the rabbit hole of being the world's police, we can't wean ourselves off of it, and certainly our powerful pushers, the Military/Industrial complex won't let us quit. We look so foolish, once again, trying to solve someone else's civil wars. It's never worked but that hasn't stopped us from diverting our badly needed tax dollars and destroying so many American lives.
5
The whole point was to get Congress to start debating this issue.
It's about time.
It's about time.
4
It should be noted that a fundamental difference between the anti-ISIS campaign and Operation Iraqi Freedom is that there's no regime change this time. For anti-ISIS, we're assisting the local national government and its military. So, there can be no occupation like OIF circa 2003-2010. In that sense, Obama's assurance of no repeat of OIF is simply stating the obvious. However, there appears to be room in Obama's request to retain a standing protective force in Iraq like the kind we've retained in Europe and Asia since WWII and we should have retained in Iraq in 2011.
"Assisting local national governments". I don't think that the president intends to assist Assad who, at this time, seems to have less interest in fighting ISIS than in destroying the other rebel forces.
This would appear to be exactly the best and most-well-measured response to dealing with the horrors of ISIL.
We must stop the terrorism, bullying and hatred of our values and stop jihadism before it rapidly spreads in the Middle-East and finds its way again to American shores.
I applaud the President.
We must stop the terrorism, bullying and hatred of our values and stop jihadism before it rapidly spreads in the Middle-East and finds its way again to American shores.
I applaud the President.
2
Are we once again involving US treasure and lives in a local civil war that spans Syria and Iraq? And are we inadvertently elevating the brutal regimes of Assad and Iran by making them our de facto allies? The only entities that are deserving of our assistance are the Kurds who have asked for our arms and air support to protect their people and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria. They deserve our support and they are willing to handle the ground warfare without US troops.
Currently there are terrorist gangs attempting to overthrow governments in Libya, the Sinai, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Is this not a problem to be solved by Arab armies from the region with US assistance.
And then we have Turkey who is tacitly aiding ISIL while moving in a fundamentalist direction itself. All I see is shades of Vietnam, Iraq War (2003) and Afghanistan where we got entangled in local civil wars.Of course the Neocons and GOP will vote for more warfare but to what end? who will the victors be?
Can Humpty Dumpty ever be put back together in Iraq or was Joe Biden right? Can Syria ever be a regular state again?
Currently there are terrorist gangs attempting to overthrow governments in Libya, the Sinai, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Is this not a problem to be solved by Arab armies from the region with US assistance.
And then we have Turkey who is tacitly aiding ISIL while moving in a fundamentalist direction itself. All I see is shades of Vietnam, Iraq War (2003) and Afghanistan where we got entangled in local civil wars.Of course the Neocons and GOP will vote for more warfare but to what end? who will the victors be?
Can Humpty Dumpty ever be put back together in Iraq or was Joe Biden right? Can Syria ever be a regular state again?
3
Not so sure the GOP is going to vote for this self-defeating "War Powers Act." Obama ALREADY has all the legal authority he needs. He's just chosen not to use it.
1
To quote a line from a very old but appropriate song 'When will they ever learn".
Apparently, never.
Apparently, never.
3
To quote a line from a very old but appropriate song 'When will they ever learn".
Apparently, never.
Apparently, never.
It's nice that Americans are starting to grow a conscience and/or backbone with respect to our wars abroad. Unfortunately it's too late now. I had plenty of Democratic acquaintances question my wisdom and even my patriotism because I was on the streets protesting the US invasion of Iraq. Now we have to deal with the consequences of that invasion; Not Europe, not Saudi Arabia, not "the global community," but the United States. We broke it; We have to fix it. This is the price of imperialism.
4
Interesting to watch the GOP infer that only a weakling president would ask for their advice and permission. They won't take one ounce of responsibility.
Invest in drones.
Invest in drones.
3
Another foolish war from the United States of America. I am ashamed to be a citizen of this nation. Do we see the Europeans constantly bombing their neighbors for the sake of war profits and special interests? No we don't. This war is immoral and needs to stop immediately. God bless the Sunni people and their quest for self determination.
1
Obama has wisely decided to let Congress in on the mideast action. It makes Congress feel so much better about itself. Now they can pretend that they can actually work together to get something done. Who do they think they are fooling? As with immigration reform President Obama will have to decide on his own how best to proceed to get the job done and protect American interests. While Congress dithers over the correct wording of the resolution, thank God we have President Obama as CIC and not a Bush or McCain or Cheney or some other "cowboy war hawk" calling the shots.
4
How true: we can all just pretend that Obama hasn't drone bombed Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Mali and a whole host of other countries without seeking input from Congress for 6 years. Why, he even gloated that he personally decided who was on his Tuesday morning kill lists. But by all means, please continue to ignore the fact that Obama is every bit the warmonger that we all readily admit Bush was.
Unfortunately winning elections by fulfilling irresponsible campaign promises was more important to Obama than protecting all Americans.
We are now all paying the price with another war.
We are now all paying the price with another war.
6
I am so weary of this mess. Although it is sadly tragic to have lost American civilians, they did know the risks to their lives when they went there. To send more young Americans there to fight and die for countries whose cultures we don't comprehend, who don't want us there and who don't and won't trust the west, makes no sense.
5
More war? What have the last 13 years of war gotten us? More war! How is this proposed military solution for ISIL to be considered reasonable but there is not a military solution for Ukraine? A former president thought going into Iraq would last a few weeks (months)-- well here we still are! Three years to accomplish what? Boots on the ground will only involve eventual more boots on the ground. Some presidential hopeful gets to speak words of how he/she will end the war. If the popular vote that brought in "more war" Nobel Peace Prize awarded, Tuesday drone pick hits Obama when it was the "I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place" Obama we thought was being elected -- wasn't enough to turn this country back from the lies that generated the gulf war and the Iraq war-- how will this end? The sentiment of most Americans has since been influenced by a media that sensationalizes war and violence. More war only begets more war! May God help us!
4
Another wrong headed military adventure in which the children of the poor and middle class will die needlessly. The U.S. has used hundreds of thousands of troops and weapons in the Middle East to no avail and to protect oil profits. ISIS are some of the same people that the U.S. fought in Iraq (Jihadists, Sunnis and Shiites). If the U.S. could not defeat them then, nor in Afghanistan, why would it work now? Most of the wars in the Middle East have been started by the U.S. The right thing to do is stay out of the Middle East. This war will also lead to a war with Syria.
3
Those who complain that the president should remember the lessons of Iraq and Vietnam, etc., have not much sense of the historical context of this document. This proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force reads like a rewritten "improvement" of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
With a three-year time limit, a requirement to report to Congress every six months, and an express prohibition against "enduring ground combat operations," the ghost of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--an open-ended Congressional "blank check" for the president to wage war in Southeast Asia--haunts this Authorization document.
The real question is whether the president intends to deal seriously with the so-called Islamic State, or if he intends to "manage" the threat until he can hand off the problem to the next administration (or--less likely--until regional actors step up with their own forces to crush ISIS).
With a three-year time limit, a requirement to report to Congress every six months, and an express prohibition against "enduring ground combat operations," the ghost of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--an open-ended Congressional "blank check" for the president to wage war in Southeast Asia--haunts this Authorization document.
The real question is whether the president intends to deal seriously with the so-called Islamic State, or if he intends to "manage" the threat until he can hand off the problem to the next administration (or--less likely--until regional actors step up with their own forces to crush ISIS).
6
As soon as Congress grants President Barack Obama a new authorization for the use of military force against terrorists, it will no long have any say in how the war is run, says retired Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Obama said in remarks from the White House Wednesday that he does not want American ground troops included in any use of force. But Napolitano said that means nothing.
Obama said in remarks from the White House Wednesday that he does not want American ground troops included in any use of force. But Napolitano said that means nothing.
Our technology, our veteran troops, we should eliminate Daesh in three months, not three years.
6
The reason for the Iraq invasion was a lie. Thank you Mr George W Bush, President. You further destabilized the region for no good reason. Many American lives were lost, but many Americans profited from the war. Now the world is still engaged, and ISIS finances its atrocities with profits from oil. I hope President Obama is successful here in destroying ISIS. I hope also that the American people will not forget how we arrived at this point.
5
The casus belli for Operation Iraqi Freedom was Iraq's material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire, which was true. At the decision point for OIF, Saddam was evidently noncompliant on a spectrum of ceasefire obligations, including the terrorism and disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687 (see the UNMOVIC Cluster Document).
Iraq was stabilized by 2009-2010. The subsequent destabilization is due to the disintegration of the Arab Spring. That being said, the Arab Spring may have been inspired by OIF. However, other people in the region did not have the vital US assistance afforded to Iraq to both depose the repressive regime and counter the opportunistic terrorists. Under a new administration, the US had changed course to a 'lead from behind' approach that effectively abandoned the region's liberal reformers.
Iraq was stabilized by 2009-2010. The subsequent destabilization is due to the disintegration of the Arab Spring. That being said, the Arab Spring may have been inspired by OIF. However, other people in the region did not have the vital US assistance afforded to Iraq to both depose the repressive regime and counter the opportunistic terrorists. Under a new administration, the US had changed course to a 'lead from behind' approach that effectively abandoned the region's liberal reformers.
2
There are many questions for Obama:
1) Just like Vietnam War, first advisors, then no boots on ground, now limited boots on ground.
2) And just like the previous two presidents, everyone started or starts a ground war in Muslim countries.
3) What's next? 100,000 boots on the ground?
4) Where are the coalition ground forces?
5) Why hasn't NATO Turkey help?
6) After defeating ISIS, what do we do? Leave the country? Or start battling Assad?
1) Just like Vietnam War, first advisors, then no boots on ground, now limited boots on ground.
2) And just like the previous two presidents, everyone started or starts a ground war in Muslim countries.
3) What's next? 100,000 boots on the ground?
4) Where are the coalition ground forces?
5) Why hasn't NATO Turkey help?
6) After defeating ISIS, what do we do? Leave the country? Or start battling Assad?
6
At the rate it is going we will be fighting Assad's Grandchildren.
I'm glad for the AUMF request, since it's the right thing to do if we're going to conduct operations against ISIL. Lumping ISIL in with the existing al-Qaida/GWOT AUMF is laughable. I agree that it should contain language allowing ground forces; to not have that telegraphs to ISIL what they don't have to plan for. If we're going to do this, I'd rather complicate ISIL's planning by having greater ground force options, though the one's (apparently) contained in this AUMF are the most important ones given the type of campaign we're waging.
My main question is to the overall strategy. We should not, cannot bail the gov't of Iraq out of its responsibilities to professionalize its armed forces and reconcile with its Sunni (and Kurd and Yazidid and Azeri, etc.) minority; its utter failures there are why ISIL has had any success in Iraq. We cannot bail Iran out by removing yet another Sunni counterbalance, after it abetted Baghdad's slide into increasing sectarianism. We cannot bail Assad out by removing his greatest threat without some concrete steps on his part to fix what ails Syria. And we cannot bail Saudi Arabia out for fomenting this very line of thinking in the minds of some strains of Islam.
Lots at stake in this debate, and I hope our executive leaders and legislative bodies are up to the task.
My main question is to the overall strategy. We should not, cannot bail the gov't of Iraq out of its responsibilities to professionalize its armed forces and reconcile with its Sunni (and Kurd and Yazidid and Azeri, etc.) minority; its utter failures there are why ISIL has had any success in Iraq. We cannot bail Iran out by removing yet another Sunni counterbalance, after it abetted Baghdad's slide into increasing sectarianism. We cannot bail Assad out by removing his greatest threat without some concrete steps on his part to fix what ails Syria. And we cannot bail Saudi Arabia out for fomenting this very line of thinking in the minds of some strains of Islam.
Lots at stake in this debate, and I hope our executive leaders and legislative bodies are up to the task.
Perhaps a little historical perspective is in order here. Iraq is now a failed state that should have been split in three as Joe Biden suggested. The south is controlled by a Shia led government in bed with Iran and fighting along with Iranian militias. The north is a Sunni region, where Saddam's experienced officers have joined ISIL after being rebuffed by the Shia run "Iraqi" army. The northeast is a Kurdish Sunni run area that wants independence. Syria is a failed state run by an Alawite (Shia) family with many different ethnic and religious groups, including Sunnis. Turkey is a Sunni led, quasi-democratic state led by a fundamentalist President that quietly supports ISIL and won't close their borders to stop the in-flow of terrorists to Syria. The Saudis don't want to get into a fight with their fundamentalist Sunni brothers (ISIL). What in heavens in this inter-tribal civil and religious war says we should become more involved? Who do we side with in this mess? Do we make side deals with Iran to fight the Sunni ISIL and alarm the other Sunni dominated countries and Israel? Do you see armies of Sunni's massing at the Syrian border to attack ISIL? No. Most retired military officers will tell you that, since WW11, we have won most of the battles, but will virtually always lose the war because their is no clear strategy to win and no real exit plan to fight in regional civil wars.There is no leadership role here for us. Provide only air and tactical support.
5
It makes me sad to think we will send our troops into this hell hole. You can bet that capturing a U.S. soldier will be the top priority of ISIS, then we will see grotesque videos and pictures going viral of our soldiers being killed and tortured in the worst ways possible. This will cause Americans to become furious and act before thinking. Look at what it's done to Jordan. Don't do it Mr. Pres.
4
I applaud the President for this move. I think it is difficult to know how to win this or what it is going to take. But for the first time I can remember in six plus years the President has acknowledged the executive branch cannot Constitutionaly run the government single-handedly.
1
When are we ever going to get off of this war wagon? Yes innocents have been lost. But do we really need to send more to their demise while spending billions more on war?
Time to let the Middle East handle their own problems.
Time to let the Middle East handle their own problems.
6
This war requires both Sunnis and Shia forces! Violence and butchery seems to energize their recruitment around the world! Boots on the ground will not provide lasting peace! Turks must come to term with Kurds! And Islam has to offer a new message of hope to reach those who see violence as a positive force!
1
The republicans should reject the limited request for an "Authorization to Use Military Force" and instead follow the Constitution and vote on a formal declaration of war. Congress should declare war and then send it back to the president along with a bill to increase taxes on every citizen equally...tax every dime of income five percent...from food stamps to golden parachutes...we are all Americans and are in this together.
2
O no. Not another war. Not only the American people but also the entire world is tired and vexed with the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people, in particular, cannot afford another cow boy adventure of its President (Iraqi invasion is a black mark in the history of the U.S.) It does not matter if Army is sent for long term war or after specific targets, boots on the ground is unacceptable. Instead, the U.S. should heighten its intelligence gathering and share it with local players in the Middle East. Jordan has a good army and air force. All assistance could be given to Jordan. Likewise, the U.S. could help Iraq built a formidable army, by providing more assistance in training and supplying arms. The U.S. Congress should therefore reject President's request.
I trust President Obama more than any other person in the United States of America. He seems to be among a very few Americans who has the capacity to evaluate how words and actions will play out in the short term and also in the long term. Every day I am grateful that he is our president!
5
Great powers do things not because they make sense but because they can.
3
I fully agree with Mr. Kwan's comments regarding war of choice or war of necessity. This is a war of necessity and ISIS has to be aborted and terminated. I too am a pacifist but in the face of this overwhelming evil there are no options except to extricate ISIS as quickly as necessary. This should not be taken as a war of vengeance, anger, or compulsion.Otherwise we are no better than the barbarians who perpetrate the atrocities..The Arab nations must stand up, fight and lead to protect their own nations, after all the wild fire that must be put out is in their own backyards.Absent of this solid support by the Arab nations Obama's proposal as well thought out as it is will fail in its execution even if granted by Congress agrees with it .A clean execution does not necessarily follow a clear intent. There lies the danger. The risks are multifaceted and diverse.Now is the time that the Arab nations specially Saudi Arabia and Jordan should make use of the arms that we sold them.
4
Another war? Is this really where we want to spend our precious dollars?
Let's spend half that amount on beefing up our import container inspections and the other half on our own infrastructure. We need both.
Let's spend half that amount on beefing up our import container inspections and the other half on our own infrastructure. We need both.
7
Glad to see the conservatives may be finally getting their way. Apparently not sending troops to die made Obama out to be weak. I do hope a proposal to bring back the draft , with no deferments, will see patriot skin in the game. But if a billionaire for the war has a kid in it, does it still count?
1
As our debt sours, our credibility lessens, we find ourselves in multiple wars and in multiple countries we have not even declared war with, I am opposed to Washington funding any more wars with our money. The American people are sick of war. We want good jobs, not war. Someone will profit off of this war and it won't be you or I! Not to mention that countless innocent lives will be lost, just as they were in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Humans will lose everything and become refugees, infrastructure will be destroyed, and no one will really win in the end. Are we any safer today, than we were before we started these wars? Will we really be safer by giving 'moderate rebels' weapons to find 'extreme rebels'?
6
The USA has spent trillions building a powerful, high-tech military. It was not conceived of as an instrument to fight asymmetric warfare and has therefore lost pretty much every war since WWII. But this enormous investment just keeps begging to be used, hence the hair trigger war mentality in Washington, DC. "We are the champions . . . the champions of the world." [Queen]
IS keeps egging the U.S. on with videos of beheadings, immolations, and other horrors -- as if Hellfire missiles do not behead, immolate, and otherwise horribly kill or mangle human beings -- because of the inevitable "collateral damage" a military that claims to do things "surgically" but is in reality a bull in a china shop will cause.
The one pillar of support that IS has, given almost universal revulsion for its tactics and objectives among people who would otherwise reject and resist them, is that the clumsy, lethal oaf known as the U.S. military will incinerate grandmothers, kids, and wedding parties trying to stamp it out.
If the U.S. were run by people with brains, they would focus on root causes: the enmity between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Shia and Sunni in Iraq (caused by the U.S. brilliantly pitting them against one another in the political system it set up), and external support for foreign fighters in Syria.
But no. The U.S. has this expensive, whiz-bang killing machine and actually believes that blowing things up is how you resolve political disputes. I am tired of talking about it.
IS keeps egging the U.S. on with videos of beheadings, immolations, and other horrors -- as if Hellfire missiles do not behead, immolate, and otherwise horribly kill or mangle human beings -- because of the inevitable "collateral damage" a military that claims to do things "surgically" but is in reality a bull in a china shop will cause.
The one pillar of support that IS has, given almost universal revulsion for its tactics and objectives among people who would otherwise reject and resist them, is that the clumsy, lethal oaf known as the U.S. military will incinerate grandmothers, kids, and wedding parties trying to stamp it out.
If the U.S. were run by people with brains, they would focus on root causes: the enmity between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Shia and Sunni in Iraq (caused by the U.S. brilliantly pitting them against one another in the political system it set up), and external support for foreign fighters in Syria.
But no. The U.S. has this expensive, whiz-bang killing machine and actually believes that blowing things up is how you resolve political disputes. I am tired of talking about it.
8
Is this the same President Obama who boasted he had defeated terrorism and previously acted on his own without congressional approval in Libya? Or the same President Obama who boasted of success in Yemen? Or the President Obama who allowed ISIS to grow by drawing meaningless red lines in Syria and withdrawing all our troops from Iraq.
Why after violating the constitution with executive orders is he now suddenly seeking approval of congress. All Americans should be very wary of President Obama's real intentions in requesting approval to go to war.
Why after violating the constitution with executive orders is he now suddenly seeking approval of congress. All Americans should be very wary of President Obama's real intentions in requesting approval to go to war.
5
Congress needs to declare war. We've gotten into trouble over the last 65 years because no one has the political will to do this and then we end up with these open-ended situations with wars lasting 10 years or more. If defeating ISIS is that important, then declare war.
1
When it comes to ISIL, the only way to really dismantle them is not drop as many bombs as we can or send as many troops as we can (essentially starting another war), but its actually funding the local troops in Iraq and Syria that fight them on ground, because they'll know the sporadic and hidden locations that these barbarians are hiding in.
1
This is the war of ideas and can not be won by weapons. Somebody should come with new ideas to deal with it.
1
Admittedly I have mixed feelings about this fight against ISIS.
I don't think diplomacy will work with the barbaric ISIS, but I have to ask why is this our war to fight? It is another regional land and power grab in the Middle East by a bunch of vicious criminal thugs who use religion as a weapon of mass destruction. Shouldn't the people in that region be outraged, and why are so many of them joining ISIS in its war?
I have to wonder if this is our military-industrial complex putting pressure on our politicians to find these powerful players another war for them so they can sell their very expensive wares. I just read 69 cents of every tax dollar in this country goes to the military and defense. Are we going the way of ancient Rome's downfall by overextending our military expenses and reach?
If recent history provides any lesson, we have been bogged down in so many wars with developing nations that we cannot/do not win and where there is no realistic political solution even if we did win. This fight with ISIS seems another similar situation.
At least the President is right to take this decision to Congress, but our so-called "limited wars" have been anything but limited and have cost our own people dearly.
If this is such a fight worth having, then those voting for yet-another limited war must send their own children and the children of their family and friends to do the fighting.
I don't think diplomacy will work with the barbaric ISIS, but I have to ask why is this our war to fight? It is another regional land and power grab in the Middle East by a bunch of vicious criminal thugs who use religion as a weapon of mass destruction. Shouldn't the people in that region be outraged, and why are so many of them joining ISIS in its war?
I have to wonder if this is our military-industrial complex putting pressure on our politicians to find these powerful players another war for them so they can sell their very expensive wares. I just read 69 cents of every tax dollar in this country goes to the military and defense. Are we going the way of ancient Rome's downfall by overextending our military expenses and reach?
If recent history provides any lesson, we have been bogged down in so many wars with developing nations that we cannot/do not win and where there is no realistic political solution even if we did win. This fight with ISIS seems another similar situation.
