Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama to ask for war authorization against ISIS

Obama to ask for war authorization against ISIS

Have we reached a turning point?

The White House is nearly ready to send to Congress a piece of legislation that would formally authorize the use of military force against ISIS. This new legislation would expand on provisions provided in the 2002 authorization for military action in Iraq, which only covers portions of the current mission.

Via CBS News:

The State Department, Defense Department, National Security Council and the White House Office of Legal Counsel have all participated in the drafting of the document, which outlines the military goals and strategy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and would seek formal, legal authorization for the mission and other counter-terrorism operations related to the effort.

This would be the first move by Congress and the White House to give legal backing to the military effort to degrade and destroy ISIS and represent the first update to US military strategy in a post-9/11 world since the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks.

This major move comes at a time when many analysts are seeing a change in how coalition forces are responding to the threat ISIS poses both in the Middle East, and across the world. Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill believes that the “tide is turning” against ISIS.

At around 2:35, Shepard Smith mentions that Americans’ main concern is that ISIS is “coming to get us.” I don’t think this is necessarily true; at least, not anymore.

What we’ve seen over the past few weeks wasn’t a “collective freakout.” Jordan’s 56 airstrikes certainly don’t amount to such. The collective freakout happened after the first beheading; most people don’t follow foreign policy, which means that most people had never seen anything like the propaganda videos that ISIS distributed.

But now, I think people understand a little more about who ISIS is, and what their goals are. They know propaganda when they see it—even if it still scares them. But that’s almost irrelevant because if there is a “collective freakout” happening that I’m just not seeing, it doesn’t seem to have forced the governments of Jordan, or the U.S., or the European Union into anything rash.

The new war authorization isn’t ready yet; but when it’s finally released, I think we’ll be able to tell (at least to the extend that the legislation is available for perusal) whether or not the initial panic over the barbarism troops have encountered in Iraq and Syria has affected those tasked with ridding the world of ISIS.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
,

Comments

bho would not be acting in the best interest of the country. What does he want in return?

What if the Republicans attached Obama’s war authorization request to the Keystone pipeline bill? Give us the pipeline and you can have your war against un-named Middle East terrorists. He needs this bill to further his piss poor foreign policy. We should extract from him what we want.

Fighting ISIS under the Obama administration will be like trying to f- a football.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill believes that the “tide is turning” against ISIS.

How exciting. It sounds like another “Recovery Summer” is right around the corner.

Actually, it smells like a trap.

1. Obama doesn’t believe that he needs authorization to do anything. After all, he “won.”

2. Obama has shown little interest in any systematic plan to crush Islamic terrorism. He’ll assassinate a suspected terrorist now and then (just another thing he doesn’t need “authorization” for, of course), but those are just feints; his overall strategic vision appears to be surrender on all fronts, feebly masked by tough but meaningless talk about “lines in the sand” etc.

3. Why would he change (1) or (2) now?

He hopes to get the R’s to commit to something, and whatever it is, it won’t be what it seems.

    Perhaps the R’s should commit to voting “present”.

    4) Obama has made noises that ISIL is merely misunderstood and that we shouldn’t be on our “high horse” (i.e. National Prayer Breakfast) to go after them.

    I just can’t wait to hear the justification from the Administration for a new AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) given that we don’t want to go on some sort of Crusade.

The motivation: ISIS is a threat to Iran.

Obama is spending lots of time trying to hurt Netanyahu. As he’s worried about the speech Netanyahu will give to a joint session of Congress in mid-March. (March 17?)

One thing the politicians know is how the Israelis are reacting to the their upcoming election. Chances that Obama’s “boots on the ground” will be deflecting voters to some other candidate other than Netanyahu seems unlikely.

Netanyahu isn’t afraid of comedy. As his Bibi-sitting commercial shows. So, perhaps, the WH showing interest in “attacking” ISIS is one of the attempts by obama to skirt news away from politics in Israel?

ISIS can be found right next door to Jordan, in Syria. (And, Assad would have already attacked the little king, except that the US Army is installed in Jordan.)

Yet I doubt that obama wants to be a player in this theater.

As to iran, their threat of obtaining nukes should impress the saud’s that the shi’a would sooner pounce on mecca, before Jerusalem. (Worse, or for the better, the Mossad has deep intelligence not just for the area’s politics, but all the way into Russia.) Even if this is obama’s wishes, too, it can still rob him of any legacy worth having.

Obama has the card that lets him scream racism. That’s it. That’s the card obama wants to bring to a fight with Netanyahu? I can’t imagine he’d be that stupid.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Carol Herman. | February 10, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    No, the Israeli elections are in mid-March (March 17) The speech is March 3, and the deadline for negotiations with Iran is March 1.

Doug Wright Old Grouchy | February 9, 2015 at 10:47 pm

Oh goodie, how will this war end? Has Obama decided, yet, on the end date for this new conflict? What is the goal Obama wishes to achieve from waging this new conflict? Has Obama yet handpicked his negotiators for the armistice conference?

My goodness, is Obama going into this latest such venture half cocked, without a clue how to end it? How old fashioned is that?

Obama couldn’t be of the old outmoded school that wars are to be won? Or, that if the nation tires of it, waging it to an unsatisfactory ending?

I had thought someone, recently, had said that in the 21st Century, wars are waged differently from the cruel efforts of those older generations.

    As many B-2s with MOABs and fuel-air bombs as it takes to make the few survivors bleed from their eyes and ears; then, re-activate David Petreaus and put him in charge of the mop up and consolidation. It will take several years, and we will shed some blood, but the alternative is grim. Islamic Supremacists have already established a Sharia “tribunal” in Texas; if it stays (and there is good reason to suppose it will) the damn things will be popping up in other states like mushrooms after a spring rain.

    If we don’t care enough about this country to do whatever it takes to help it survive … it won’t.

    Obama will have the same exit strategy for the battle with ISIS that he had when he unilaterally (congress? who needs it!) ordered air strikes to take out Qadaffi in Libya.

That shot of King Abdullah probably made Obama jealous:
Warrior King.

This article also has a photograph of Jordan’s King Abdullah, not in military uniform, but appearing much like the rest of us:

http://www.examiner.com/article/which-trip-is-better-for-a-leader-the-golf-course-or-gunsite

I’m sceptical about Barry O’s real reasons for going to congress for authorisation simply because this is not how his majesty operates.

So I’m wondering what pork will be attached to the bill and how he will use this in the only campaign that matters to him, Democrats election campaign.

Mailman

My opinion is that Barack H. Obama is deadly – for the American people. Although one of his offices and sphere of responsibility is ‘Commander In Chief’ of this nations Armed Forces, I would first ask the question: How wisely has he spent the blood and treasure of this Nation in the past?

He has been a total failure in his management of resources and monies for military operations. Why should America endorse his desire to further spend more blood