At least the President is right to take this decision to Congress, but our so-called "limited wars" have been anything but limited and have cost our own people dearly.
If this is such a fight worth having, then those voting for yet-another limited war must send their own children and the children of their family and friends to do the fighting.
27
The President's proposal has flushed out the Republican criticism of what to do about ISIS. Now the Republicans have to put up or shut up. It also removes this issue from the 2016 campaign.
4
We will only have advisors in Vietnam.
We will only send a few ground troops.
Have we been down this road before?
This whole thing is based on a persistent fallacy.
You can make war on a state, and achieve a clear victory (you kill the king, or he surrenders, or both; you overrun and occupy the country, or whoever is overrunning and occupying your country is driven out).
You cannot, repeat, cannot successfully make war on an ideology, nor can you make war on a tactic. We won the war on Nazi Germany; Naziism and all its ancillary ideologies are very much out there. We cannot win a war on terror, or on absolutist ideology, because you can't bomb an intangible out of existence. Even if you could kill everyone who's ever thought of it, someone will reinvent it, because bad memes never die.
I am filled with apprehension.
We will only send a few ground troops.
Have we been down this road before?
This whole thing is based on a persistent fallacy.
You can make war on a state, and achieve a clear victory (you kill the king, or he surrenders, or both; you overrun and occupy the country, or whoever is overrunning and occupying your country is driven out).
You cannot, repeat, cannot successfully make war on an ideology, nor can you make war on a tactic. We won the war on Nazi Germany; Naziism and all its ancillary ideologies are very much out there. We cannot win a war on terror, or on absolutist ideology, because you can't bomb an intangible out of existence. Even if you could kill everyone who's ever thought of it, someone will reinvent it, because bad memes never die.
I am filled with apprehension.
5
ISIS is first and foremost a threat to the various tribes and sects in Iraqi, Syria, and Iran. The Christians and Jews were already driven out by others. So what in the world is the direct threat to the United States or Western civilization?
3
Yet another disappointment from a man in whom people all over the world, not just Americans, had placed so much hope. Obama has demonstrated the truth of what George Orwell said: "The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous." The President who was supposed to withdraw the United States from Iraq and "get the job done" in Afghanistan has done neither; instead, he has involved his country in seemingly never-ending military involvement in the Middle East.
23
The leaders of both parties won't be happy until America puts troops in every country and all domestic spending has been slashed to zero. Sickening.
7
The President has done exactly the right thing to ask congress to ratify the war we are conducting against the Islamic State. Since boots are on the ground and more will be sent it is proper to get congressional approval. Fortunately also there is no geographical limitation since the Islamic State has been carved out of two countries and more may be added. No one likes war but the fact is that the Islamic State has taken military action against our forces and has murdered our citizens. This means there is a war and now the congress must authorize it or not. I suspect Warren and Cruz will both oppose it. Hillary, this time, does not have to vote and will find a way to finesse her position.
7
This would be the first time in United States history that a President has approached a Congress for a war with a specific time limit. The stupidity of such an act beggars belief. First, the project is so obviously unattainable that it would just lead to another expensive military catastrophe for us. Second, who knows in advance how long a war is going to last?
2
We are a divided world and I'm not sure a war will heal that.
If I was a US Congressman I would feel it is time to start asking questions before voting for a new war. During the last 15 years of wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East one thing stands out clearly and that is that the intelligence has constantly been incorrect. This lead Bush and Blair into Iraq, created $750bn in US direct losses and opened up the chaos we see today. Their recommendation to spend $25bn to train a 200.000 men Iraqi army was further an error of judgement and when they really should have been ringing the warning bells about ISIS they had absolutely no clue about what was going on.
I am starting to fear that these US and UK intelligence people are just Oxbridge/Harvard kids instead of people with real local experience and knowledge about the fractions and sub fractions among the Jihad fanatics. How can they be so out of touch with the events they are supposed to monitor?
Looking back maybe I picked the wrong career? Intelligence officer and quite possibly also banker seem to be the only two professions where you can really mess things up without any consequences.
I am starting to fear that these US and UK intelligence people are just Oxbridge/Harvard kids instead of people with real local experience and knowledge about the fractions and sub fractions among the Jihad fanatics. How can they be so out of touch with the events they are supposed to monitor?
Looking back maybe I picked the wrong career? Intelligence officer and quite possibly also banker seem to be the only two professions where you can really mess things up without any consequences.
2
Our culture is geared up for war right now: Lone Survivor, American Sniper, lots of war movies and books coming out. Even teenagers have war themes to their movies: Hunger Games, Divergent. So when war opportunity comes along it is hard for people to apply the brakes. In fact I have a feeling those opposed to this war will be painted as "unpatriotic" - because patriotism is always used to energize a nation in favor of war.
2
Who would have thought that a vote for Obama in 2008 would turn out to be a vote for endless war? Boots on the ground in Iraq? That worked so well the last time. I thought he was smarter than this. I was wrong.
4
How typical. Of course, this is the same-old obstructionist partisan Republican House … and now Senate. The GOP House proposes little if any legislation, especially if the President agrees with it. Unless it is the Keystone XL pipeline, there is big special interest money behind that.
Weren't these the same GOP chickenwaks openly demanding immediate military action when ISIS first came onto the radar last year?
The 114th Congress is not starting off with a poor track record.
America desperately need the 114th Congress to pass new campaign finance reform so big special interest does not corrupt elections and government function with donation payback demands that are apparently louder voices of We The People.
Weren't these the same GOP chickenwaks openly demanding immediate military action when ISIS first came onto the radar last year?
The 114th Congress is not starting off with a poor track record.
America desperately need the 114th Congress to pass new campaign finance reform so big special interest does not corrupt elections and government function with donation payback demands that are apparently louder voices of We The People.
1
Bin Laden wanted to bankrupt America. That's the goal. As atrocious as these people are, we should not engage them. When we do, they win. They will kill anyone, anytime, brutally. Let's not give them more opportunity.
3
Great. This is one way the rich -- I'm looking at you, Halliburton -- get richer. And I have little doubt that Congress will approve this war, seeing as how Congress is owned by corporations, some of whom (yes, "whom" since corporations are people!) stand to gain a great deal financially.
And in this fruitless attempt to win hearts and minds, young, uncynical, brave (but not too well-informed) Americans will lose limbs, lives and -- too late -- their naivete.
And in this fruitless attempt to win hearts and minds, young, uncynical, brave (but not too well-informed) Americans will lose limbs, lives and -- too late -- their naivete.
10
Correct Delving Eye. We should never consider more war when the results of our previous wars here at home are still not solved. Until our veterans here can be properly taken care of, no money should be spent for more war. When will we ever learn?
2
President Obama needs to figure out how to deal with Assad in Syria before he ever hopes to defeat ISIS. For some reason, no one seems to be focusing on that vital point.
3
If you believe that taking out Saddam Hussein was a bad idea because those who filled the void were worse, then how you can possibly believe that taking out Assad will result in a different outcome?
Mr. President, with all due respect, No. Or if you prefer, No Thanks.
If ISIS gets raging bad as they seem capable of then maybe finally all those countries over there that have something to lose by a rampaging ISIS might actually do something about it. And, if that gets bad with all the variables of strange national alliances and other dark forces at work then perhaps that needs to happen as well and finally many things might get settled in the Middle East.
Don't be fooled into thinking these guys can take over the Middle East.
Lets keep a very close eye on them and protect ourselves of course, but what you are asking is for participation in another real war. It's like another Vietnam. We could have been in Vietnam another 20 years and still would not have won.
I don't care what people like McCann say, we never would have won Vietnam. Killing everyone in an entire country is not winning a war just as a western nation involved in endless combat in the Middle East is assuredly un-winnable.
Don't let this nonsense define your legacy.
If ISIS gets raging bad as they seem capable of then maybe finally all those countries over there that have something to lose by a rampaging ISIS might actually do something about it. And, if that gets bad with all the variables of strange national alliances and other dark forces at work then perhaps that needs to happen as well and finally many things might get settled in the Middle East.
Don't be fooled into thinking these guys can take over the Middle East.
Lets keep a very close eye on them and protect ourselves of course, but what you are asking is for participation in another real war. It's like another Vietnam. We could have been in Vietnam another 20 years and still would not have won.
I don't care what people like McCann say, we never would have won Vietnam. Killing everyone in an entire country is not winning a war just as a western nation involved in endless combat in the Middle East is assuredly un-winnable.
Don't let this nonsense define your legacy.
7
We've spent billions in training troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for over ten years. We're given billions to Egypt and Israel every year for many years. We spend over 65% of the budget on the Pentagon and war related costs. I would think that the Middle East governments could defeat ISIS - as long as they discontinue funding ISIS. So what is going on here? Every military expert has said that ISIS will not be defeated by air power. Are the Middle East countries averse to fighting on the ground and, if so, who is going to do the heavy lifting, moderate Anti-Assad militias? And who might they be? And how do we know they're moderate? Questionnaires? Resumes? In-depth interviews? America: wake up!
2
Let me state my positions that I am against wars and opposed to aggressive military interventions. Notwithstanding these personal dispositions, I remain convinced that President Barack Obama's foreign policy is right for the nation and he serves the national interests and the American people. Review the Obama Doctrine and Obama's West Point speech of May 2014. Also keep in mind Obama's distinction between wars of choice and wars of necessity. 1. Impetuous aggressive military intervention as in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq would be costly, damaging and hurtful to the US.
2. Isolation or disengagement in foreign affairs as in the Middle East would be the other extreme. Specifically, US withdrawal from the tumultuous Middle East could be costly and complicating. The Middle East has vast resources and also of strategic geopolitical significance -- instability of the region could have tremendous consequences on world economy and world order. Imagine too if the region should come under the control of other great powers like Russia, China, or, specially ISIS. 3. Obama's choice is a foreign policy of judicious restraint. War against ISIS is a war of necessity. The United States should do what we can, with the support of our allies, to prevent the state of IS from becoming a reality.
2. Isolation or disengagement in foreign affairs as in the Middle East would be the other extreme. Specifically, US withdrawal from the tumultuous Middle East could be costly and complicating. The Middle East has vast resources and also of strategic geopolitical significance -- instability of the region could have tremendous consequences on world economy and world order. Imagine too if the region should come under the control of other great powers like Russia, China, or, specially ISIS. 3. Obama's choice is a foreign policy of judicious restraint. War against ISIS is a war of necessity. The United States should do what we can, with the support of our allies, to prevent the state of IS from becoming a reality.
The President said in August that he would not send ground troops to fight ISIS, preferring to bomb them instead. Of course, he was criticized for not doing enough and many armchair warriors spouted off that ISIS could not be defeated without boots on the ground. Now the president wants to do just that in "limited circumstances" but all I see is another case of mission creep, which is probably going to be passed onto the next president in a couple years.
2
Mission creep
8
and/or War Fatigue. In spades.
2
The correct course of action is to go to the United Nations Security Council and report a threat to peace by non-state actors, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. If the US doesn't want to do that, it should consider leaving the UN.
Otherwise, this is merely congress voting in favor of starting another illegal war of aggression in the borders of sovereign states. Like Russia and Ukraine, for example.
Otherwise, this is merely congress voting in favor of starting another illegal war of aggression in the borders of sovereign states. Like Russia and Ukraine, for example.
7
We should get out of the feckless U.N. now. And you're naive to think the fight won't be brought here if we don't end this scourge there, now.
1
Color me confused. ISIS beheads one Jordanian pilot; next thing you know, Jordan is making multiple airstrikes against ISIS targets, and promises many more. Then there's Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc. Aren't there enough guns, planes, tanks and underemployed young men in the locale to beat the tar out of ISIS? Why does the US have to be involved, beyond providing intelligence from our planes and satellites? Sure like to have a really good answer, before another American serviceman or woman is sent "to the sand pile," as my daughter described her deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
25
finally someone who makes sense. and lets keep journalists out of there.
ISIS burned the Jordanian pilot alive; they did not behead him. And, if you saw the video, you would understand Jordan's reaction.
1
Begging your pardon, Mr. Hamilton, sir; but they actually BURNED that pilot...
1
We are making this far too complicated. We focus on legalities while these barbarians take more territory every day, enslaving populations, while they also slaughter/behead/immolate thousands of innocents. We could end these atrocities in 45-60 days, saving innocent lives in the end, if we would be as vicious as these murderers with the means available to us.
1
so complicated that it could be ended in 45-60 days?
Are you kidding me? Just how tactically is that supposed to happen?
This is another expansion in the absurd Bush cum Obama "Crusades", under the guise of the "permanent war on terror".
Our missiles, bombs, drones, military bases, assassins, torture, and terrorism are generating a huge backlash and are totally counter-productive - in addition to being war crimes.
Time to abandon the Imperial Mission and bring the troops home.
Are you kidding me? Just how tactically is that supposed to happen?
This is another expansion in the absurd Bush cum Obama "Crusades", under the guise of the "permanent war on terror".
Our missiles, bombs, drones, military bases, assassins, torture, and terrorism are generating a huge backlash and are totally counter-productive - in addition to being war crimes.
Time to abandon the Imperial Mission and bring the troops home.
Better late than never. Obama's flip-flopping on whether he - or any president - has the authority to wage endless war without Congressional consent is a disgrace for a man of his intelligence.
3
Endless wars, all the time, with no end in sight... are we ANY safer for them, or LESS safe?
Meanwhile, our national infrastructure crumbles, and politicians tell us how we "can't afford" spending on healthcare, education, the elderly, or the poor...
Meanwhile, our national infrastructure crumbles, and politicians tell us how we "can't afford" spending on healthcare, education, the elderly, or the poor...
13
The fight against ISIS will only end when the locals take care of this as a tribal matter.
Their atrocities will ensure their demise.
They hide among the populace...they will eventually lose their cover.
We should use our resources for the humanitarian aid necessary to support the locals. That mission itself will require constant contact anyways for our armed forces.
We have been down this road before, it's time to change our approach.
Their atrocities will ensure their demise.
They hide among the populace...they will eventually lose their cover.
We should use our resources for the humanitarian aid necessary to support the locals. That mission itself will require constant contact anyways for our armed forces.
We have been down this road before, it's time to change our approach.
3
Enough is enough. No more Middle Eastern Wars period. Israel and our "Arab allies" will have to fight their own battles from now on. This country has been bled white of men and women in uniform, material, and money. Enough is enough! All these sects and tribes have been slaughtering each other since Biblical times and they are not going to stop now because the U.S. tells them to. We have no economic or strategic interest in the Levant. We do not receive oil and gas from there and we have very little markets for our goods there either. Europe and the Orient both have large markets in the region and also receive a lot of their energy supplies from there. Let the major European powers use their armed forces to police the region if they feel it necessary to stop illegal immigrants fleeing the violence and to protect their markets and energy supplies. Let the Chinese, Japanese, and Indian navies patrol the Persian Gulf and Red Sea to ensure that the oil and gas lanes are kept open. The days of American imperialism and being the world's policeman are rapidly coming to an end. We are an economic and social basket case burdened with crushing debt, widespread poverty and unemployment, decaying industrial base, and overrun with foreigners. We need to secure our own borders and address and redress our own massive social and economic problems before it is too late. We need to be discounting and paying down our monstrous national debt not increasing it by "foreign adventures".
12
I wonder why I even bother to vote any more. Yet another administrative capitulation of cranking up the war machine to serve, directly feed into the jaws and the bowels of a propagandist hungry terror regime conveniently labeled "ISIS". Exactly what they want.
How about this. Close up shop in all hostile Middle Eastern terrain and leave. Permanently. Finisto. Enough is enough. Enough.
How about this. Close up shop in all hostile Middle Eastern terrain and leave. Permanently. Finisto. Enough is enough. Enough.
12
Talk to your President. He owns this one.
8
Good decision to ask for authorization. I hate the pundits who blast Presidents for taking unilateral action. I don't see how you can vote against fighting ISIS. They are murderers and hated everywhere. Given that the entire world is after them for their barbaric actions, I'll be surprised they last three more years.
There is a multi-year genocide occurring in C.A.R. Does that bother you, too? It sure doesn't bother Susan Rice or Obama.
5
It is wise of President Obama to include Congress, thereby the American people, in his strategy to employ American military might to combat ISIL. Each member of Congress needs to voice his opinion, point by point, on the use of American federal monies towards a never ending conflict in the Middle East. So many voices, mainly Republican, are quick to condemn Russia for employing military weaponry as well as troops in Ukraine. Many Republicans are also quick to criticize our steadfast President for every position he takes on foreign affairs including demanding that Syria handover their chemical weapons as well as stop bombing their own people. There are few Republicans that offer an alternative solution to the American engagement in the Middle East including explaining to U.S. citizens what the role of the U.S. is, why are we spending precious U.S. resources which could be allocated towards rebuilding our own crumbling infrastructure, why isn't the U.S. addressing the cause of the rise of ISIL rather than destroying it's rebels as well as expanding the arena of war beyond Iraq and Syria.
The American public seems to be more concerned about whether Brian Williams lied about whether he was on a helicopter that was hit by enemy fire than the use of drone warfare and bloody campaigns in the Middle East. I worry about the fate of a country when the citizens are so disengaged that they argue about the shooting of a man in the street, yet remain silent about their country's military.
The American public seems to be more concerned about whether Brian Williams lied about whether he was on a helicopter that was hit by enemy fire than the use of drone warfare and bloody campaigns in the Middle East. I worry about the fate of a country when the citizens are so disengaged that they argue about the shooting of a man in the street, yet remain silent about their country's military.
5
It's not "wise" - it's "mandatory" under the constitution, and we have no business there, at all, period. Not only should we not put any boots on the ground, we should stop bombing, pull out, bring all the troops home, close all foreign bases, and let the troops guard our borders.
2
Until our own veterans are adequately taken care of here at home, we have no business sticking our foot in the doorway of more war. The wars we have participated in have not been taken care of here at home yet. First things first.
20
Although the administration is still struggling to find some coherence between its new war on ISIS and its old position against Bashir Al Assad, we have basically gone from wanting to depose Al Assad to helping him get his country back. Just a couple of years ago Al Assad was a monster who used chemical weapons on his own people. Now, although we are trying to pretend otherwise, we are are fighting his enemies for him.
As for Iraq, will the government be any less corrupt, the military any more functional, and the sectarian conflict any closer to a peaceful resolution when ISIS is defeated (whatever that entails)?
Carl von Clausewitz wrote that war is merely an extension of governmental policy by other means. If that is so, do we even have a clear policy about what we are trying to achieve in the Middle East, let alone some notion of how practical it is?
As for Iraq, will the government be any less corrupt, the military any more functional, and the sectarian conflict any closer to a peaceful resolution when ISIS is defeated (whatever that entails)?
Carl von Clausewitz wrote that war is merely an extension of governmental policy by other means. If that is so, do we even have a clear policy about what we are trying to achieve in the Middle East, let alone some notion of how practical it is?
2
Neither Iraq nor Syria can be secure or successful with ISIS around. We have to deal with the #1 threat to us and our interests. That means dealing with ISIS, not Assad. We can't do both at the same time.
The good news is that if Obama's for it, the Republicans are against it. This may be our way out of these foolish wars.
2
For a government, president, Congress continuing to claim that this nation is broke, is in a fiscal crises, etc.; they have enough money to spend on another front on the so called "war on terror".
Meanwhile, Congressional Conservatives are trying yo figure out how to cut taxes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. While, at the same time, those who serve, in these wars, come home to wait, and wait, and wait, to see a doctor at a VA hospital. Or, wait, as they are here, for a Va hospital to open. A hospital laden with cost overruns, poor oversight and a "black hole".
Yes, there seems to be money to be the "policeman of the world", but not enough money for the public good. Oh, that's right, the the eyes of all Washington politicians, those who receive from the government are takers, lazy, dependent and entitled.
But, with all the money we spend on wars, why aren't the takers in the Middle East and Europe paying their share? Where is all the oil revenue from overthrowing Iraq? Where is all the income from mineral extraction in Afghanistan? It is in the national deficit and paid for by robbing the Medicare and Social Security trust fund.
Al Gore was wrong. We did not need a "lock box" fro so called "entitlement programs", we needed a vault with multiple cypher locks.
More war, more maiming, more death to help Saudi Arabia, to rein in the "Frankenstein Monster they created (ISIS, fill in your Islamic terrorist group here) and fight Iran fro the control of Islam.
Meanwhile, Congressional Conservatives are trying yo figure out how to cut taxes, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. While, at the same time, those who serve, in these wars, come home to wait, and wait, and wait, to see a doctor at a VA hospital. Or, wait, as they are here, for a Va hospital to open. A hospital laden with cost overruns, poor oversight and a "black hole".
Yes, there seems to be money to be the "policeman of the world", but not enough money for the public good. Oh, that's right, the the eyes of all Washington politicians, those who receive from the government are takers, lazy, dependent and entitled.
But, with all the money we spend on wars, why aren't the takers in the Middle East and Europe paying their share? Where is all the oil revenue from overthrowing Iraq? Where is all the income from mineral extraction in Afghanistan? It is in the national deficit and paid for by robbing the Medicare and Social Security trust fund.
Al Gore was wrong. We did not need a "lock box" fro so called "entitlement programs", we needed a vault with multiple cypher locks.
More war, more maiming, more death to help Saudi Arabia, to rein in the "Frankenstein Monster they created (ISIS, fill in your Islamic terrorist group here) and fight Iran fro the control of Islam.
6
Perhaps we should simply surrender.
Jim,
Honestly, ISIS, Al Queda, etc. are products of Saudi Arabia. The Sunni war against Shia Islam. A holy war that goes back 14 centuries. We are being asked to fight an enemy created by Saudi Arabia that got out of hand. Surrender no; paying for it should not be the sole responsibility of the Us taxpayer.
Honestly, ISIS, Al Queda, etc. are products of Saudi Arabia. The Sunni war against Shia Islam. A holy war that goes back 14 centuries. We are being asked to fight an enemy created by Saudi Arabia that got out of hand. Surrender no; paying for it should not be the sole responsibility of the Us taxpayer.
2
Saudis funded terrorism for decades, today they must lead and fund the war against ISIS. Saudi army has 150000 men in active service, they should handle this by their own, and at least provide the main contingent of an international coalition.
22
I agree with you. The Arab nations must send troops to fight IS (or ISIS).
The West can provide air cover and strategic air strikes when needed.
The West can provide air cover and strategic air strikes when needed.
5
So why don't we just completely remove that part of the Constitution that requires that Congress and only Congress have the ability to declare war? You would think a man who was Constitutional scholar would recognize the incredible disconnect here.
5
Obama won't publicly recognize this fact until his support-him-no-matter-what-he-does backers pressure him to do so.
2
Congress still has to approve of the Presidents War Act proposals, Publius.
1
What happened to Congress being the branch of our government to declare war. No one man should have that much power, this is why we have checks and balances built into our government. If we go after ISIS, which I believe we should since they are a major threat to us and just about the whole world, I think we need to realize the way the fight and learn their mindset, otherwise we will be doomed to lose like we did in Korea and Vietnam. We cannot, however, do what we did in WW2 and ignore all the suffering and murders that ISIS is committing on people who are not Muslim, which includes Christians, Jews, and any other religion that does not follow their Quoran, don't care if I spell it correctly because it's their sick excuse for a Bible in their eyes. This book asks them to kill anyone they consider "infidels", which is anyone not Muslim. Unless we help to do something about this now, and hopefully it's not too late, we will be seeing them on our soil one day, that is if they are not already here. I hope our "President" will do the right thing about this now, and not insult Israel and our other allies in favor of going to see the new President of Saudi Arabia. He needs to work in tandem with Congress in order to win and eliminate this huge threat. If our troops are not trained properly to understand they way ISIS fights, we are doomed to lose. I hope our president will do the right thing. Don't repeat WW2, only getting involved when we are directly hurt.
1
While I am thankful that the President is requesting approval but I do see a clear plan. While I agree somethings are kept secret but we have be able to know when the goal has been met. When putting boots on the ground they should have orders to shoot first and protect themselves at all time.
4
Unlike the President, I lived through the Vietnam era when America went to war against an enemy called "communism." an ideological belief. We fought in Vietnam because of the "domino effect." It was argued then that if we didn't fight in Vietnam those red commies would be taking over America and we would be fighting communism on our own turf. So we put "boots" on the ground, supported dictators and destroyed people and their land, all for our ideological believe in God and Capitalism. We lost the war in Vietnam for many reasons, but never had to fight the "commies" on our soil. Russia went to war in Afghanistan and lost. We sent troops to Afghanistan and haven't won. ISIS or ISIL is fighting a religions war (an ideological believe) in the Mid-East. Why is ISIL an American problem? Oil or God and Capitalism? I still don't understand why we think our believes are any less absurd than theirs. No ISIL members are on our soil telling us to believe in their interpretation of their god and to take away our Bill of Rights. I see us fighting a boggy man in a foreign country in a war we will never win. I am reminded of the Peter, Paul and Mary song "Where Have all the Flowers Gone": When will we every learn...
10
While you make some valid points, ISIS leaders aren't religious leaders. They are corrupting the religion for their own power grab. They used to be the leaders of the old Iraq, but now they want more. They say they fight for Allah, but generally its only their grunts, but not even so much them. The higher you go up the chain of command, they talk big game but don't back it up. A majority of ISIS's fighters joined because of lack of opportunities or connections, its similar to why people join a gang. Its not fighting against an ideology, its fighting people who have corrupted Islam for their own gain.
Why is Vietnam, which I also lived through, even remotely relevant? Apart from the fact that it was 50 years ago (as long as the time between the Civil War and WWII), Ho Chi Minh and comrades never attacked or even threatened to attack Americans on US soil, or Americans anywhere else in the world outside Vietnam. For that matter, neither North Vietnam nor the Viet Cong sought to target American noncombatant civilians INSIDE Vietnam. Nor was the prospect of a single, Communist-run Vietnam in any sense an added threat to the US or to US interests anywhere.
None of these things can be said of ISIS of any of the al Qaeda outfits, whether in Syria, Yemen, North Africa or Pakistan. In fact, these terrorist entities have repeatedly attacked the US and Americans abroad, or sought to do so, or made plain their intent to do so.
None of these things can be said of ISIS of any of the al Qaeda outfits, whether in Syria, Yemen, North Africa or Pakistan. In fact, these terrorist entities have repeatedly attacked the US and Americans abroad, or sought to do so, or made plain their intent to do so.
Zach: It would be difficult to argue against the fact that ISIS is corrupting Islam for their own gain, but isn't that true with any religion? Who is to say that Luther didn't corrupt part of Christianity, or that so many Roman Catholic Popes did not corrupt Christianity for their own gain. Didn't Dante put Pope Boniface VIII in his 8th Circle? My point stands, whether ISIS is a corruption of Islam or not, it's war that other Muslim's must fight, just as the Christians fought other Christians during the reformation. The United States, hopefully a secular nation, has no business fighting ISIS. The U.S. has no right to put boots on the ground to impose our view as to whether ISIS is a corruption of Islam, until ISIS directly affect our citizens. Isn't that our social compact?
1
Did you ever notice that China keeps laughing all the way to the bank as the USA spends billions trying to police the world? War on terror going to last forever? Is the US a war based economy now?
22
Yep they are laughing at America every day and America allows it.
3
Our Senators and Representatives have become dependent on the interest returns they get from the lobbyist provided MIC stock portfolios given to them in trust accounts. Each makes millions off of them in a careers time. What we pay them to represent us is but a drop in the bucket in comparison. That has to stop.
3
I was thinking that very thing earlier today. It is pathetic. We keep digging our Middle East hole deeper and deeper.
This is just a PR move that he hopes will enable him to slide by. It will endear him to liberals because he doesn't want to seem to be acting on his own without Congressional approval, but it is also designed to please the Neo-cons and make it look like he is doing something about ISIS when he really is not. I wish he would just stop playing these games.
7
Wow, ed. I wish I had your insight; your handle on truth. Please share your source of certain and unbiased knowledge with the rest of us.
4
It's just typical Obama. It's nothing new.
6
This may be another "red line" instance where the president brings in Congress when he needs it politically.
It's time to offload some responsibility onto Congress. Keeping members busy debating tactics deflects from his lack of strategy.
It's time to offload some responsibility onto Congress. Keeping members busy debating tactics deflects from his lack of strategy.
1
Ideas are bulletproof. We can go against ISIS with nuclear bombs but it won't matter. A jihadist will quickly show up somewhere else. This is a problem in the Muslim world that must be addressed by Muslims that are brave enough to demand reform in the way the Q'ran is being interpreted.
Christianity saw its own set of reforms through history. Yes, they faced opposition. It wasn't until recently that a Pope apologized to Galileo Galilei, but it had to start somewhere. But it's up to the believers of any faith to stand back and say "hey, something is wrong here". Until that doesn't happen in the Muslim world there will be no peace in that region
Christianity saw its own set of reforms through history. Yes, they faced opposition. It wasn't until recently that a Pope apologized to Galileo Galilei, but it had to start somewhere. But it's up to the believers of any faith to stand back and say "hey, something is wrong here". Until that doesn't happen in the Muslim world there will be no peace in that region
9
Can we have a draft, too? If we're going to have perpetual war, then we at least need a perpetual pool of soldiers. The 1 percent (and their close cousins, the 5% and the 10%) should definitely encourage their sons and daughters to enlist since most of these wars end up enriching them anyway.
20
I agree. Everyone must take a picture of their ballots at each vote. If you have kids and you voted for Obama, McCain, Graham, or other hardcore warmongers, your kids are eligible for the draft. But if your ballot shows that you voted against the assortment of chickenhawks like them, then your kids get an exemption from the draft.
To ensure this minimizes impact on our growing national debt, the legislation should include a 3% across the board reduction in federal appropriations to any state whose congressional delegation votes in favor of this next war.
2
Why and how would that work Paul. I'm interested.
1
All States receive federal aid - Medicaid, Education, Transportation, etc. from the Feds. Granted, it is the States that pitch in the dollars in the first place but then it is "redistributed" to States based on their financial needs. Paul is saying that the Feds should withhold (keep) 3% of all subsidies (redistributions) from the States that vote for war.
1
What is the evidence for ISIS? Is there any actual evidence? A media consumer would like to know.
Internally the U.S. must a utopian paradise with no problems at all. The U.S must have no poverty, educational or unemployment problems for it to be spending even more money on another war.
3
Great!
Obama is going to wipe out ISIS terrorists by bombing Iraq and supporting the Syrian rebels.
Who told him to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq to begin with?
Military analyst Andrew Bacevich said, “What I see is an administration that is content to manage the quagmire that we’ve managed to get ourselves into.”
As Hardy repeatedly told Laurel in the film comedies, "A fine mess you've got us into," always blaming everyone else except himself for the trouble he could have avoided to begin with.
Staying the course president Bush and Dick Cheney originally set or a variation therof would have avoided all the mess we're in now all over the world.
Now it’s Obama’s mess.
5
Agreed.
After the discovery of the extensive Iraq nuclear program and the dangerous but successful disarming of Saddam's existing nuclear weapons (both airborne and tactical battlefield weapons),
The discovery of the stores of chemical weapons
After the discovery of the mobile anthrax producing trucks and rail cars.
After the decommissioning of the anthrax spraying MIGs,
The Cheney/Bush Crime family successfully installed a functioning democracy,
a beacon of freedom throughout the region!!!
In a mere six years Obama has destroyed all that good.......
After the discovery of the extensive Iraq nuclear program and the dangerous but successful disarming of Saddam's existing nuclear weapons (both airborne and tactical battlefield weapons),
The discovery of the stores of chemical weapons
After the discovery of the mobile anthrax producing trucks and rail cars.
After the decommissioning of the anthrax spraying MIGs,
The Cheney/Bush Crime family successfully installed a functioning democracy,
a beacon of freedom throughout the region!!!
In a mere six years Obama has destroyed all that good.......
2
President Bush signed the status of forces agreement that required the U.S. combat forces to leave when they did. But have fun with your revisionist history if it makes you feel good.
4
Is this proposed declaration intended to establish limits of U.S. involvement? IS/ISIL/ISIS is expanding at a rate and scope that has spooked many nations. Is the proposed declaration of limits an announcement that they should act in their own defense? Will congressional debate and commentary from the U.S. and abroad shed light? Can IS/ISIL/ISIS be ignored by the more distant countries? Options?
2
No matter the party or the times, America loves an enemy. And our oversized, fear mongering, military-industrial complex has learned how to pull all the right levers in Washington.
I say no. Bring the troops home. Stop the nonsense. We've got plenty of higher priorities here at home.
I say no. Bring the troops home. Stop the nonsense. We've got plenty of higher priorities here at home.
6
Hear hear - truer words never spoken - close most of the 136 foreign bases, cut defense spending by 2/3rds (at least), and bring the troops home to patrol the borders.
President Obama has consistently bypassed congress in the past. An example is Libya with disastrous results.
He won't even use the term Islamic terrorists. Why all of a sudden is he asking for approval? I neither trust or believe this President based on his history.
Congress should be very careful and skeptical before granting any approvals.
He won't even use the term Islamic terrorists. Why all of a sudden is he asking for approval? I neither trust or believe this President based on his history.
Congress should be very careful and skeptical before granting any approvals.
4
Because he knows that THIS time, it's an unwinnable, never ending Vietnam- or Afghanistan-type quagmire, and he wants others besides himself on the record with him, backing him up. Diffusion of responsibility.
This authorization is needed so that the two houses of congress and the President will be on the record and in some semblance of accord about this matter. All the sides have been correct about what all the others have been attempting to do, doing wrong or not doing at all. It's a perpetual game of 'gotcha' providing an endless font of soundbites that benefit none of the rest of us but gives cover to our representatives who continue to fail to discharge their war authorization duty. This is a part of the job they were elected to do and they need to get to it.
The roving bands of murderous thugs masquerading as holy warriors will apparently be with us for some time to come. As one area is pacified, they move to another and another and another. It's an endless game of whack-a-thug that is no longer geographically constrained. Are we now the mallet for the world in this game? If we are, how do we pay for it and how much are we willing to pay? These military actions don't pay for themselves but Americans do pay for them.
It's past time to end the politicization of this issue. Try and think of Americans, politicians, and not your next election.
The roving bands of murderous thugs masquerading as holy warriors will apparently be with us for some time to come. As one area is pacified, they move to another and another and another. It's an endless game of whack-a-thug that is no longer geographically constrained. Are we now the mallet for the world in this game? If we are, how do we pay for it and how much are we willing to pay? These military actions don't pay for themselves but Americans do pay for them.
It's past time to end the politicization of this issue. Try and think of Americans, politicians, and not your next election.
3
I concur with your sentiment, Chris. We should wait until a massive coalition is assembled globally, join that coalition and then decide on a Wars Act to to participate with. Each War Act at that would be isolated to those specific occasions and not have the ability to be carried over to future presidencies for potential abuse. This would set a precedence for...preemptive peace. Something very meaningful on a global scale would have to happen for us to become involved at that.
3
Did the President only just discover the War Powers Act?
4
All opinions are good and welcome here. We are at a crossroads. An unpleasant and sad juncture. The ISIS situation was made worse as they marched on IRAQ and headed directly towards the $400 million reserves of US cash and gold. They were unchallenged and they achieved their goal. We and our allies watched in detail. We know that in every country we have supported, protected and helped establish governments, corruption permeates the system and money is stolen for personal gain. In my opinion should on behalf of our servicemen who lost their lives in the war, our people at home and yes also our huge financial commitment and the impact on our economy and lives - have struck ISIS at the start with n overwhelming obliteration. We still should however with all allies and Japan.
1
Why is this our business? Why don't we let them engage in these internecine disputes among themselves, as T.E. Lawrence suggested almost 100 years ago, without our interference? Is it because we fought a needless war against Iraq so we feel invested there? There are similar disputes going on right now in Yemen and Libya yet I don't hear our politicians clamoring to get involved. Why can't we just sit back, get out of the world's policeman business, let them fight it out, and resolve to have good relations with whoever comes out on top without wasting the precious lives of additional American kids?
79
Mike above is right. Let us not get involved in another hopeless civil war in a region we don't understand and never will. We have done enough damage there already. No more Americans should lose their lives in this quagmire. How about urging the responsible Muslim countries to go fight. Saudi Arabia is rich. Perhaps they should stop the people who are giving their faith a bad name. Jordan could help too.
3
It's all about the money, Mike. Always has been and always will.
1
Because, how else can we get us some more "Patriots in Full" as the Wall Street Journal Review and Outlook described Chris Kyle?
There always seems to be money for war. Perhaps the Congress can divert a few pennies to help out Puerto Rico, either with a direct grant or loan, or loan guarantee. Any of the above methods would allow the wholly owned territory to borrow at reasonable rates, and give the government of Puerto Rico the opportunity to grow its economy.
3
I was upset this morning when I heard that the President was going to speak today. I have been hearing the war cries of Graham, McCain, Corker, et al getting stronger each day. I don't think we are even willing or financially able to assist our veterans that have returned home from Iraq/Afghanistan in the manner that they are owed assistance. Another war? No way.
A colleague of mine pointed out that 20,000 foreigners have joined ISIS and when they return (as terrorists) to their home countries, including ours, they are literally bringing ISIS to our homeland. So now I am sitting on the middle of the fence.
Can't we just hire mercenaries to go fight ISIS and let them do whatever they have to do instead of our kids?
A colleague of mine pointed out that 20,000 foreigners have joined ISIS and when they return (as terrorists) to their home countries, including ours, they are literally bringing ISIS to our homeland. So now I am sitting on the middle of the fence.
Can't we just hire mercenaries to go fight ISIS and let them do whatever they have to do instead of our kids?
2
Memorandum to the President :
Re --- Responding to ISIS
Rx:
Apply one dose of Shock and Awe (maximum strength) for 30 consecutive days. Repeat to your hearts's delight for as long as needed.
Signed:
A. Stanton, DMAS (Doctor of Military Arts and Sciences, Honorary)
Stanton's Academy of Getting Even and Then Some, Dallas, TX
Our motto:
A day without shock and awe upon America's mortal enemies in the Middle East is a day wasted.
Re --- Responding to ISIS
Rx:
Apply one dose of Shock and Awe (maximum strength) for 30 consecutive days. Repeat to your hearts's delight for as long as needed.
Signed:
A. Stanton, DMAS (Doctor of Military Arts and Sciences, Honorary)
Stanton's Academy of Getting Even and Then Some, Dallas, TX
Our motto:
A day without shock and awe upon America's mortal enemies in the Middle East is a day wasted.
3
Right on Stanton! In the ten ring each time.
From the article: "But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal, Mr. Obama, who has said there would be no boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria, envisioned limited ground combat operations “such as rescue operations” or the use of “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” "
We already have ground troops in western Iraq and eastern Syria. They are called Special Operations forces, very little different from regular ground troop except that they do riskier things in smaller numbers. This carefully parsed description of what we are doing in this part of the world is tantamount to lying to the us, the American public, the taxpayers for all these largely fruitless, expensive foreign policy actions we take in the name of 'American exceptionalism', whereby we simultaneously continue our secular Crusade against Muslim fundamentalism while giving the Pentagon an unjustified, outsized role in our foreign policy.
Our foreign policy can be summed up in three words: guns and money. It is pay-to-play in the Muslim lands: they say to us: we don't want you, the Great Satan, here, but if you pay us enough money, we will look the other way. And so it goes, decade after decade, with each President, Republican or Democrat, supporting the same basic approach. American exceptionalism is our bullying behaviors to those we want to make more like us. No wonder so many countries in the world loathe us.
6
The devil is in the details. Debating approval without a particular strategy in mind is an exercise in semantics, likely to spin wheels and accomplish what, exactly?
Congress should refrain from getting bogged down in a hypothetical debate and wait for a concrete plan from President Obama. Then, have that debate.
Congress should refrain from getting bogged down in a hypothetical debate and wait for a concrete plan from President Obama. Then, have that debate.
14
Remember this is Obama and foreign policy. The goal is not really to accomplish anything but rather to present the illusion that things are being accomplished.
6
debating the proper way to launch an illegal war, it is insane.
1
Congress is supposed to agree to go to war, not manage the details. Your approach is what many in congress would like. Just sit back and criticize without making the difficult choice as to whether the war is worth fighting.
I respect the concept of finding a quick resolution, but setting a time limit is a bad idea. Hopefully the language allows for extensions as needed. Otherwise you're essentially telling your enemy "hold out long enough and you'll be OK". Why give them any light at the end of their tunnel? That's not effective warfare. That's politics.
1
So let's take a vote by show of hands:
How many of you think the liberals who protested Bush, marching in the streets over soldiers sent to unnecessary foreign wars, will now march against Obama?
Anyone? Anyone? Of course not! OBama gets a pass, he's a Democratic president. "Speak truth to power" only pertains to liberals protesting Republicans, didn't you know?
How many of you think the liberals who protested Bush, marching in the streets over soldiers sent to unnecessary foreign wars, will now march against Obama?
Anyone? Anyone? Of course not! OBama gets a pass, he's a Democratic president. "Speak truth to power" only pertains to liberals protesting Republicans, didn't you know?
6
We learned man years ago that all authorizing legislation for US government policy should include a sunset clause. Laws also need to signal the potential for action that opponents will not find meaningless. In the case of the authorization of US forces entering the war against ISIS, this means setting limits that make it clear to ISIS that the President is authorized to commit sufficient forces to destroy ISIS. (This is a different limit from what would be allowed if the President were authorized to also occupy and hold all of the territory now claimed by ISIS.) The limits must not leave ISIS the option of vanishing into the civilian population and sporadically bleeding coalition forces until the time limit is reached.
These observations are inconsistent with what liberals and conservatives want, but this is inevitable. Both sides want to set before-the-fact limits that assure the outcomes they prefer.
The President and the Congress really have no choices with respect to ISIS, which has committed acts of war against France and NATO, Japan and the Anpo alliance, and Jordan a loyal coalition member since the Gulf Ware of 1991. The only option now is to authorize a full blown invasion if need be, and to stand ready to oppose excessive involvement. The issue is the safety of brave patriots, the prevention of genocide, and peace in the Middle East. There are no political considerations and the President and the Congress should be ashamed to play politics now.
These observations are inconsistent with what liberals and conservatives want, but this is inevitable. Both sides want to set before-the-fact limits that assure the outcomes they prefer.
The President and the Congress really have no choices with respect to ISIS, which has committed acts of war against France and NATO, Japan and the Anpo alliance, and Jordan a loyal coalition member since the Gulf Ware of 1991. The only option now is to authorize a full blown invasion if need be, and to stand ready to oppose excessive involvement. The issue is the safety of brave patriots, the prevention of genocide, and peace in the Middle East. There are no political considerations and the President and the Congress should be ashamed to play politics now.
7
President Obama is the leader of the FREE world. Personally he abhors the suggestion that war will solve any problem. The intrusion of reality means that, because of his integrity, his strength, and his responsibility to the the people of the world he is in, he must use any and all power he has to restore the borders of the Ukraine. He will forever be remembered for what he does in this area. As for ISIS, this is not a war. He has had a reasonable record in going after such groups by treating them as international criminals. (Thereby preventing nations aligning civilians against other civilians of equal goodwill, declaring national wars.) His popularity may be at risk, as some Americans fear damage to themselves. But the remembrance of his Presidency will be one of great integrity and responsibility.
2
What on EARTH would make you think it's the USA's place to be involved in this, in any way shape form or fashion?
1
Thank you George Bush and Richard Cheney for ten years of war and more. And thanks President Obama for continuing that tradition.
2
No mention of terrorist extremists? Where you born in 2001?
2
Thank you, Jimmy Carter, one-termer, for emboldening terrorists everywhere to do what they want against America, with support from Iran, which suffered no reprisal beyond an ill-conceived failed rescue attempt at Desert One.
Thank you, Bill Clinton, for the largest European genocide since 1945 in Sebrenica, and for the largest genocide in Africa -- no mean feat! -- in Rwanda, and for abandoning Somalia after Black Hawk Down, making it the world HQ for maritime piracy.
And here we are.....
Thank you, Bill Clinton, for the largest European genocide since 1945 in Sebrenica, and for the largest genocide in Africa -- no mean feat! -- in Rwanda, and for abandoning Somalia after Black Hawk Down, making it the world HQ for maritime piracy.
And here we are.....
4
Tom Engelhardt, Andrew Bacevich, Nick Turse, Gareth Porter, Garry Wills, and so many others have it right - no President or even Congress can now stand in the way of what the "machine" wants - nails for their hammers (and continual spending on new hammers).
4
Both parties are the same when it comes to war, and Dems can no longer claim to be anti-war.
2
The question that should be asked is ''how do you defeat IS (or ISIS)''.
Whatever action is taken against this group, its legacy will live on in the minds of ''wannabe jihadists'', who in turn will continue to fight back at the West best they can.
As someone who lives in Europe, the number of ''wannabe jihadists'' is a growing concern. When you add the numbers of battle-hardened Muslims coming back from Syria or Iraq, one can see possible problems in store at a later date.
More work needs to be done in European countries to stop disenchanted Muslim youth from turning against their birth country and ween them off radical, anti-West views..
More work also needs doing to stop individuals from leaving for Syria and Iraq in the first place, this would involve Turkey. Many ''wannabe jihadists'' enter Turkey on tourist/student visas. then move on to Syria or Iraq.
Defeating IS (or ISIS) and defeating the ''wannabe jihadists go hand in hand.
Whatever action is taken against this group, its legacy will live on in the minds of ''wannabe jihadists'', who in turn will continue to fight back at the West best they can.
As someone who lives in Europe, the number of ''wannabe jihadists'' is a growing concern. When you add the numbers of battle-hardened Muslims coming back from Syria or Iraq, one can see possible problems in store at a later date.
More work needs to be done in European countries to stop disenchanted Muslim youth from turning against their birth country and ween them off radical, anti-West views..
More work also needs doing to stop individuals from leaving for Syria and Iraq in the first place, this would involve Turkey. Many ''wannabe jihadists'' enter Turkey on tourist/student visas. then move on to Syria or Iraq.
Defeating IS (or ISIS) and defeating the ''wannabe jihadists go hand in hand.
1
That little wherever...unspecified...locations thingy. That means Topeka, Berlin, Oxford..anywhere but Ukraine.
"…disenchanted Muslim youth…"
The 19 Saudi Arabian men who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were university and engineering educated.
Rule #1 in war never underestimate the cunning of the enemy.
We did.
We still do.
They can be defeated.
The 19 Saudi Arabian men who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were university and engineering educated.
Rule #1 in war never underestimate the cunning of the enemy.
We did.
We still do.
They can be defeated.
3
If we are going to be on a continuous war-footing, it's time to bring back the draft. Our all-volunteer military needs a break of doing all the sacrifice and dying in the country's name.
8
I agree, except for one point: We do not have a "volunteer" military, we have a recruited military. There is a huge difference between the two. Certain segments of the population are targeted and enticed into service with promised "benefits".
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
The draft legislation specifically mentioned Kayla Mueller and three other Americans who were held hostage and then killed by the Islamic State — James Foley, Steven J. Sotloff and Peter Kassig — in clauses justifying the need for military action.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tragic as the deaths of these Americans are, they do not provide justification for going to war against a non-state actor. If is as if we went to war against gangsters who raped and killed American tourists in Cancun.
Obama should have been trained in logic and logical reasoning when he went to Harvard Law, and his actions demonstrate that he understands neither logic or reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------
Tragic as the deaths of these Americans are, they do not provide justification for going to war against a non-state actor. If is as if we went to war against gangsters who raped and killed American tourists in Cancun.
Obama should have been trained in logic and logical reasoning when he went to Harvard Law, and his actions demonstrate that he understands neither logic or reasoning.
9
The US can always fabricate a reason to go to war and is especially obsessed with the Middle East. Congressional authorization would just be a fig leaf. The US is not threatened. Immediate neighbors such as Turkey do not even want to be involved.
4
Magnificent obsession: preventing Armageddon between Pakistan and India and Israel and Iran. Have you a worthier goal?
In '89, as a Canuck backpacker in SE Asia, I realized I was ignorant of world history. So I resolved to read it. I read "The CIA: A Forgotten History" by William Blum. I took special interest in reading up on on the countries I'd visited, and those I was heading to. In each case of covert/overt violent US intervention, it seemed, the reasons fell into one or more of these categories:
- foreign gov't is not virulently anti-communist, must be replaced with one that is
- US fruit concern wants to rip off and treat local workers badly, generally break rules; gov't there won't let them
- foreign gov't is not keen on cooperating with Western companies that want their oil
- country has other resources the US wants
- country wants independence from white people
This was widely considered radical left-wing conspiracy nonsense at the time. But now we know it's all true. I kept that book in mind as I traveled, asking citizens of every country I visited (which the US had seriously messed with) if they hated Americans. Not one replied, "Yes.' I'd ask why not. The reply would tend to go something like, "We dislike only the powerful men who sought to hurt us." Even Vietnamese, Laotians and Indonesians said this. I was shocked.
Since then, I've thought that maybe if the US simply refrained from attacking others for laughs and profit, apologized for doing so previously, promised to stop, did stop, and focused on its own internal problems, we'd end up with a much more liveable world.
- foreign gov't is not virulently anti-communist, must be replaced with one that is
- US fruit concern wants to rip off and treat local workers badly, generally break rules; gov't there won't let them
- foreign gov't is not keen on cooperating with Western companies that want their oil
- country has other resources the US wants
- country wants independence from white people
This was widely considered radical left-wing conspiracy nonsense at the time. But now we know it's all true. I kept that book in mind as I traveled, asking citizens of every country I visited (which the US had seriously messed with) if they hated Americans. Not one replied, "Yes.' I'd ask why not. The reply would tend to go something like, "We dislike only the powerful men who sought to hurt us." Even Vietnamese, Laotians and Indonesians said this. I was shocked.
Since then, I've thought that maybe if the US simply refrained from attacking others for laughs and profit, apologized for doing so previously, promised to stop, did stop, and focused on its own internal problems, we'd end up with a much more liveable world.
3
Great for Obama to seek congressional approval.
Now, let's see if he'll seek congressional approval for a deal with Iran.
Otherwise, this is clearly a case of "I'll look for approval when I want it."
Now, let's see if he'll seek congressional approval for a deal with Iran.
Otherwise, this is clearly a case of "I'll look for approval when I want it."
7
This war authorization should reflect the desires of the majority of the citizens of the American democratic republic (i.e., NO combat ground troops).
2
The combat mission in the first Gulf War against the Armies of Saddam Hussein lasted 42 days before they surrendered. Obama isn't just a war monger he is an incompetent war monger.
4
Surely you mean "Dubya"? Obama was handed this mess by Dubya Bush.
2
That was H.W Bush, who at least had the wisdom NOT to remove Saddam
As a Muslim American citizen, I am deeply sadden by my countries foregin policy. Yes, it is a wrong move for President Obama and my government to once again like in 2002 under George W. Bush, to request from U.S. congress permition for a military campaign against ISIS. As a believer of that one divine being who knows all and sees all! I am aware that ISIS like Al-Qaeda can`t be bombed away, thus an American nemesis because of our own imperialist actions. The birth place of ISIS is the notorious Abu Ghraib-Iraqi prison. Rumor has it, that person - Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi - leader of ISIS, still hears those cries of his countrymen as they were being beaten, electric shocked, sexually assaulted and murdered. He still remembers CACI - International inc. (interrogators), and those lying claims of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by American and Western Secular governments who invaded his country and the deaths of more than 250,000 of his Muslim people! Yes, as a Muslim American, I am aware that my country is once again starting another war fiacso. Inspite of our national creed "We the People" yet the past sixty years has won every battle but lost every war "We the People" has gotten our selves into because of our greed (oil) and imperialism (power). No wonder ISIS is killing our media reporters therein their lands for the lack of ransom! Western secularism in Muslim lands? Without regard of karma, as I stated in my book "We Fundamentalists"- Injustice makes your world full of terrorist!
2
We are all simply Americans. Not Christian Americans, Jewish Americans or Muslim Americans. Or at least it should be so.
1
The legislature FINALLY will vote on war powers; they have been absent from the conversation.
If we believe John Kerry, who delivered a speech at the Munich Security Conference last week, Iraqi Kurdish forces, backed by targeted air strikes had driven the ISIS militants out of Kobani, killing around a thousand jihadists.
Obama is right that "limited ground operations by American forces" would help to "hunt down enemy leaders". But it's wiser to put regional boots on the ground. The Kurdish forces are quite efficient. Jordan may be willing to send troops into Iraq/Syria to eradicate ISIS to take revenge on the killed pilot.
Obama is right that "limited ground operations by American forces" would help to "hunt down enemy leaders". But it's wiser to put regional boots on the ground. The Kurdish forces are quite efficient. Jordan may be willing to send troops into Iraq/Syria to eradicate ISIS to take revenge on the killed pilot.
4
The Kurds have been asking for weapons since April 2013, in writing. Just yesterday their PR guy was on a network news show saying their weapons are too old and too small, etc. Their last best hope is Sen. John McCain.
2
A reasonable step----Congress should definitely take a stand on this.
I would suggest a few other key elements to be sure that this actually makes sense for our nation in fiscal, foreign policy, and moral terms.
1. We need to reform our tax code and raise taxes sufficient to pay down this new effort as well as the estimated $3-4 trillion off-budget spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. We need to re-instate the draft, so that every American family understands the true costs of war.
3. We need to simultaneously plan and budget for the repair and replacement of our failing infrastructure (roads, bridges, power plants, internet, schools, etc.).
In short, we need to (for the first time since WWII) honestly plan and budget for the issues our leaders claim are critical to our continued health and safety.
I would suggest a few other key elements to be sure that this actually makes sense for our nation in fiscal, foreign policy, and moral terms.
1. We need to reform our tax code and raise taxes sufficient to pay down this new effort as well as the estimated $3-4 trillion off-budget spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. We need to re-instate the draft, so that every American family understands the true costs of war.
3. We need to simultaneously plan and budget for the repair and replacement of our failing infrastructure (roads, bridges, power plants, internet, schools, etc.).
In short, we need to (for the first time since WWII) honestly plan and budget for the issues our leaders claim are critical to our continued health and safety.
2
ANY US involvement here is a bad idea but it's beginning to look as if we will never leave the Middle East. Apparently, the rule is "you broke it, you own it."
1
As Antiwar.com observes: "Barack Obama promised to end the worst excesses of the Bush administration. Instead, he and members of his administration led the U.S. into violent intrigues in Pakistan, Yemen, and Ukraine in addition to instigating chaos in Libya, Syria, and Egypt (and again, Ukraine). Meanwhile, Guantánamo remains open, sanctions on Iran remain, and the militarization of domestic law enforcement exacerbates policy brutality. To think that people once saw Barack Obama as the "antiwar candidate."
Or the "peace Candidate"…or the "Democratic Candidate."
ISIL/ISIS - an undoubtedly nasty piece of work, is the same group of radical jihadi's that the US was assisting (as recommended by Hillary Clinton) when they were merely fighting the Assad regime in Syria. Now that they are feeling their"oats", having been armed and funded by an assortment of our Middle East "friends" (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar - as well as the US) our peace-loving president is willing to abandon all geographical limits to "go after these fiesty Devils" and especially if they are in Syria…as our long-term geo-political agenda to oust Assad has never been revised and if anything, has been upped to include bringing down Putin or at least make him rethink his support for Syria…Things come full circle, don't they?
But, at least Obama "asked" for Congressional approval and an extension of his executive powers to declare some sort of war…or is it a kind of "conflict" of limited aggression?
Or the "peace Candidate"…or the "Democratic Candidate."
ISIL/ISIS - an undoubtedly nasty piece of work, is the same group of radical jihadi's that the US was assisting (as recommended by Hillary Clinton) when they were merely fighting the Assad regime in Syria. Now that they are feeling their"oats", having been armed and funded by an assortment of our Middle East "friends" (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar - as well as the US) our peace-loving president is willing to abandon all geographical limits to "go after these fiesty Devils" and especially if they are in Syria…as our long-term geo-political agenda to oust Assad has never been revised and if anything, has been upped to include bringing down Putin or at least make him rethink his support for Syria…Things come full circle, don't they?
But, at least Obama "asked" for Congressional approval and an extension of his executive powers to declare some sort of war…or is it a kind of "conflict" of limited aggression?
9
that the US was assisting (as recommended by Hillary Clinton) when they were merely fighting the Assad regime in Syria.
----------------------------
"Assisting?" Obama promised them "support," and 4 months (!) later the first support arrived: MREs, and Kevlar vests. When Assad rolled over them, they re-formed as ISIL (now Islamic State) and set their sights on Iraq and Kurdistan.
----------------------------
"Assisting?" Obama promised them "support," and 4 months (!) later the first support arrived: MREs, and Kevlar vests. When Assad rolled over them, they re-formed as ISIL (now Islamic State) and set their sights on Iraq and Kurdistan.
3
Most slippery disingenuous character not to be trusted. Total withdrawal from the Middle East is what is indicated.
3
Where is ISIS getting their funding? How are their weapons, bullets, food, etc. being replenished? Surely when they run out of ammunition, someone is providing more. Just stop the funding source and there will be no need for another war! I smell something fishy here....is this another way to get into Syria to get rid of Syria's president, Assad?
3
The funding cannot be stopped because it comes in small online donations from supporters worldwide. We bombed their oil refineries which were selling lots of oil on the spot market, also hard to stop.
Hey, e.s. ISIS gets a lot of their funding through donation, believe it or not. But they also have control over several oil rigs. They sell the unrefined oil to poor citizens, who then sells it to a refinery. You really can't stop the funding, they're' very and very sneaky. Not that I think getting rid of Assad is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the main objective.
Nonsense. Block donations. Stop it at the source country and stop credit card companies from accepting donations to terrorists. Stop banks for carrying accounts. We seem to be able to accomplish this with countries not in our favor. And we here in the U.S. cannot send donations to say Palentian groups or those on our terror list.
Just what this country needs: to borrow billions to give to the military industrial complex so we can kill more people in a country we never should have attacked, illegally, in the first place.
This guy ran as an anti-war candidate, but I guess, like most of his promises, he was just posturing for votes from suckers like me.
This guy ran as an anti-war candidate, but I guess, like most of his promises, he was just posturing for votes from suckers like me.
31
I am proud of you JeffPutterman most people that voted for Obama don't admit it.
4
Niceties like "legal" and "illegal" are the raison d'etre of Code Pink, and the U.N. pacifists. Any port in a storm!
Please, let me rephrase: I voted twice for this guy so he could wreck havoc on my country but he went too far.
1
Obama said that he envisioned:
“Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.”
Once again, the stupidest imaginable idea: the concept that killing their leadership makes them go away. Sorry folks, but this just does not work.
The Israeli's have using this strategy since 1948 - you see any bad guys stepping away from their borders? No, of course not, this is a ridiculous strategy. Why should it work? What happens when someone assassinates the President of our country? Everyone pulls together, and we become stronger.
It also works the same way for the bad guys. What changed after we yanked Osama bin Laden's corpse out of Abbottabad and placed it in "deep" storage - nothing, except younger, more able men are now in charge. Don't get me wrong: more able to do evil.
It's time for us to wise up, and realize that the root of the problem lies in the great appeal that "West Hatred" has to Muslim populations. We can probably thank our British Allies, the Popes of the Middle Ages, and the Big Banks for this, but it doesn't matter - the only way we can be successful, is by employing effective propaganda; killing just makes the problem worse.
Let's take all the money we are spending on bullets and bombs, and start spending it movies, leaflets, television programs, and popular songs. The only thing that can destroy an idea (good or bad) whose time has come, is a different idea.
“Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.”
Once again, the stupidest imaginable idea: the concept that killing their leadership makes them go away. Sorry folks, but this just does not work.
The Israeli's have using this strategy since 1948 - you see any bad guys stepping away from their borders? No, of course not, this is a ridiculous strategy. Why should it work? What happens when someone assassinates the President of our country? Everyone pulls together, and we become stronger.
It also works the same way for the bad guys. What changed after we yanked Osama bin Laden's corpse out of Abbottabad and placed it in "deep" storage - nothing, except younger, more able men are now in charge. Don't get me wrong: more able to do evil.
It's time for us to wise up, and realize that the root of the problem lies in the great appeal that "West Hatred" has to Muslim populations. We can probably thank our British Allies, the Popes of the Middle Ages, and the Big Banks for this, but it doesn't matter - the only way we can be successful, is by employing effective propaganda; killing just makes the problem worse.
Let's take all the money we are spending on bullets and bombs, and start spending it movies, leaflets, television programs, and popular songs. The only thing that can destroy an idea (good or bad) whose time has come, is a different idea.
5
Corrupting them with exposure to our culture may be effective in the long term. But for now total withdrawal from al Muslim lands is indicated. I am certain beyond doubt it will have favorable effect on our country.
It's time to see just how reliable our allies in the region are. They should provide the ground troops and the air power for the mission, with intelligence assistance from us. They won't be hampered by restrictive rules of engagement that will guarantee that using American ground troops will fail to accomplish any lasting result.
Somebody should inform the president that you first commit the nation, then commit the forces. So far, he hasn't laid out any compelling reason for us to get involved. Besides, why a three year campaign? If we're going to take action, it has to be a commitment to total victory, for whatever amount of time it takes, be that three months or three years.
Somebody should inform the president that you first commit the nation, then commit the forces. So far, he hasn't laid out any compelling reason for us to get involved. Besides, why a three year campaign? If we're going to take action, it has to be a commitment to total victory, for whatever amount of time it takes, be that three months or three years.
1
Well, Israel can be counted out of the equation unless it gets to their borders. They're not particularly chummy with Syria.
Go after ISIS hammer and tongs. Wipe them from the face of the earth, but no more Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan fiascoes, please. In other words, very limited ground troops, just special forces. ISIS is largely a Muslim problem, a monster that will consume them more than anyone. They should play a major role in stamping the evil organization out.
2
Here we go again; although, to give Mr. Obama credit, he's at least pushing for war in the correct country/countries. Mr. Bush would have invaded Tajikistan.
But in all seriousness, I really have gotten to the point where I say let these countries deal with their own problems. Yes, ISIS attacked France. What have they done in response? This may be painfully naive of me, but I'm just tired of us fighting everyone else's wars. Nobody fought ours for us when we decided we'd had enough of Great Britain.
But in all seriousness, I really have gotten to the point where I say let these countries deal with their own problems. Yes, ISIS attacked France. What have they done in response? This may be painfully naive of me, but I'm just tired of us fighting everyone else's wars. Nobody fought ours for us when we decided we'd had enough of Great Britain.
Ironically enough, France was our ally in the revolutionary war. American history 101.
3
Fight only when you have to and then either fight to win quickly and completely doing whatever is necessary or stay out; half measures only work in the kitchen. With that premise, you need to know that this is a fight you can't avoid. The comments here suggest otherwise.
1
Going into the fight with the idea that you can win quickly, is a very flawed thought process. You need to plan contingencies that your initial plan doesn't work. If objective x & y aren't met, how are you going to fix it in the ever-changing battle space?
Half-measures don't work, but anticipating any war to be quick is wrong. The friction of war can change the center of gravity to either side, so quickly.
Half-measures don't work, but anticipating any war to be quick is wrong. The friction of war can change the center of gravity to either side, so quickly.
Why now? I am not convinced that Obama's reasoning is solid and apolitical. How do we finance yet another war within the context of Obama's recent budget and our ever accumulating deficit? Didn't he think this might be coming and in anticipation think to present a budget that was tight and - dare I say it - conservative?
1
re: accumulating deficit? The US deficit is shrinking at the fastest rate since WW2 de-mobilization. Government deficits under Obama as a share of real GDP, has actually declined from 10% (2009)to 2% now. Also according to Commerce Department data, both in absolute terms and as a percent of GDP, the deficit peaked in 2009 and has been shrinking since.
1
The reason the deficit is shrinking is due to the Republican sequester which most people screamed about. Obama gets no credit for cutting budgets voluntarily.
1
The sequester was part of the Budget Control Act, passed in 2011 with bipartisan support
I voted for Obama twice. This time, he is WRONG!
Because we must not help Syria. Because we must not get into a fight that is not ours. Because we are too mixed up to see the real enemy (Saudi Arabia). The ISIS fire is not burning hotter, it is diminishing. If Iraqi army that we equipped and trained turned tail and ran, why should American blood spill?
No Mr. President, send humanitarian aid if you want, but nothing else.
And while we are on the subject, stay away from Ukraine. Let the Germans and French handle it. And don't arm the Ukrainians; all we will get is Chechnya-like outcomes.
Kalidan
Because we must not help Syria. Because we must not get into a fight that is not ours. Because we are too mixed up to see the real enemy (Saudi Arabia). The ISIS fire is not burning hotter, it is diminishing. If Iraqi army that we equipped and trained turned tail and ran, why should American blood spill?
No Mr. President, send humanitarian aid if you want, but nothing else.
And while we are on the subject, stay away from Ukraine. Let the Germans and French handle it. And don't arm the Ukrainians; all we will get is Chechnya-like outcomes.
Kalidan
5
Re Ukraine....I just heard on the radio that we are training Ukrainians to fight the rebels and we are training them in West Ukraine. So we are planning to ramp up to a proxy war with Russia, it seems.
1
I'm sure this will go well. More war, more weapons. Hasn't the United States caused enough chaos and death already? Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia...and soon to be Ukraine. It just never ends.
5
"It just never ends."
Neither do evil dictators, tyrants and sadistic or rogue nations.
Do nothing?
Neither do evil dictators, tyrants and sadistic or rogue nations.
Do nothing?
Our last American hostage is tragically dead, and Mr. Obama wants authorization now?
War would not have saved the hostages. Obama did send in a Seal team to attempt a rescue. Unfortunately, the hostages had been moved.
I'm all for a swift offensive to cleanse the Earth of these subhuman monsters (ISIS). Our troops could use the practice and this is what they signed up for. I am vehemently opposed to us taking any responsibility for the subsequent occupation, however. No more nation building in the Middle East, thank you. If there is questionable value in this type of operation then we should just not send any troops at all.
1
ISIS, much like the Vietcong of yore, existed to expel the Trespasser, namely the USA. We demonized them, as we now do ISIS, for so doing and called them names and implied they were insane and our response was to finally kill 2.5 million of them, for simply trying to expel their trespasser, the USA, which they finally did. Is it so wrong to expel trespassers with all force available including deadly force, as I have a right to do on my own property. Will we ever get it? I doubt it.
5
So when did we trespass into Syria? And didn't Obama pull the troops out of Iraq?
Other than those two little details, your analysis is flawless.
Other than those two little details, your analysis is flawless.
Obama put boots on the ground and starting training rebels to bring down Assad soon after Obama was elected. Yes, the US stuck its nose where it wasn't wanted or needed again.
2
So...where's the money for that going to come from? 2014's income tax will pay for the interest on US debt and social security liabilities...and that's about it. Going to have Yellen fire up the printing presses and siphon some more value out of our dollars, to make it work?
1
We can recoup some of it by never paying any U.N. dues again, on top of what we already may owe, and by booting the cars of the U.N. scofflaws in NYC who owe millions, I bet, in unpaid traffic tickets.
The chances of Obama not getting his war are about the same as his getting impeached -- zero -- even though both are what the US Constitution calls for, whether the editorial board of the NY Times does so or not.
(Glenn Greenwald has a fine piece today on Mohammed Tuaiman al-Jahmi, a 13-year-old burned to death in Yemen by an American drone (an American official called him a member of al Qaeda); didn't exactly get the same coverage as Jordanian soldier Moaz al-Kasasbeh, burned to death by ISIS. (And al-Jahmi's father and brother were previously killed in American drone strikes. It's a family affair.)
As Greenwald says: "If it were American teenagers rather than Yemeni ones regularly being burned to death – on American soil rather than Yemeni soil – does it take any effort to understand why there’d be widespread calls for violence against the perpetrators in response? Consider how much American rage and violence was unleashed by a single-day attack on American soil 13 years ago."
Why that logic is lost on the military and NY Times isn't for us to know.
(Glenn Greenwald has a fine piece today on Mohammed Tuaiman al-Jahmi, a 13-year-old burned to death in Yemen by an American drone (an American official called him a member of al Qaeda); didn't exactly get the same coverage as Jordanian soldier Moaz al-Kasasbeh, burned to death by ISIS. (And al-Jahmi's father and brother were previously killed in American drone strikes. It's a family affair.)
As Greenwald says: "If it were American teenagers rather than Yemeni ones regularly being burned to death – on American soil rather than Yemeni soil – does it take any effort to understand why there’d be widespread calls for violence against the perpetrators in response? Consider how much American rage and violence was unleashed by a single-day attack on American soil 13 years ago."
Why that logic is lost on the military and NY Times isn't for us to know.
9
Forget the whole thing. Americans must not have another war on foreign soil.
2
Because things have gone so well in the 25 years that the US has been militarily engaged in the Levant and Mesopotamia, President Obama has decided that we should reenergize our commitment, this time to fight the ISIL, or ISIS, or whatever acronym you’d like to use for the Islamic jihadists trying to fill the power void on the frontier between Syria and Iraq, as each of the failed states have done what failed states do, and been forced to reduce the footprint over which they claim dominion.
The real fight here is between Iranian-backed Shiites and the Sunni combatants left over from the days when Sunnis ruled Iraq. The US will essentially be fighting to preserve Iranian hegemony in the Levant, which it unintentionally provided when it destroyed the existing power structure in Iraq. After it secures the Levant for Iran, again, it will undoubtedly be forced to unwind the effects of its Iranian welfare in the same manner as it unwound the effects of its Iraqi support during the Hussein regime.
The US stokes the flames of conflict in the Middle East like a hobo in January stokes the flames of a campfire to keep from freezing. Like the hobo, the flames succor its existential needs. Geopolitics would be ironically hilarious if it weren’t so deadly.
If we can stoke the ashes to keep at least one war flaring hot, our hero-creation machine might at least keep sputtering on. It's my understanding that all the guys from West Point want to be snipers now.
The real fight here is between Iranian-backed Shiites and the Sunni combatants left over from the days when Sunnis ruled Iraq. The US will essentially be fighting to preserve Iranian hegemony in the Levant, which it unintentionally provided when it destroyed the existing power structure in Iraq. After it secures the Levant for Iran, again, it will undoubtedly be forced to unwind the effects of its Iranian welfare in the same manner as it unwound the effects of its Iraqi support during the Hussein regime.
The US stokes the flames of conflict in the Middle East like a hobo in January stokes the flames of a campfire to keep from freezing. Like the hobo, the flames succor its existential needs. Geopolitics would be ironically hilarious if it weren’t so deadly.
If we can stoke the ashes to keep at least one war flaring hot, our hero-creation machine might at least keep sputtering on. It's my understanding that all the guys from West Point want to be snipers now.
3
Obama has asked our now Republican Congress for this authorization, putting the onus (properly) on Congress, making Republicans furious. If Congressional Republicans don't think this is a good idea, they can say no. And that's the sticking point for Republicans, isn't it.
Congress will support this. But make no mistake, Obama owns this decision.
4
Obama will get more support from the Republicans than the Democrats in Congress.
Obama will get more support from the Republicans than the Democrats in Congress.
i voted for President Obama in the last election. I thought he would honor his previous campaign pledge to avoid another war. But here we go again with another war. And I really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and still supported his air strikes against ISIS. I have been had once again by a president. This latest ploy is an escalation in increments and recalls how JFK got us deeper into the quagmire in Vietnam. And President Obama wants a three-year commitment in this authorization which forces the next president with a welcoming present in the Oval Office. Which was the tactic George W. Bush used on Obama. Handling off the war baton as Ike did to JFK and JFK did to LJB and LBJ did to Nixon in Vietnam. Another historical repetition from the mission creep in the Vietnam. And the justification for his escalation is the Iraqi troops still need American supervision even though they have received billions of dollars in training, weapons and material during the occupation and they still advanced to the rear with their gear and were defeated in Fallujah then again in Mosul. And again there's the specter of Vietnam. AVRN soldiers of The Republic of South Vietnam, were pejoratively nicknamed "Marvin the AVRN, because they also advanced to rear against VC guerrillas and NVA soldiers. But things really aren't as hopeless as they seem. "There's a light at the end of the tunnel" and "peace with honor" analogies waiting in the wings for the third act to bring down the curtain.
5
Exactly I am proud of you most Obama voters won't admit this guy is turning out to be another Bush but with a (D) next to his name.
4
We tried to warn you OBama was lying to you, but you all called us racist. We told you so and you threw it in our faces, and the country suffers due to people like you so gullible to vote for him in 2012.
5
This is not the change I've been waiting for.
22
Finally! Now, reinstitute the draft. Income exemptions for anyone family below 100k gross income. I vote the Time Warner tower gets its own unit.
1
By the time Netanyahu comes to Congress to make his Big Speech, Obama will have wrangled a visit to Camp David with him to discuss the Big Picture. Seeing how once again Obama is trying to accomplish something that's "way above my pay grade," he needs a Metternich to consult.
Rather than drop bombs on ISIS, why not drop food, water, farming supplies and translated great American literature on those that ISIS is invading.
Let's be a version of America we can be proud of.
Let's be a version of America we can be proud of.
1
The U.N. has already tried that without measurable improvement in the situation.
1
Yeah, a few million copies of Huck Finn should do the trick.
2
"Let's be a version of America we can be proud of."
We were after World War II removing evil from the world.
1
Five hundred and thirty five congressmen and women deciding the details of a credible strategy to “defeat” ISIS? Incredible!
I could not agree more with Speaker Boehner, someone I side with about 10% of the time. Do it or don’t do it -- but don’t hamstring the Commander and Chief.
It is Obama’s job to make the case to the Congress and to the American people. It is also his responsibility to ensure that it is done as expeditiously as humanly possible. No more 13 year slogs that end in unmitigated failure.
President Obama still seems to be trying to thread an impossible needle based on protecting his political assertion about no-boots-on-the-ground. He has been creeping up on ISIS in ostensibly measured steps, but, make no mistake we are in the middle of full blow mission creep. Did anyone think this was anything but inevitable given the nature of the task.
Congress should take no more than a month to formulate and issue the AMUF. The authorization should be no more than a few typed pages.
The documents that authorized war in the Pacific and the European theaters were each a terse single page that essential said that the United States was at war with Japan and Germany and their allies -- with the unqualified objective of defeating the enemy.
I could not agree more with Speaker Boehner, someone I side with about 10% of the time. Do it or don’t do it -- but don’t hamstring the Commander and Chief.
It is Obama’s job to make the case to the Congress and to the American people. It is also his responsibility to ensure that it is done as expeditiously as humanly possible. No more 13 year slogs that end in unmitigated failure.
President Obama still seems to be trying to thread an impossible needle based on protecting his political assertion about no-boots-on-the-ground. He has been creeping up on ISIS in ostensibly measured steps, but, make no mistake we are in the middle of full blow mission creep. Did anyone think this was anything but inevitable given the nature of the task.
Congress should take no more than a month to formulate and issue the AMUF. The authorization should be no more than a few typed pages.
The documents that authorized war in the Pacific and the European theaters were each a terse single page that essential said that the United States was at war with Japan and Germany and their allies -- with the unqualified objective of defeating the enemy.
27
Terrific objective, but whom are we declaring war against? The Islamic state is no state...it's an amorphous mob of killers whose favorite target is defenseless civilians. What borders do we cross in order to effect this war? I see problems there. If we begin to start a B-52/Warthog program, I see a quick end to this conflict, without offending anyone's sovereignty.
Interesting that on the House side, Boehner is willing to look at the President's request (once he removes the kooks on his s ice of the aisle from the discussion).
Mitch McConnell, however, has to defer to Corker and Senator McCain, the man who dumped Sarah Palin and all her trash on the U.S. and who cannot ever seem to accept that he did not, in fact, win the presidential election. But let us all demand that his grandkids (and those of his war-enthusiasts) must be the first to enlist and be sent to fight.
At this point it seems a complete waste of time to think anything good will come out of this. But at least since it gives the Republicans a chance to look like they're actually doing something, some discourse may occur.
Sadly many of us gave up holding our breath for some fresh air out of Congress a very, very long time ago and McCain is one of the reasons why.
Mitch McConnell, however, has to defer to Corker and Senator McCain, the man who dumped Sarah Palin and all her trash on the U.S. and who cannot ever seem to accept that he did not, in fact, win the presidential election. But let us all demand that his grandkids (and those of his war-enthusiasts) must be the first to enlist and be sent to fight.
At this point it seems a complete waste of time to think anything good will come out of this. But at least since it gives the Republicans a chance to look like they're actually doing something, some discourse may occur.
Sadly many of us gave up holding our breath for some fresh air out of Congress a very, very long time ago and McCain is one of the reasons why.
1
Shouldn't you be holding Obama, the anti-war candidate, responsible for asking for war authority and for endless bombing of Pakistan, Yemen, an illegal war in Libya, an illegal war in Syria, and an illegal restarted war in Iraq? Or is this all Congress' fault?
This is just one more dividend of the Iraq war, the gift that keeps on giving, in the words of George W (as hilariously played by Will Farrell): "You're welcome, America." Is it too much to hope that the New York Times could turn its investigative focus from the low hanging and inconsequential fruit of foreign real estate purchasers in "Towers of Secrecy," (do we really need to know or care what oil sheik owns a condo at Columbus Circle? ), and instead blow the whistle on the entrenched political and industrial profiteers who pillage this country to the tune of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR wasted on the military with these decisions to keep our country in a state of perpetual war, and our middle class broke paying for...what?
16
All to wipe out the JV team, or are they now Varsity? New brand of warfare. We kill with drones and fighter aircraft, and pay other armies and good terrorist, to fight for our objectives. Sounds complicated, or like the little dutch boy sticking his finger in the dyke to stop the flow of water.
1
I do not want our soldiers to die for oil, gas, and money.
Let the international oil and gas companies pay mercenaries a far price for this dangerous work.
The Saudi have paid ISIS to clear a natural gas pipeline through western Iraq and Syria.
Why should we manage their mercenary forces.
Let the international oil and gas companies pay mercenaries a far price for this dangerous work.
The Saudi have paid ISIS to clear a natural gas pipeline through western Iraq and Syria.
Why should we manage their mercenary forces.
11
I'll bet your list of worthy things for "our soldiers to die for" has as many as 2 (two) worthy reasons, #1 being a paratrooper assault on one of our big cities.
“If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” Mr. Obama wrote.
-----------------------------------------------------
So, the guy who said ISIL was a JV team admits that ISIL is NOT a threat to US homeland CURRENTLY but could become a threat if left unchecked? Under International law, you cannot go to war against an entity that did not attack you or did not pose an imminent threat to your nation.
The guy who promised to end stupid wars probably thinks that the distraction created by going after Putin and ISIL is the smart thing to do?
Unbelievable insanity.
-----------------------------------------------------
So, the guy who said ISIL was a JV team admits that ISIL is NOT a threat to US homeland CURRENTLY but could become a threat if left unchecked? Under International law, you cannot go to war against an entity that did not attack you or did not pose an imminent threat to your nation.
The guy who promised to end stupid wars probably thinks that the distraction created by going after Putin and ISIL is the smart thing to do?
Unbelievable insanity.
5
War defies prescription. It is inherently open-ended.
1
Memo to Nobel Peace prize committee:
You gave this guy an award in hopes that he will be a peacemaker.
Now that he has disproved you, can you pull back the award and ask him
to return the prize money and the certificate or whatever you gave him?
That is the right thing to do.
You gave this guy an award in hopes that he will be a peacemaker.
Now that he has disproved you, can you pull back the award and ask him
to return the prize money and the certificate or whatever you gave him?
That is the right thing to do.
13
Actually that is not at all why they gave him the award. As the Nobel chair Thorbjørn Jagland said at the time, "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do..."
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Who would have guessed? American feet are heading back to the sand for more fun in the sun. Apparently, the Shia-heavy government was rather ineffective at management. But now - thanks to ISIS - the US has a great reason to get back in the game and provide a stabilizing constabulary force on that wretched oilscape for years to come.
If the world was shocked by the sadistic murder of the Jordanian pilot I don't want to think what ISIS would do to an American soldier. God help us. We have no business sending troops there. Let Arab countries fight their own fights and sacrifice their own soldiers!
2
Agreed. It is disgusting that the Arab regional players only became furious with ISIS when it was a Muslim pilot who was murdered. For all the other murders, they just look the other way.
The IS would not exist if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq and then totally botched the political rebuild job. We have made so many mistakes in the Middle East that one could easily conclude that any attempt we make to "fix" something in that region is almost certainly doomed to fail or backfire, especially if it involves the use of force. Given our demonstrated incompetence, and the extreme complexity of the political/cultural realities in the region, I feel the best policy would be for us to do nothing at all, and at a minimum set the bar extremely high for demonstrating strong odds that the results of any plan of action would be a net move in the right direction. Even defining the "right direction" is fraught.
3
So what happens when isis comes and says to you, denounce your religion or die?
thats what going to happen, I can go on and say way more than I sould, But we should have never pulled out, during the crusades the Christians Battled the Muslims, it happened around 1075.
History repeats itself.
The same thing is going on today.
I will fight and do my job, U.S. sympathizers are a threat here in the U.S.
with a statement such as yours, makes me think you maybe on the sympathetic side of muslims and isis
thats what going to happen, I can go on and say way more than I sould, But we should have never pulled out, during the crusades the Christians Battled the Muslims, it happened around 1075.
History repeats itself.
The same thing is going on today.
I will fight and do my job, U.S. sympathizers are a threat here in the U.S.
with a statement such as yours, makes me think you maybe on the sympathetic side of muslims and isis
1
He long ago surrendered to the endless war on terror envisioned by Dick Cheney. After ISIS it will be another group and then another and another. We have created so much hatred against us, slaughtered so many, tortured so many, killed and maimed so many with drone strikes, not bothered to even count the dead civilians, helped create millions of refugees and left devastation and social disorder everywhere. The supply of new terrorists has been guaranteed for decades. Ask Congress for the right to remain the bloody tool of the military-industrial complex, Mr. President, by all means.
6
Amen, Joe, you have hit the nail squarely on its head.
The important question that none of the posters ask: what are the consequences of doing nothing or not taking some military action? Does ISIS present a proximate or near future threat to the U.S. If the answer is yes, effective military action is needed . Are all of you convinced that there is no threat? And, if military action is needed, asking whose sons, brothers, fathers, sisters, daughters wives will fight and who will pay is irrelevant.
1
The threat is much closer than you know. Yes! is the answere to your question, even U.S. sympathizers are a huge threat.
They are here, it's just a matter of time.
Glad to go back and fight!
Finally.......back in the saddle
They are here, it's just a matter of time.
Glad to go back and fight!
Finally.......back in the saddle
2
Obama proves yet again that his interests and those of the American people are not aligned. It is so sad to see a once great country destroyed by its own elected leadership. I recall Senator Schumer saying that the American people were too smart to elect someone as inexperienced as Obama to the office of the president. He did not understand how the collective intelligence has declined. As even Mr. Obama says, too many people in this country are not educated and have no job skills. Unfortunately, these people are his base and that base is growing.
5
Experience is no substitute for stupidity. He has a dearth of one and a vast reservoir of the other.
2
If President Obama feels he has no other choice than to give in to the warmongers and go against the best interests of the American people then he SHOULD STEP ASIDE.
9
Exactly I am so sick of this war. I am ready to get out in the streets and demand our govt listen to the American people.
1
Yeah, just like Romney would do once he ran out of the pixie dust he was going to use that was supposed to revitalize our whole economy and make everyone millionaires.
Let us hope that the Commander in Chief listens to his military advisors, and not his political handlers, in how best to destroy ISIL.
Send in the B-52s.
Send in the B-52s.
4
That'll do it! Carpet bombing, without the need for precision. That will definitely wipe the slate clean in Syria and Iraq. Then we can repopulate. Nothing else is probably going to work anyway.
Full disclosure: Just in case someone missed the sarcasm in this comment...
Full disclosure: Just in case someone missed the sarcasm in this comment...
Why would he start now? His political advisors will trump the military ones every time.
1
The planes bombing now, including B-1's, are much more accurate. Maybe the B-52s can carpet-bomb Boko Haram instead under the jungle canopies, like in Vietnam.
This resolution is based on the earlier flawed resolution of "war" by President Bush. My understanding of "war was a state of hostility between two nations. Perhaps a cleaner and more palpable fashion would be to follow Thomas Jefferson's lead in combating the Barbary pirates. He asked for a declaration of war but was satisfied with a statute to protect our citizens and commerce( in 1802). This gave him the flexibility to deal with the different entities and eventually a Treaty with the Pashwa of the Barbary coast, mostly North West Africa. We are dropping into a three or 4 way fluid war without a clear vision as to exactly who is on the other side, which has been our foreign policy for some time. Reaction and no thought towards a clearly defined goal - the Obama Doctrine.
5
Who are we fighting? Is this like Vietnam? Who is the enemy? How many groups? What are we doing? Are we creating Jihadists? Have we paid off our deficit? Just say no.
4
Apparently there's some confusion over the rule "Never get Involved in a Land War In Asia." It appears Mr. President believes this to exclude airstrikes.
1
As a former Lawrence Livermore National Lab guy but by-and-large lifer liberal and peacenik, I've got to say that these guys are starting to make me yearn for the neutron bomb of yore...just sayin'. Regarding Obama's letter to Congress, golly, wouldn't it be something if the US actually declared war on somebody for a change, versus the past half century or so of whatever-that-other-thing-has-been, huh.
1
Sorry, don't believe you -'by-and-large lifer liberal and peacenik'.
2
Our Noble Peace Prize winning president extends us into a civil war of our own making. He calls it ISIS, but they are Saddam Hussein's people returning to reclaim the Iraq we stole from them in a war that smelled like Vietnam all over again. We were wrong to invade Iraq back then and we are making even a bigger mistake now. ISIS is an American trained and funded instrument of violence in the Middle East. Now, our government wants to fight a war against those we once supported and they are calling it a continuation of the war on terror. Who can say that kind of lie and still kiss their children without shame? If we truly wanted to stop terrorism we would arrest the family's of the terrorists. The terror would stop.
3
ISIS is an American trained and funded instrument of violence in the Middle East.
--------------------
For such a wild-eyed claim, provide some evidence.
--------------------
For such a wild-eyed claim, provide some evidence.
Obama please organize Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and others to pay for and fight ISIS. These are their own homegrown terrorists in their own lands. They need to take responsibility for this terrorism, not the US. Of course we can help with diplomacy and urging pressure, but we must not be the troops or airpower for their responsibility. And yes it could come to our shores, so they better take care of it.
4
Yes, diplomacy will carry the day, as we saw with Hillary and Benghazi and Crimea, and now Kerry and Iran and Nigeria. Spin those wheels, State Dept.
1
“If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland,” Mr. Obama wrote...
Replacing "ISIL" with "Saddam," "Obama" with "GW Bush," we get the same statement that ed us into a trillion-dollar WMD-hunting game in 2003.
The result? ISIS was born and funded by US taxpayers...When can we get out the same circle?
Replacing "ISIL" with "Saddam," "Obama" with "GW Bush," we get the same statement that ed us into a trillion-dollar WMD-hunting game in 2003.
The result? ISIS was born and funded by US taxpayers...When can we get out the same circle?
8
How far do you want to walk the dog backwards? To Reagan, and Beirut, in 1982? To the WTC truck bombing, and Somalia, and Rwanda. and Bosnia, under Clinton?
Everyone kicked the can down the road until Bush 43 inherited 9/11 just 240 days into his first term.
Everyone kicked the can down the road until Bush 43 inherited 9/11 just 240 days into his first term.
3
“If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Mr. Obama wrote.
I wonder, how many other things "if left unchecked" may also pose a threat "beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," and how many of those things are we going to go to war against?
I wonder, how many other things "if left unchecked" may also pose a threat "beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," and how many of those things are we going to go to war against?
4
Am I the only one who wants to know exactly how the US will pay for ANOTHER 20 years of war in the Middle East, along with ANOTHER 20 years of war in Afghanistan and probably a war with Russia? Anyone else curious about this aspect of the situation?
4
This call to arms is truly perplexing, seeing that our oldest and most trusted alley of in the region with a large and modern American paid air force having demonstrated , repeatedly, it ability to bomb Syria and Iraq without loss of kit, is not lifting a finger
Why ?
Maybe she knows something we don't.
Why ?
Maybe she knows something we don't.
2
It is not in "her", or our, national interest to be openly involved in that phase of the larger regional conflict. "She" has enough active and immediate military threats to deal with. But you can be sure that "she" is monitoring the situation and is otherwise quietly involved when it suits "her" needs.
It is a thoroughly sick American habit: seeing every possible world situation as having a possible war solution. Making any intelligent being nauseous, the full scale cause and effect analysis is never, never considered in this military-corporate society.
We 'won' WWII? It seems to me that it has destroyed us. It's endowed us with the strange mentality that the world is ours and that military is good business and that we're 'above it all.'
The quickest solution: get the neo-cons out of here. They are just too ignorant of the big picture.
ps. If you want to do a cause/effect analysis of jihadism, try to imagine exactly what has fueled and ignited it, starting 5-6 decades back. Then perform the necessary reparations.
We 'won' WWII? It seems to me that it has destroyed us. It's endowed us with the strange mentality that the world is ours and that military is good business and that we're 'above it all.'
The quickest solution: get the neo-cons out of here. They are just too ignorant of the big picture.
ps. If you want to do a cause/effect analysis of jihadism, try to imagine exactly what has fueled and ignited it, starting 5-6 decades back. Then perform the necessary reparations.
7
Is Obama a neo-con? He's the one asking for war authority to cover the endless wars he's carrying on.
Obama is not a neo-con, but he has responded to their wishes several times. Evidently he tries to balance their calls to arms with some prudence. The result is less nauseating than his predecessor's willful and directed warring. But by no means is it dealing with the roots of conflicts. Obama seeks support and consensus for large work, but seldom receives it.
1
We knew this was coming with the release of 'American Sniper' and Katy Perry's war recruiting video for women.
5
Any Congressional authorization to conduct combat against ISIS or ISIL should be based on language that such combat must last until total victory, and total destruction of every last member of ISIS has been achieved regardless of the means to do it.
4
If you want war so badly, why don't you pay for it?
2
If Obama would let Alaska sell its own oil, it could pay for 2 or more aircraft carriers, Einstein. Ya can't have it both ways.
The last thing I want is U. S. troops in foxholes. I am grateful that President Obama wants Congress to be all in on this. However, I sense something wrong. A Republican/TP-heavy Congress throws a fit when the president makes a unilateral decision. Now,when he attempts to partner with an unwilling partner, the belligerent hawks on the Hill wax cautious about committing troops to fight ISIS/ISIL. It seems to me, at least, they're more worried about President Obama coming out on the right side of this menace than they are insuring Americam lives are not put at risk in hostile territory. By all means delay with due caution but don't nibble the thing to death like mice.
2
Arab countries need to step up and deal with this regional issue with allied support. Americans and Europeans should not be taking the lead. And, what about drones?
3
Where are the Europeans taking the lead? Heck, the Brits and the French and the Italians aircraft were unable to operate over Libya without massive USAF support. Europe is AWOL except for a few squadrons of F-16s and Tornadoes forward-based -- and they haven't even helped Ukraine, on their doorstep.
1
Down the rabbit hole once more. The inflammatory actions of one fringe group triggers a national knee-jerk reaction that will directly cost US military lives and indirectly ruin the lives of their families. Think Kayla Mueller would want Americans dead just to get some payback? Would she have preferred the dollars spent on military action be used to prevent disease and starvation? Does it make sense to kill in her name? She was a woman with altruistic conviction, and we honor her in the least considerate way.
1
ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Al Answar, Nusra Front, AQAP, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah and several others are hardly just "one fringe group."
The authorization only seeks to deal with ISIS. It's in the lead paragraph of the story.
Destroy the thugs quickly, efficiently, comprehensively and otherwise......let them vanish from the face of the earth by mightiest possible global resolve bolstered by fiercest of military weapons. Longer the world ( and America) waits harder it will be to uproot the weeds of Islamic jihad.
3
In the wake of the earlier AUMF's, I can see no rational basis for either applauding or condemning the President's request.
The USA voted for an eternal GWOT in 2002, and nothing in public opinion suggests a withdrawal of the broad latitude enjoyed by both Bush and Obama in acting under that agreement.
The only difference now is that this President is a Democratic, so Republicans need to fight him (contrary to all prior US history in which the Congress back the President in wartime). In addition, now the US Congress is broken, and incapable of either drafting its own war authorization, or staging anything other than a political pep rally for proponents and opponents of the Eternal Global War on Terrorism.
The USA voted for an eternal GWOT in 2002, and nothing in public opinion suggests a withdrawal of the broad latitude enjoyed by both Bush and Obama in acting under that agreement.
The only difference now is that this President is a Democratic, so Republicans need to fight him (contrary to all prior US history in which the Congress back the President in wartime). In addition, now the US Congress is broken, and incapable of either drafting its own war authorization, or staging anything other than a political pep rally for proponents and opponents of the Eternal Global War on Terrorism.
It's time to either fish or cut bait for the war-mongering Republicans who are eager to criticize anything and everything Obama tries to do, while doing nothing themselves. Criticism is easy. Actually DOING something is hard. So GOP, either put up or shut up.
If Bush was wrong, then Obama is wrong. Flip sides of the same coin.
We made this our fight when we invaded and destroyed Iraq. Were it not for that, Iran would have a strong counter balance and we would not have ISIS. AQ baited us and drew George Bush in like a moth to a flame, dragging the whole country in this protracted mess. ISIS and others have no hope of winning militarily but for them, I don't think that's the point. Draining our treasure, taking our young men and women, terrorizing as many people as possible... that's what they want. The barbarians are at the gate and we are damned if we get involved and damned if we don't.
2
Clueless. The same president who cannot, will not, utter the words Islamic or Muslim and terrorism in the same sentence now wants the US to declare war on those who commit terrorism in the name of Islam as a credo. Obama cannot summon up the honesty in words but he can commit American blood and bucks to a war. The progressive mindset is a very curious thing, no?
5
Keep in mind who got us into this mess in the first place. I don't think anyone in the Bush administration can be labelled progressive.
Even if the Iraq War is primarily to blame for weakening Iraq's political structure, the tensions between the historical Islamic transnational view (umma) and the idea of nation-states is not new at all. Thus ISIS as the latest form of this long-standing problem.
Every time we face a new threat of some form from militant Islam, the opportunity to call out the institutions (OIC) and nation-states that finance and provide cover should be taken advantage of to the fullest. Otherwise, the West will continue to be blamed not only for its own misdeeds, but for all the failings and internal strife within Islam. Since the latter is the main problem, it is what eventually must be addressed by flushing it out into the open.
We are missing the opportunity to place the issue of extreme militancy squarely in the hands where it belongs. This is as essential as military response, else the moral outrage at false victimhood will continually boil over into new conflicts. Let Islam first and foremost put its own house in order before assigning, for the upteenth time, all responsibility elsewhere for 14 centuries of woe.
Every time we face a new threat of some form from militant Islam, the opportunity to call out the institutions (OIC) and nation-states that finance and provide cover should be taken advantage of to the fullest. Otherwise, the West will continue to be blamed not only for its own misdeeds, but for all the failings and internal strife within Islam. Since the latter is the main problem, it is what eventually must be addressed by flushing it out into the open.
We are missing the opportunity to place the issue of extreme militancy squarely in the hands where it belongs. This is as essential as military response, else the moral outrage at false victimhood will continually boil over into new conflicts. Let Islam first and foremost put its own house in order before assigning, for the upteenth time, all responsibility elsewhere for 14 centuries of woe.
Once again, we are sliding down the path of inappropriate escalation. The Middle East is not Iowa and we need to step away from treating it like our property.
It seems to me at the very least that regional powerhouses must show leadership which we, then, can follow. When Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia show a willingness to lead in this Daesh/ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State counter-terrorism War, then it will be time for us to engage more fully. Until then, we will only continue to damage US integrity, appearing to the Islamic World, the Russian World, the Chinese World and even the EU as a hegemonic bully.
As our economy and strength languishes, we can ill afford to be seen by the world with unsympathetic eyes. I am no isolationist, but the days have long passed where we can act as global policeman bringing peace and democracy to the poor unfortunate folks around the world. That boat has sailed and now we just look like arrogant bullies.
It seems to me at the very least that regional powerhouses must show leadership which we, then, can follow. When Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia show a willingness to lead in this Daesh/ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State counter-terrorism War, then it will be time for us to engage more fully. Until then, we will only continue to damage US integrity, appearing to the Islamic World, the Russian World, the Chinese World and even the EU as a hegemonic bully.
As our economy and strength languishes, we can ill afford to be seen by the world with unsympathetic eyes. I am no isolationist, but the days have long passed where we can act as global policeman bringing peace and democracy to the poor unfortunate folks around the world. That boat has sailed and now we just look like arrogant bullies.
1
"When Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia show a willingness to lead in this Daesh/ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State counter-terrorism War, then it will be time for us to engage more fully."
So how long do you want to wait for Israel and Iran to form an alliance?
So how long do you want to wait for Israel and Iran to form an alliance?
What a great shell game. Fund a bunch of insurgents; when they slip their leashes, rev up the war machine against them; repeat as desired.
Lest anyone has forgotten--the Afghans who invited the Soviet Union into their country were secular progressives. They were a little naïve about what happens when you seek help from the Great Bear, but they were actually patriots who wanted to drag a seventh-century society into the modern world, complete with full equality for women. Those were the people Reagan saw as enemies of our way of life...
In my lifetime, Carter has been the only US President of genuine moral and ethical values. Obama, you fooled me twice.
Fellow readers, please tell me why Jeb Bush will be worse for America and the world than Hillary Clinton. Wall Street and the War Machine roll onward, no matter who is in charge. Prove to me that's not true.
Lest anyone has forgotten--the Afghans who invited the Soviet Union into their country were secular progressives. They were a little naïve about what happens when you seek help from the Great Bear, but they were actually patriots who wanted to drag a seventh-century society into the modern world, complete with full equality for women. Those were the people Reagan saw as enemies of our way of life...
In my lifetime, Carter has been the only US President of genuine moral and ethical values. Obama, you fooled me twice.
Fellow readers, please tell me why Jeb Bush will be worse for America and the world than Hillary Clinton. Wall Street and the War Machine roll onward, no matter who is in charge. Prove to me that's not true.
2
The Bush family's relationship with the Saudi royal family in the The Carlyle Group? Or have the Clintons joined that cozy investment group?
When the ISIS leadership were the top commanders in the Iraq Army liberals had no problem with them, asserting war against them (and similar atrocities to those they're committing now) was unwarranted. Yet, now it's totally cool.
1
The ISIS guys must be laughing their butts off. A few beheading vids and behold, the United States of America want to go to war with it. ISIS couldn't invent a better recruiting tool.
There is plenty of US hardware in various Middle East countries quite capable of putting a hurt on ISIS. If those countries want to pull the trigger, they should go right ahead. If they can't and won't, why does this somehow become an American problem?
I know this request makes the President, and by inference, the Democratic Party look "serious" when it comes to the Bushian "War on Terror," but this strikes me as complete nonsense.
If ISIS wants to overrun Iraq, so be it. The Iranians and Saudis won't stop them, so be it.
Let's concentrate on rebuilding America's infrastructure and get off this War Without End freight train that the Bushies put us on after 9/11.
It was stupid then.
It's stupid now.
There is plenty of US hardware in various Middle East countries quite capable of putting a hurt on ISIS. If those countries want to pull the trigger, they should go right ahead. If they can't and won't, why does this somehow become an American problem?
I know this request makes the President, and by inference, the Democratic Party look "serious" when it comes to the Bushian "War on Terror," but this strikes me as complete nonsense.
If ISIS wants to overrun Iraq, so be it. The Iranians and Saudis won't stop them, so be it.
Let's concentrate on rebuilding America's infrastructure and get off this War Without End freight train that the Bushies put us on after 9/11.
It was stupid then.
It's stupid now.
4
The bushies put us on and obama can't resist?
No better than Bush?
No better than Bush?
3
After 6 years in office, Obama owns US foreign policy. If he wanted to keep us out of new (non Bush) wars, he could. Libya was doing nothing to the US, directly or indirectly, and he bombed it to smithereens. The fallout of Libya's instability is still felt in Sub-Saharan Africa. Same thing with Syria, which had nothing to do with Bush. Obama wanted Assad gone, and has been fighting an illegal war since he took office. I am no fan of Bush, and am saddened to say that Obama is no better.
I am flat out opposed to any more involvement in wars. Get out of the Ukraine. It's none of our business. Get out of the Middle East. Fund solar, wind, and any other renewable, sustainable energy for individuals and businesses across the nation. Quit fighting wars for the oil and gas industries. Build mass transit that is modern. Build schools and bridges. Get out of the globalism business and quit funding the mercenaries and bring our poor children in the military back home and give them jobs rebuilding our country. Yes, tax the rich.
11
A three year campaign unless reauthorized by whoever the next president may be.
Do not like that this spans into a land of major uncertainty.
The more I think about this, the worse I think it is.
Do not like that this spans into a land of major uncertainty.
The more I think about this, the worse I think it is.
2
REINSTATE THE DRAFT. It's the only way to hold politicians accountable. They must put their own sons and daughters on the field too.
4
So the anti-war candidate is slowly morphing into yet another warrior president.
The problem with politicians who make these war decisions is that they command real men and women to wage bullet, bomb, and blood-laden conflict from the distant comfort of their executive offices on the few days that they actually show up for work, for generally very abstract reasons and vague completion criteria.
From an analytical perspective, war seems a simplistic and unlikely solution to the very complex ISIL problem, with less to gain than there is to lose. That calculus would be more effective if politicians and their families were required to put their lives on the line. Or if real people had a say in war decisions.
The problem with politicians who make these war decisions is that they command real men and women to wage bullet, bomb, and blood-laden conflict from the distant comfort of their executive offices on the few days that they actually show up for work, for generally very abstract reasons and vague completion criteria.
From an analytical perspective, war seems a simplistic and unlikely solution to the very complex ISIL problem, with less to gain than there is to lose. That calculus would be more effective if politicians and their families were required to put their lives on the line. Or if real people had a say in war decisions.
10
The precedents this legislation would establish are significant. In particular, it is specifying that ground combat forces would be limited to Special Operations "advise and assist" operations, not conventional infantry operations with brigades and divisions. This would completely transform the "roles and missions" configuration of forces deployed by the Pentagon and ultimately alter the allocation of resources away from conventional infantry and armor forces in the Army and Marine Corps.
The legislation would implicitly establish a standard that future deployments of conventional ground forces would require explicit Congressional approval, which might not be as forthcoming as the previous tacit approach embedded in the Bush-era legislation ("deploy and fund").
Geostrategically, this legislation is really saying that the U.S. is through with large scale ground combat operations in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The U.S. is not going to try to re-shape these regions through the application of military force. The U.S. will work to contain threats emanating from these regions through the application of "smart force" using containment techniques.
The legislation would implicitly establish a standard that future deployments of conventional ground forces would require explicit Congressional approval, which might not be as forthcoming as the previous tacit approach embedded in the Bush-era legislation ("deploy and fund").
Geostrategically, this legislation is really saying that the U.S. is through with large scale ground combat operations in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The U.S. is not going to try to re-shape these regions through the application of military force. The U.S. will work to contain threats emanating from these regions through the application of "smart force" using containment techniques.
2
Horrible idea. "No enduring ground forces" means they can send any number of forces anywhere in the world and stay as long as they want as long as it isn't forever. So basically no restrictions at all. Don't believe me? The last AUMF was passed in 2001 allowing the President to go after "those responsible for 9/11"...and it was used to take out Saddam and is still being used to launch drone strikes around the world against targets with zero connection to 9/11. This language has enough room for interpretation to drive a semi-truck through...and if we pass this bill they will interpret us right into the next quagmire.
5
Would avoid large scale invasion. I'm pretty sure the Hapsburg Empire heard these words in French before Napoleon went into Poland and then Hapsburg.
While never an American republican supporter they do have one thing right. Obama never learned go in big or don't go in at all.
The Middle East is a trap. Always has been. The only people this measure would be helping are the Arms Merchants
While never an American republican supporter they do have one thing right. Obama never learned go in big or don't go in at all.
The Middle East is a trap. Always has been. The only people this measure would be helping are the Arms Merchants
6
Maybe the headline should read:
Obama Captured by Neocon National Security Apparatus
Obama Captured by Neocon National Security Apparatus
15
Another war, following a needless war in and military occupation of Iraq, a needless war in Libya, needlessly supporting a wildly violent insurgency in Syria, needlessly bombing Yemen, a needless continuing military occupation of Afghanistan, we have the rationale for still another war.
What have we accomplished by these years of war? I would vote against this war, but I would likely be alone or nearly so.
What have we accomplished by these years of war? I would vote against this war, but I would likely be alone or nearly so.
132
That's right, Nancy, because Obama is nudging the dem party to where it belongs, under the bus of Patriotism.
Why? So the Mitt Romneys of this world and his five sons can dodge it with deferrals like virtually all of our Congress has?
...and the very legally equally married same sex couples! Yes, and not to mention with the cake baked for them, complete with all the fantastic imagery that a court ordered deference of American servitude can provide! Blah Blah Blah!
The days bygone of al Qaeda being the evil guys on the block seem so quaint. And ISIS will undoubtedly morph into many splinter groups as we continue bombing and killing our way to peace. Eleven years of spending who knows how many trillions on this rathole based upon blatant lies has only created more extremists. It will never end--and maybe that is the plan of the war profiteers masquerading as independent contractors.
Does Pres. Obama really in his heart of hearts believe this will solve anything? Or is it just the American way of never ending war because to do nothing would be unacceptable.
Take the trillions and spend them on all the desperately needed projects we see out our front doors every day. We are falling apart. Our streets are horrible. Our mass transit is decrepit. Our schools are inferior, our higher education debt levels unsustainable. We are broke--until it comes to war--and then we can fund it on the back of a napkin. Disgusting!
We have an enemy that is trying to destroy America and it is not ISIS. It is the Military/Security Industrial complex and it needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, too many Americans are lining their pockets on death, destruction and the abolition of our right to privacy.
Peace.
Does Pres. Obama really in his heart of hearts believe this will solve anything? Or is it just the American way of never ending war because to do nothing would be unacceptable.
Take the trillions and spend them on all the desperately needed projects we see out our front doors every day. We are falling apart. Our streets are horrible. Our mass transit is decrepit. Our schools are inferior, our higher education debt levels unsustainable. We are broke--until it comes to war--and then we can fund it on the back of a napkin. Disgusting!
We have an enemy that is trying to destroy America and it is not ISIS. It is the Military/Security Industrial complex and it needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, too many Americans are lining their pockets on death, destruction and the abolition of our right to privacy.
Peace.
269
you are 99% right but we need to get involved in this because we can contribute positively and being super power we have some responsibility we can not overlook.
It's the American way of never ending war because war makes some people very rich.
How true. I would only add that the moral issue does not rest only on how it affects Americans but on how it affects the people of the countries that the United States deems need "help."
Congress will surely approve the plan once they've had the chance to make sure the bacon is being brought back to their home districts. War and its related spending are the lifeblood for red states.
47
You mean Potus is asking Congress to actually take responsibility for something? Good luck.
6
I'm a NASA employee and I grew up in the Middle East, so the results of the president's decisions are not abstractions to me. Just last week, we received our new budget from the president which contained substantial cuts, and the impact is real: there's work that will no longer be done, and there are job openings that had to be canceled.
None of this is particularly new to us, as we are well used to working on a shoestring budget. But to see President Obama, in the same breath (politically speaking) as these cuts, propose an intentionally murky combat authorization that all but assures the US will remain at war for another decade deeply sickens me. The United States isn't going to fix the Middle East with bombs and money. The United States isn't going to instill acceptance of humanism (a debate settled hundreds of years ago in the West) in the Middle East with bombs and money. The United States isn't going to rationalize the colonial-era national borders of the Middle East with bombs and money. The only thing the United States will accomplish by dropping more bombs and wasting more money is erasing our collective potential and future in a fight that is not ours and will never be ours.
None of this is particularly new to us, as we are well used to working on a shoestring budget. But to see President Obama, in the same breath (politically speaking) as these cuts, propose an intentionally murky combat authorization that all but assures the US will remain at war for another decade deeply sickens me. The United States isn't going to fix the Middle East with bombs and money. The United States isn't going to instill acceptance of humanism (a debate settled hundreds of years ago in the West) in the Middle East with bombs and money. The United States isn't going to rationalize the colonial-era national borders of the Middle East with bombs and money. The only thing the United States will accomplish by dropping more bombs and wasting more money is erasing our collective potential and future in a fight that is not ours and will never be ours.
486
You had me until you said the you NASA employees were "well used to working on a shoestring budget".
Now there is an example of government doublespeak
Now there is an example of government doublespeak
1
Many of us Thank you!!!!
3
You forgot to mention that the Middle East will never stabilize with ISIL around, and we'll never stop being at conflict with the Middle East until they stabilize and have lives and jobs and other things to think about instead of how much they hate the country that sends robots to kill their family accidentally.
So you can be as anti-war as you want, but your politics aren't going to stop ISIL from beheading people. They are the threat Bush was trying to sell us with al-Qaeda, except they're actually trying to build a NATION of operations instead of working out of caves.
ISIL must be stopped, no matter what.
Struggle all you want, but until ISIL is gone, we're staying in the Levant.
So you can be as anti-war as you want, but your politics aren't going to stop ISIL from beheading people. They are the threat Bush was trying to sell us with al-Qaeda, except they're actually trying to build a NATION of operations instead of working out of caves.
ISIL must be stopped, no matter what.
Struggle all you want, but until ISIL is gone, we're staying in the Levant.
5
Other countries need to step up and work in partnership with the US. If this partnership is not part of the ‘deal’ then the US need to work a diplomatic avenue. We have been this frontline world policemen for too long and it’s time France, Germany and the UK step up to the plate to combating this treat and let the US assume a secondary role.
153
France and Germany were intelligent enough to stay out of our unprovoked Iraq war in the first place, why on earth would they step in now just because we have created an unimaginably worse situation there?
2
If the West stopped funding ISIS and arming them through our surrogates, then the entire "brand" - so well marketed and promoted by Hillary when she thought "we" could control them, would collapse overnight. Or until their money ran out.
But bombing people into democracy has never worked, and will continue to fail, as long as we have policy makers who are looking at their profits and bank balances, and not at those who actually have to fight and get killed for them.
But bombing people into democracy has never worked, and will continue to fail, as long as we have policy makers who are looking at their profits and bank balances, and not at those who actually have to fight and get killed for them.
1
Thomas Mann's friend described his staying in Germany during the war and everyone being mesmerized by "the sorcery of violence" which the Nazis made full use of.
This "sorcery of violence" in radical Islam has now come to include the "sorcery of sadism" as well.
The nations need to put together a coalition of 200,000 soldiers to end ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Queda, Moslem Brotherhood, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc. before they grow bigger and inspire more Muslims to become radicals.
Pussyfooting and allowing these evil terrorist groups to grow will need a world war to eliminate them at a later date.
Which bold leader will lead the way?
1
I would humbly ask that with any declaration of War, immediate steps to raise the money to pay for it through taxation be implemented.
It is anticipated that when the last casualty of the Iraq war his lived out hie/her days, the total cost of the Iraq adventure will be 3 Trillion dollars.
It should be widely ridiculed to choose military aggression and complain of debt at the same time.
The DoD budget is more than half of all spending including interest on debt.
It is anticipated that when the last casualty of the Iraq war his lived out hie/her days, the total cost of the Iraq adventure will be 3 Trillion dollars.
It should be widely ridiculed to choose military aggression and complain of debt at the same time.
The DoD budget is more than half of all spending including interest on debt.
58
Oh. Great, Obama is seeking military authority to wage war in the "Levant" --- which very conveniently can be defined as any area before or after the birth of Christ encompassing much of the Middle East and Southwester Asia possibly including Turkey, Egypt, and potentially parts of modern Iran --- and which term Levant was nicely used to define the vague area in which the "Crusades" targeted hegemony over the Islamic civilization!
Way to go Secret Agent 008 with ISIL (now we know why you kept seeding and preferring that term for ISIS, Islamic State, and Daesh) as a nice "firm but flexible" area of war operations for this next war of the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire only 'posing' as and HQed in our former country (and including other subordinate former countries variously referred to as the "community of nations", and "our allies").
Of course, you could also have conveniently used the term "GAP countries" or "Crescent of Instability" which Thomas Barnett used in his Naval War College strategy and book, "The Pentagon's New Map" (which should have been more honestly titled' "The Global Empire's New Map') promulgated as PNAC II of steroids by neocons such as Victoria 'Kagan' Nuland's husband, to control the entire 5000 mile swath from Mauritania to the very boarders of China and RUSSIA by using the 'soft and hard powers' of US superpower under the guise of "humanitarian intervention" or R2P.
"Nobody Does It Better"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNA7DcVppEs
Way to go Secret Agent 008 with ISIL (now we know why you kept seeding and preferring that term for ISIS, Islamic State, and Daesh) as a nice "firm but flexible" area of war operations for this next war of the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire only 'posing' as and HQed in our former country (and including other subordinate former countries variously referred to as the "community of nations", and "our allies").
Of course, you could also have conveniently used the term "GAP countries" or "Crescent of Instability" which Thomas Barnett used in his Naval War College strategy and book, "The Pentagon's New Map" (which should have been more honestly titled' "The Global Empire's New Map') promulgated as PNAC II of steroids by neocons such as Victoria 'Kagan' Nuland's husband, to control the entire 5000 mile swath from Mauritania to the very boarders of China and RUSSIA by using the 'soft and hard powers' of US superpower under the guise of "humanitarian intervention" or R2P.
"Nobody Does It Better"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNA7DcVppEs
5
It's totally out of control.
The American taxpayer has no say in how are money is spent.
The American taxpayer has no say in how are money is spent.
3
Mr. Schiff should consider how meaningless his concern about a lack of boundaries to restrict the actions of a future president is. The next president likely will be a Republican, particularly if the world continues to destabilize as it has for the entirety of the six years of the Obama Administration. Mrs. Clinton's role at State during much of that time of rising destabilization won't be forgotten, just as Mr. Obama's role as the primary driver behind this apparent policy of disengagement, regardless of consequences, will be remembered.
4
Mr. Luettgen,
Would you please explain how a Republican president would "stabilize the world"?
Some of us actually remember when George W. Bush was in office. The US economy fell apart, causing economic crises still being felt around the world. Remember 9/11 when terrorists flew into both World Trade Centers and took them to the ground, crashed into the Pentagon (that poster child of the Republican military-industrial complex) , and caused hundreds of brave passengers to lose their lives trying to stop the terrorists on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? Do you recall the "destabilization" in this country after that? I do and what I feared more than anything was not that Bush was Republican, but whether or not he was sober.
Further, all the freebies for Christian Churches and religious schools (under the guise of charitable deductions) were handed out like candy under Bush (checked with your CPA lately?). And the nightmare of Bush gave us a Supreme Court whose only loyalty is not to the law, or even the people, but to the corporations and the powers-that-be. How destabilizing is that in a democracy?
No, Mr. Luettgen, I do not subscribe to your theory that Obama destabilized the world (still waiting for actual facts) or that a Republican - ANY Republican - would "stabilize the world" or make it a better place for anyone at all.
Would you please explain how a Republican president would "stabilize the world"?
Some of us actually remember when George W. Bush was in office. The US economy fell apart, causing economic crises still being felt around the world. Remember 9/11 when terrorists flew into both World Trade Centers and took them to the ground, crashed into the Pentagon (that poster child of the Republican military-industrial complex) , and caused hundreds of brave passengers to lose their lives trying to stop the terrorists on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? Do you recall the "destabilization" in this country after that? I do and what I feared more than anything was not that Bush was Republican, but whether or not he was sober.
Further, all the freebies for Christian Churches and religious schools (under the guise of charitable deductions) were handed out like candy under Bush (checked with your CPA lately?). And the nightmare of Bush gave us a Supreme Court whose only loyalty is not to the law, or even the people, but to the corporations and the powers-that-be. How destabilizing is that in a democracy?
No, Mr. Luettgen, I do not subscribe to your theory that Obama destabilized the world (still waiting for actual facts) or that a Republican - ANY Republican - would "stabilize the world" or make it a better place for anyone at all.
1
Leesey:
Primarily by studying what Barack Obama did during at least his first six years, and quite probably his entire eight, and do precisely the opposite.
And some of US remember JFK's assassination, and when LBJ was in office; so recalling Dubya's tenure isn't much of a stretch.
You should note that despite the difficulties inherent in sharing information in this country before the Patriot Act, 9/11 largely was a failure of intelligence and the muscle behind its follow-up. That happened because Bill Clinton eviscerated our armed and intelligence services, the same way that Jimmy Carter did. Mr. Obama tried, but inherited a War on Terrorism and wasn't quite able to do the same thing, although he's been mightily trying -- at least with our armed forces.
You should also note that Dubya was a teetoler since long before he was elected our president, and that after 9/11, there wasn't another successful act of terrorism on our soil for the remainder of his presidency, although there were many attempts. The same can't be said of EVERY president who has succeeded him.
I'd break off talks with Iran and re-invoke sanctions. I'd get very close to Central America, and to Mexico and South America generally, using money to buy preference, and use our influence to tamp down destabilizing influences. I'd back off this curious rapprochement with Castro's Cuba and I'd make it clear to Vladimir Putin that there's a red-line that for once we'd enforce, but it wouldn't include Ukraine.
Primarily by studying what Barack Obama did during at least his first six years, and quite probably his entire eight, and do precisely the opposite.
And some of US remember JFK's assassination, and when LBJ was in office; so recalling Dubya's tenure isn't much of a stretch.
You should note that despite the difficulties inherent in sharing information in this country before the Patriot Act, 9/11 largely was a failure of intelligence and the muscle behind its follow-up. That happened because Bill Clinton eviscerated our armed and intelligence services, the same way that Jimmy Carter did. Mr. Obama tried, but inherited a War on Terrorism and wasn't quite able to do the same thing, although he's been mightily trying -- at least with our armed forces.
You should also note that Dubya was a teetoler since long before he was elected our president, and that after 9/11, there wasn't another successful act of terrorism on our soil for the remainder of his presidency, although there were many attempts. The same can't be said of EVERY president who has succeeded him.
I'd break off talks with Iran and re-invoke sanctions. I'd get very close to Central America, and to Mexico and South America generally, using money to buy preference, and use our influence to tamp down destabilizing influences. I'd back off this curious rapprochement with Castro's Cuba and I'd make it clear to Vladimir Putin that there's a red-line that for once we'd enforce, but it wouldn't include Ukraine.
This request by Obama is an admission that his prior actions were unconstitutional … not that he cares about the law anyway. I am confused by his and Rice's recent speeches which argued that the world is a safe place and all the dangers are a creation of the media. So, if ISIS poses no threat, why does he need this authorization? Either he is a liar or he is an incompetent liar. Not all of us are as stupid as those who voted for him.
6
They were not unconstitutional, congress told him. The war powers act they signed so bush could evade Iraq is still in force, which is why congress did nothing about this mess. The President is trying to get the old act cancelled and a new limited one put in its place.
Perhaps we should just send in some military "advisors"......look how well that worked out in Viet Nam.......Surely the Pentagon needs another way to spend all of that huge budget. Military Advisors I say!!!!!
5
Voting for Obama in 2008 now turns out to be the worst thing I ever did. By 2012 this was apparent, but there was not another choice and so I stayed home and didn't vote. He can't count that as support for stupid endeavors like this. It's time he starts his high-paid speeches, begins his foundation and becomes ungodly wealthy like Bill Clinton so that we can be rid of him. Bring on the next buffoon, please.
11
Saudis have the 4th highest defense budget on earth. Let THEM defend their interests, it's their throats ISIS wants to cut. Instead we enable their cutting of the cost of oil in order to hurt a Russian regime that is simply supporting people who want out from under a repressive government in Ukraine. This is foreign policy on it's head.
I've been watching film from Ukraine, the Kiev government is committing war crimes against their own people, shelling innocent civilian housing, destroying the means of living for the people in the Donbass region.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/07/powerful-documentary-on-the-peop...
I can only hope Obama is misinformed here, not complicit.
This President is supporting the war criminal Poroshenko in Ukraine, and wants the US to do the heavy lifting for the Saudis. Figure that one out.
I've been watching film from Ukraine, the Kiev government is committing war crimes against their own people, shelling innocent civilian housing, destroying the means of living for the people in the Donbass region.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/07/powerful-documentary-on-the-peop...
I can only hope Obama is misinformed here, not complicit.
This President is supporting the war criminal Poroshenko in Ukraine, and wants the US to do the heavy lifting for the Saudis. Figure that one out.
30
So, has anyone come forward to explain EXACTLY how the US will FUND 4 wars at once? I am still waiting for the media to ask that question, and for anyone from either party to answer it.
268
China's rulers must love it; that we can't help ourselves from bleeding away our young people and sinking our money in another bottomless pit.
On the backs of the American middle class as usual.
And of course cut more of the measly safety net of the poor.
And of course cut more of the measly safety net of the poor.
3
On the backs of the American middle class as usual.
And of course, cut more of the measley safety net from the poor.
And of course, cut more of the measley safety net from the poor.
If we are going to do this, we need to do it right. Get in there and destroy them as fast as possible and get the damn thing over with once and for all.
We can't fight this like we have been fighting in Iraq and Afganistan.
We have to destroy their will to fight. The only way to do that is to make it so it is not worth fighting.
We can't fight this like we have been fighting in Iraq and Afganistan.
We have to destroy their will to fight. The only way to do that is to make it so it is not worth fighting.
2
Afghanistan, Iraq and ISIL (ISIS, The New Caliphate).
"Jamais deux sans trois" French
"Nido aru koto wa sando aru" Japanese
"Bog truitsu liubit" Russian
Never two without three - events which happened twice very often lead to a third, wars having a tendency to repeat themselves.
"Jamais deux sans trois" French
"Nido aru koto wa sando aru" Japanese
"Bog truitsu liubit" Russian
Never two without three - events which happened twice very often lead to a third, wars having a tendency to repeat themselves.
1
I think Obama just killed any remaining leverage that he had, his presidency, and his party's chances next election.
By saying that he wants to increase military presence in a limited role, he gives the Republican Congress two very valuable options, neither of which are good for Obama:
1. Congress denies Obama's proposal and pushes for a full-fledged war.
Since Republicans know Obama wants to increase military action, but Republicans want even more military action, this is the most probable option. If Obama says no, he's back to square one. If Obama says yes, he just started a war on a level that he, presumably, did not want, and that Democrats nationwide definitely did not want.
2. Congress denies Obama's current proposal and pushes for no war.
Since Republicans know Obama wants to increase military action, they could go directly against him and completely flip the script. Republicans are now the party of peace and Democrats are now the party of war. Obama would get nothing.
The third and final option is that Republicans accept Obama's proposal as is. Given the logjam and the power they have, I highly doubt that happens, but it is possible.
Obama should have either stuck to his guns about playing an indirect part in the ISIS conflict or gone all out and proposed a more complete war as a compromise to the Republican Congress for passing sweeping changes at home. I, obviously, prefer the indirect role.
He lost all leverage and will gain nothing from this. Bad move.
By saying that he wants to increase military presence in a limited role, he gives the Republican Congress two very valuable options, neither of which are good for Obama:
1. Congress denies Obama's proposal and pushes for a full-fledged war.
Since Republicans know Obama wants to increase military action, but Republicans want even more military action, this is the most probable option. If Obama says no, he's back to square one. If Obama says yes, he just started a war on a level that he, presumably, did not want, and that Democrats nationwide definitely did not want.
2. Congress denies Obama's current proposal and pushes for no war.
Since Republicans know Obama wants to increase military action, they could go directly against him and completely flip the script. Republicans are now the party of peace and Democrats are now the party of war. Obama would get nothing.
The third and final option is that Republicans accept Obama's proposal as is. Given the logjam and the power they have, I highly doubt that happens, but it is possible.
Obama should have either stuck to his guns about playing an indirect part in the ISIS conflict or gone all out and proposed a more complete war as a compromise to the Republican Congress for passing sweeping changes at home. I, obviously, prefer the indirect role.
He lost all leverage and will gain nothing from this. Bad move.
2
I'm no expert, but virtually no commenters here indicate much familiarity with the larger strategic geopolitical context into which any discussion of ISIS must be placed. ISIS is horrific and significant, a jihadist Islamist terrorist pseudo-state, if you will, with resources and staying power, though mostly led, behind the scenes, by Saddam's old henchmen, who are hardly deeply religious. It is hardly the only such threat to the U.S. Iran and its surrogates, Hezbollah, especially, are still the number one exporters of terrorism in the region and worldwide -- so says the U.S. State Dep't. across Administrations. Obama has been secret deal-making with Iran's mullahs through backchannels (and maybe more directly) for a while now, seeking to trade bestowing of legitimacy and regional power status upon Iran for its coordinated help in vanquishing their mutual enemy ISIS, with a nuclear weaponry "compromise" bone -- Iran gets to keep its capacities with a promise to not weaponize, for now -- thrown in. Obama's approach is, of course, highly concerning to a broad range of people in the know -- not just Israel, but those from the right to the moderate within the Administration, in the American polity, and around the world. Obama's going to Congress for limited authorization is really but a few pixels comprising a small part of the larger picture.
29
Iran has a young and educated population. Eventually these young, educated people will assume powere there. We should talk with them, normalize relationships ... And let THEM and their neighbors handle IS..AND Saudi Arabia (they are NOT our friends.)
3
Most of the commenters DO get the larger strategic geopolitical context.
The USA helped create ISIS in the first place.
Read 'Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein.
The USA helped create ISIS in the first place.
Read 'Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein.
5
Your case fell apart at "needs Iran's support to vanquish ISIS". ISIL has almost zero real support and is reviled by the international community. They don't even have the support of al-Qaeda of which they were just an offshoot. We don't have to pussyfoot around Iran on this one and the only real reason to do so is to IMPROVE relations with Iran, who also see ISIL as a threat, even if they irritate a common enemy.
So now that we have common ground, we're working together, but to you it's back-dealing? Sounds like traditionally hypocritical international politics to me.
So now that we have common ground, we're working together, but to you it's back-dealing? Sounds like traditionally hypocritical international politics to me.
2
Now that should be something that the G.O.P. could agree upon. But I may be wrong because it has been put forth by President Obama.
4
ISIS should be treated as maritime pirates were treated in former centuries --all hands against them.
BUT the US should not act on our own--- following Congressional approval, we should go to the UN for a resolution and a true coalition, and not a faux coalition. It must include a significant contribution from Islamic nations. It would be best if we participated, but did not 'lead from in front,"
Without that, and without prior Congressional approval, we are only once more headed into the mire, with predictable consequences at home and abroad.
BUT the US should not act on our own--- following Congressional approval, we should go to the UN for a resolution and a true coalition, and not a faux coalition. It must include a significant contribution from Islamic nations. It would be best if we participated, but did not 'lead from in front,"
Without that, and without prior Congressional approval, we are only once more headed into the mire, with predictable consequences at home and abroad.
6
He says he is not required to go to before the people (Congress) to send people to die in a war against a group (ISIS) that barely existed when Hillary voted to invade Iraq and he has all the authority he needs to go it alone.
Then Congress should write him a letter and say, "We disagree with the proposition that one man can send our kids to die in a war without consulting with the people's representatives. But we wish all 'Good Luck' in your fight against ISIS.'
Then Congress should write him a letter and say, "We disagree with the proposition that one man can send our kids to die in a war without consulting with the people's representatives. But we wish all 'Good Luck' in your fight against ISIS.'
3
Nooooo!
Pity Obama isn't old enough to remember Korea or Vietnam. It's a trap. The Big Muddy. And this retired career Army officer (who voted for Obama twice) is recommending "Don't Do it!"
What he should be asking for is a Constitutional Amendment stating "Though shalt not ever fight in anyone else's Civil War." Period.
It isn't about us. It never was. It's about Sunni vs Shiites. Let them duke it out.
Pity Obama isn't old enough to remember Korea or Vietnam. It's a trap. The Big Muddy. And this retired career Army officer (who voted for Obama twice) is recommending "Don't Do it!"
What he should be asking for is a Constitutional Amendment stating "Though shalt not ever fight in anyone else's Civil War." Period.
It isn't about us. It never was. It's about Sunni vs Shiites. Let them duke it out.
113
It is certainly more than a dispute between two Muslim sects -ISIS is at war against the modern world of the west as well, if not more so. It would appear is comprised of thugs with little regard for religious differences. Everything else you say is quite true.
I am old enough to remember Vietnam and Korea (married to a Vietnam paramedic for more than twenty years and I saw firsthand what it did to him. He is no longer living thanks to Agent Orange. And he was just about to receive his disability benefits I am sad to say.
IF and that is a big IF we get involved then we had better be allowed to win. Our country never allows our soldiers to win and they are punished if they act like soldiers when they are in combat by a court-martial when and/if they return home. War is war - as in wipe them out and if there is collateral damage then let it be on the enemies side, not ours. I am sick of wars that never end and our soldiers are not allowed to win.
Just say NO Obama. Let the warmongers wail and do their war dance. Ignore them. We have had enough years of sacrificing our loved ones. Let someone else in some other country do it. I am so angry right now I can't even remember my own name. Just furious.
IF and that is a big IF we get involved then we had better be allowed to win. Our country never allows our soldiers to win and they are punished if they act like soldiers when they are in combat by a court-martial when and/if they return home. War is war - as in wipe them out and if there is collateral damage then let it be on the enemies side, not ours. I am sick of wars that never end and our soldiers are not allowed to win.
Just say NO Obama. Let the warmongers wail and do their war dance. Ignore them. We have had enough years of sacrificing our loved ones. Let someone else in some other country do it. I am so angry right now I can't even remember my own name. Just furious.
1
So very well said….and thank you for your service to your country.
I truly did not think anything could ever top the fraud that was Bush & Cheney creating the War in Iraq out of thin air, but if we end up in another war in the Middle East on behalf of Barack Obama, then I will be forced to move him to the top of the list.
There is not a soul in this country who voted for Obama and wants us fighting another war, particularly a war that cannot be won due to the nature of wars against non-sovereign entities and requires a PhD in international relations to be able to draw the connection to American interests.
There may be better overall reason to go to war against ISIS than there was to go to war in Iraq -- ISIS is clearly a brutal group and a plague to society -- but those of us who like (and voted for) Obama never in our wildest dreams expected him to go to war unless it was absolutely necessary whereas none of us really thought twice about Bush wanting to go to war, especially after 9/11.
Our expectations for Obama are so vastly different from those for Bush that Obama pulling a Bush move hurts exponentially worse.
Because of this expectation that Obama would not go to war unless there was truly a direct threat to America, Obama starting another indirect war in the Middle East means he goes down as the biggest fraud in the history of the United States of America. Plain and simple.
Not a religious man, but I pray this does not happen. And that's before dealing with the consequences of the actual war itself...
There is not a soul in this country who voted for Obama and wants us fighting another war, particularly a war that cannot be won due to the nature of wars against non-sovereign entities and requires a PhD in international relations to be able to draw the connection to American interests.
There may be better overall reason to go to war against ISIS than there was to go to war in Iraq -- ISIS is clearly a brutal group and a plague to society -- but those of us who like (and voted for) Obama never in our wildest dreams expected him to go to war unless it was absolutely necessary whereas none of us really thought twice about Bush wanting to go to war, especially after 9/11.
Our expectations for Obama are so vastly different from those for Bush that Obama pulling a Bush move hurts exponentially worse.
Because of this expectation that Obama would not go to war unless there was truly a direct threat to America, Obama starting another indirect war in the Middle East means he goes down as the biggest fraud in the history of the United States of America. Plain and simple.
Not a religious man, but I pray this does not happen. And that's before dealing with the consequences of the actual war itself...
22
Since the concept of War - in the traditional sense that the world once knew it as - has totally become obscured and indefinable, won't then be a War Resolution be as equally obscure an undefinable so as for all practicable purpose be rendered as moot and totally superficial and in name only?
Any resolution will in essence just be setting "Bombs Away!" to autopilot because no one really can figure anything out anymore nor really cares to try.
Any resolution will in essence just be setting "Bombs Away!" to autopilot because no one really can figure anything out anymore nor really cares to try.
1
Isn't it about time some of our "allies" step up their contribution to ending the Islamic State threat? I think the US needs to pull in its horns and let the neighboring countries in the middle east deal with this.
We've already wasted enough lives and tax payers money since 9/11 with little or nothing to show for it.
We've already wasted enough lives and tax payers money since 9/11 with little or nothing to show for it.
108
Up to and including Merkel, Yanucovych, Mubarak, and Netanyahu we have burned our allies.
Yes, where are our "allies"? Thousands of European "citizens" are flocking the ISIS standard (admittedly, a few of our own have gone), but the USA is again in the role of calling for action. Then, there are our middle eastern "allies". They're more concerned about not offending their Muslim brothers than anything else. Yes, Shiites hate Sunnis, and, vice versa, but, both hate the West even more.
1
And then the critics say "why isn't the President doing anything? The US is no longer a leader!". And then he announces this and Congress says that they'll need to hold hearings, after saying that he didn't even need their approval. It's a no-win situation all around. I do agree with your post -- let someone else pay for it this time.
Mr Obama can't even SAY Islamic extremism. He called the shooting of Jews in Paris a 'random shooting'. He calls them ISIL because he refuses to use the 'S' for Syria.
How can he fight an enemy that he can't even admit exists?
Obama is going to bring PC sensibilities to a gun fight and a LOT of people will die unnecessarily because of it.
How can he fight an enemy that he can't even admit exists?
Obama is going to bring PC sensibilities to a gun fight and a LOT of people will die unnecessarily because of it.
22
Wrong on all counts. No Americans are dying because he's letting locals handle the gun fight.
1
What an idiotic thing to say. Was the IRA called Catholic extremists? Did we call Jim Jones' Koolaid mass killing Christian extremism? Or the Davidian Branch holed up (and set on fire) in Waco, TX Christian extremism? No, we did not and I think it is equally wrong to call ISIS Muslim extremists. Broaden your mind and try to see some equal equivalency here.
1
If you think ISIS' public relations director is going to fight a serious war against them, you're delusional.
2
"a three-year military campaign against the terrorist group the Islamic State that would avoid a large-scale invasion and occupation but in addition to air power could include limited ground operations by American forces to hunt down enemy leaders or rescue American personnel." Didn't Dempsey say that 300,000 troops were needed to exterminate this? This is a proposal with no solution. How asinine.
22
"As the massive US-led air campaign plows ahead, the nation’s top military chief says it will take 15,000 ground troops to wipe out ISIS in Syria."
NY Post, September 27, 2014
Care to tell us where you saw the 300,000 troop figure"
NY Post, September 27, 2014
Care to tell us where you saw the 300,000 troop figure"
It is time for President Obama to call for restarting the military draft. We can no longer rely on volunteers. It is time for the citizen soldier to accept the call to arms!
54
That is THE BEST IDEA re all this idiotic freewheeling war making on the part of this supposedly progressive President. A draft puts the option of wasteful war into the people's hands.
3
A draft with NO exemptions for the rich
9
Yes, yes, yes!!!! Jimmy, you are right. Our war-weary vets cannot keep going back over and over again. We need fresh blood and lots of it to enter the military and fight.
One note - I agree with another writer who said those in Congress who vote YES on war should be the first to volunteer along with their children or family members. I am all for it. John McCain served his country. If we have senators and congress members young enough to serve they must take a leave of absence and join the military. If those members are too old to serve but they have children who are old enough to serve, they must go first. Pull them out of college and force them to join the armed forces and serve our country. This goes for females as well as males. No gender discrimination! What's good for men is good for women.
Our politicians and 1% elitists need skin in the game.
One note - I agree with another writer who said those in Congress who vote YES on war should be the first to volunteer along with their children or family members. I am all for it. John McCain served his country. If we have senators and congress members young enough to serve they must take a leave of absence and join the military. If those members are too old to serve but they have children who are old enough to serve, they must go first. Pull them out of college and force them to join the armed forces and serve our country. This goes for females as well as males. No gender discrimination! What's good for men is good for women.
Our politicians and 1% elitists need skin in the game.
6
Sigh. Well, I guess that we all must congratulate the President and Congress on being willing to go on the record and make some formal declaration. Now all the nitpicking comments will begin and the big picture will be missed as usual. The national security military industrial complex will win again and we will keep on killing Muslims.
We have been fighting and killing Muslims since the 1990's. Does anyone notice victory in sight? (For the moment, let's ignore that the USA has been in a state of continual war with the world since 1941.)
Are we more secure? Are we no longer losing American soldiers, contractors, and civilians in the Middle East? Are we spending less on our national security military industrial complex? Have we stopped taking our belts and shoes off at airports? Nearly twenty years of this so far and counting?
So, what to do? Remove all troops, cia killers, contract killers, and assorted 'black forces' from the Middle East. The Muslims will stop killing and threatening us. That is all they have ever wanted. They believe that our culture is the devil and we are not going to change either our culture or their beliefs in this regard.
Probably people reading this are chuckling. But if you think about the past and the probable future, what else can we do? Give peace a chance. War is not working for us, is it?
We have been fighting and killing Muslims since the 1990's. Does anyone notice victory in sight? (For the moment, let's ignore that the USA has been in a state of continual war with the world since 1941.)
Are we more secure? Are we no longer losing American soldiers, contractors, and civilians in the Middle East? Are we spending less on our national security military industrial complex? Have we stopped taking our belts and shoes off at airports? Nearly twenty years of this so far and counting?
So, what to do? Remove all troops, cia killers, contract killers, and assorted 'black forces' from the Middle East. The Muslims will stop killing and threatening us. That is all they have ever wanted. They believe that our culture is the devil and we are not going to change either our culture or their beliefs in this regard.
Probably people reading this are chuckling. But if you think about the past and the probable future, what else can we do? Give peace a chance. War is not working for us, is it?
79
All we have to do to avoid having to take off belts and shoes is to pattern our airport security after Israel. It's also obvious from your comment that you don't believe there are sleeper cells already in place here in the States. Sure hope you're right.
1
If you truly believe what you just posted have I got a deal for you. 100 acres of pristine oceanfront property just east of Yuma AZ. for a mere $100,000 certified funds accepted.
2
Greg, we did not seek this war. We were attacked on 9-11 and many other times before and since. While we are not secure we are surely more secure than we would be if we retreated into Fortress America. How did that work for us in 1941? Don't count on diminished airport security as long as there are those who hijack or place a bomb on civilian aircraft. This is not a war against Islam but it is a war against Islamic extremists who murder in Paris, murder in London, bomb trains in Spain, attack police in Queens, N.Y., murder in Belgium and behead and burn alive innocents. It is also worth noting that in thousands of years of recorded history there have been 200 years of peace. For eternal peace human nature must change. Don't count on it.
1
Obama can send over the DHS they have billions of hollow point bullets to fight them with.
4
Per the constitution--Congress is tasked with declaring a war. It's about time that congress does its job.
While they are at it they also need to do the following:
Institute a draft
Raise taxes to pay for it
State what the goals and end purpose are.
While they are at it they also need to do the following:
Institute a draft
Raise taxes to pay for it
State what the goals and end purpose are.
49
Why don't the hawks in and out of this Administration explain EXACTLY where the money to fund 5 wars at once is going to come from?
11
I'm a liberal (putting it mildly.) Obama's fascination with playing his military hand is understandable, as President you have no grander toy, especially when the government in general is against you. While a plausible idea, I've yet to see it be worthwhile for America. So how to proceed?
Two days ago Sen Bernie Sanders gave a policy speech for C-Span that covered all the bases America currently finds herself trying to round, from paying for college to jobs to our oligarchy, including ISIS. Sen Sanders said that he will have ISIS destroyed, but at the expense of the locals, particularly the Saudis, not at the expense of the US taxpayer.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324250-1/senator-bernie-sanders-ivt-economi...
This brilliant talk was summarily ignored by all the media outlets as per usual, they had important things to consider like whether a TV talking head would keep his contract.
Two days ago Sen Bernie Sanders gave a policy speech for C-Span that covered all the bases America currently finds herself trying to round, from paying for college to jobs to our oligarchy, including ISIS. Sen Sanders said that he will have ISIS destroyed, but at the expense of the locals, particularly the Saudis, not at the expense of the US taxpayer.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324250-1/senator-bernie-sanders-ivt-economi...
This brilliant talk was summarily ignored by all the media outlets as per usual, they had important things to consider like whether a TV talking head would keep his contract.
206
Agreed. It is nearly criminal that Sen Sanders doesn't get anywhere near the coverage as some candidate's silly blooper. If more people would pay attention to Sen Sanders, they would hear that he lays out what most US people want. There's not a false note in anything he has to say.
Why does the Administration once again try to cheat on national security issues by language such as "enduring offensive ground forces" and not repealing previous authorizations? This dishonesty robs a Congressional resolution of any validity -- it would be just a fig leaf for an authoritarian Executive. If Obama wants Congressional approval for some uses of ground forces, let him spell them out in legislation and sunset all US filibustering around the world. He can do that. Otherwise Congress should feel used.
14
And if Obama's ISIS strategy goes dreadfully wrong, you will forever hear "The Republicans approved of it, so they're guilty too"
3
Sounds like a three year version of sand lot kickball.
Sun's going down, time to quit and declare someone the winner
Sun's going down, time to quit and declare someone the winner
6
Since President Obama follows his own agenda, we'll know just how much trouble we're in if American assets start staging in Iran.
I'm not comfortable cozying up with a country that's leaders time and time again call for the death of every American man, woman and child as Iran has called for.
While I'm proud Obama has decided to put boots on the ground, giving him any special powers that aren't vetted by congress could be a monumental mistake, I only say this because Obama REFUSES to follow the will of the American people and does what he wants.
Sadly we have ended up with a president that history will remember as a one of the shadiest presidents ever to be elected.
Its sad as most hoped for better when he was elected.
I'm not comfortable cozying up with a country that's leaders time and time again call for the death of every American man, woman and child as Iran has called for.
While I'm proud Obama has decided to put boots on the ground, giving him any special powers that aren't vetted by congress could be a monumental mistake, I only say this because Obama REFUSES to follow the will of the American people and does what he wants.
Sadly we have ended up with a president that history will remember as a one of the shadiest presidents ever to be elected.
Its sad as most hoped for better when he was elected.
4
That's his MO.
2
I am thankful for President Obama requesting Congress' approval. It's the right thing to do. It's part of the US Constitution.
I only ask that if we do go to war, that those who vote for war and their children will be the first to volunteer.
I only ask that if we do go to war, that those who vote for war and their children will be the first to volunteer.
439
I can improve on that tired notion. I ask we have a draft of all eligible citizens. Your way facilitates a war, my way facilitates preventing it.
9
That is why I would like to see the military draft restarted so that all have the chance to go and fight. Each community would then take an active interest in the wars their drafted children were fighting.
5
The only realistic disincentive to war, if that's what you're looking for, would be to reinstitute the draft. And even then you would have to make it so there would be no exemptions.
6
Obama made a mistake. He should have asked for a no-force resolution and the GOP would immediately have proposed a war powers resolution expiring in 3 years. Obama needs to understand that the GOP does not have an opinion other than the opposite of whatever he wants.
42
Oh, stop it... stop it. Obama isn't going to "take on" anything but the fabric of American sensibilities. He's already shredded them to rags.
14
Wow! On 62 million voters disagree! In that "shredded" sensibilities are protections against health insurance dropping coverage, expanded services, the longest period of sustained job growth in our country's history, the doubling of the Dow, the ending of war (which is about to return!) Did you forget these and other achievements; do they not count, or against evidence, you prefer to believe the choices in your own looking glass?
9
"There will be a new president in two years. And this authorization would go into that new presidency."
I think the authorization is warranted. But Hillary Clinton as a war-time president? That possibility really gives me pause.
I think the authorization is warranted. But Hillary Clinton as a war-time president? That possibility really gives me pause.
13
Yes, but I am more afraid that every president is going to be "war-time" tested from now to eternity.
1
Weapons of mass destruction are now characterized as "unconventional weapons." I guess this is "history" in the making, right before our eyes.
4
Wait, is this the same president who regularly ignores Congress and acts unilaterally by executive order? Cynics and skeptics would be correct to believe that Obama is seeking the cover of congressional approval should military action eventually end up being the only option to ISIS beheadings of American citizens. That way he can blame Congress when he fails to do anything except to send in a few drones or bombers while ISIS continues to wreak mayhem and death.
8
You recall that Reagan issued more executive orders than any president in the last 30 years, right? And the ACA was signed into law under the legislative process with Congress' participation. Just because you disagree with Obama's politics does not mean he skirts every check and balance.
36
No, he asks Congress over and over and over and over, and tells the public tell Congress send me a bill, while being truthful about the types of bills that will be met with vetos, so there's no waste of time, and that's on domestic issues, deep into his second term, he took lawful actions to make sense of Congress' immigration chaos (despite Congressional accusations of "unlawfulness," they have done nothing to follow up which means they are selling wolf tickets so others will repeat the errors as truth.
This is war, however. It's different than domestic policy, with a history or executive actions by other Presidents. War means putting American lives at risk, in harm's way.
Isn't it important we don't become so cynical that we no longer acknowledge the difference? Don't you agree?
This is war, however. It's different than domestic policy, with a history or executive actions by other Presidents. War means putting American lives at risk, in harm's way.
Isn't it important we don't become so cynical that we no longer acknowledge the difference? Don't you agree?
9
Obama is a slow learner.
4
President Obama is about to play the war card.
2
I guess that is all America knows is wars. Without war America is a useless dump. We can't afford anymore wars.
14
As usual, our only solution to the horrible events in the Middle East is a military one. I guarantee it will do nothing but exacerbate the situation there as well as here at home. Just this morning, we are learning that three very promising Muslim students have been murdered (execution-style) at UNC- Chapel Hill (which is my alma mater). While the initial reports indicate that the incident may be related to a dispute over a parking space, it seems pretty likely to me that the perpetrator was motivated by some type of irrational hatred of Islam and Muslims. I'm not at all surprised this happened, especially since "American Sniper" is the most popular film right now. Sadly, we seem to be heading down a very dark road again, and I fear what lies ahead for all of us.
69
According to Faux news, we've declared war on Syria. Not exactly the same thing...but I guess they're just words.
6
"Faux news"...you mean NBC reported that we're at war with Syria??
3
John Boehner was one of the first to sign onto "Enduring Freedom." The difference is skin color.
2
A little late to the fight against the JV team as he put it because he has never been a student of history or else he would have understood that pulling troops would leave a power vacuum, filled by ISIS.
7
How about the history of getting bogged down in decade-long quagmires that only make things worse?
6
Absolutely! He caused this whole mess. We will see how long it takes to admit that. He pulled the troops way too soon without any plan for the vacuum. Remember his enthusiasm for the "Arab Spring?" How 'bout that?
3
Monday morning quarterbacking is great after the fact. None of the world's intelligence services, even those closer to the scene in Europe, saw ISIL as a major emerging player; the truth is intelligence is not predictive or prophesy, it is reactive. And let's not oversimplify difficult, intertwined connections and choices the sake of easy criticism that advances blame without a thought given to forward progress.
3
Don't fall for it. This is how we always get into these 10 year wars. If it is important enough let the other western nations join in as FULL participants.
121
Correction: 15 to 20 year wars. Probably 30 year wars, if the planet lasts that long.
7
And if they don't or won't, what then? Shall we abandon our principles based on what other countries do? I ask this as a left-leaning moderate. I was against Bush's Iraq war. I wish it never happened, but it did, and so it's hard not to recall Colin Powell's warning: we break it, we own it. We still own a large part of that mess in Iraq whether the paperwork says so or not.
After courageous Kurds, aided by some volunteer American veterans, retake Kabane from ISIL without his help, President Obama decides, once again, to lead from behind.
The world has watched these terrorists slaughter and persecute men, women and children in their occupied territories for months without serious response from the U.S. One has to wonder what "red line" these murderers finally crossed to warrant the President's attention.
The world has watched these terrorists slaughter and persecute men, women and children in their occupied territories for months without serious response from the U.S. One has to wonder what "red line" these murderers finally crossed to warrant the President's attention.
13
It became politically attractive
3
Wait, ISIL is an existential threat to the Kurds, Jordanians, Saudis, Syrians, etc. etc.. It is NOT an existential threat to the U.S.. So explain to me again why we should be leading from the front instead of letting those who are directly threatened by the group shed blood and treasure before we do.
4
So what has POTUS Obama been doing without Congressional authority to fight ISIS/ISIL/DAIESH?
And how many America's are going to volunteer to put themselves in harm's way to fight?
So far Congress has done nothing to stop POTUS Obama. And only .75% of Americans have joined the military since the beginning of the "war on terror.
And how many America's are going to volunteer to put themselves in harm's way to fight?
So far Congress has done nothing to stop POTUS Obama. And only .75% of Americans have joined the military since the beginning of the "war on terror.
5
So the kindergarten commander in chief is going to take on the Junior Varsity?
10
Jeremy:
You said in your piece that the reason Bush cited for the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Iraq (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) had been discredited. The Pentagon about three months ago announced that they had indeed found stashes of WMD in Iraq and the Times and others printed it. Why the "discredited" mention in your piece?
You said in your piece that the reason Bush cited for the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Iraq (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) had been discredited. The Pentagon about three months ago announced that they had indeed found stashes of WMD in Iraq and the Times and others printed it. Why the "discredited" mention in your piece?
9
They always fail to mention the other reasons for the conflict with Iraq/Saddam Hussein. Hussein supported terrorism, ethnic cleansing, Hussein's continued attacks on coalition forces, and the fear of a greater Middle East war. Clinton used ethnic cleansing and the fear of a greater European war to attack Yugoslavia. But the war against Yugoslavia was a "good" war and fully justifiable.
2
It was discredited because the only WMD found in Iraq were chemical/nerve agents from the 1980s that we (the US, in conjunction with the UK and other western powers) provided to Saddam in order to shore up Iraq's military capabilities in the Iran-Iraq war. We already knew about these aging, decrepit weapons because we ourselves gave them to him.
But the 2003 Iraq invasion was not launched on the basis of these weapons. The Bush administration justified that war on the pretext that Saddam had a renewed, active WMD program. It was this claim that was discredited and proved false, perhaps deliberately misleading.
But the 2003 Iraq invasion was not launched on the basis of these weapons. The Bush administration justified that war on the pretext that Saddam had a renewed, active WMD program. It was this claim that was discredited and proved false, perhaps deliberately misleading.
39
The found "stashes" 14 years after the invasion?
5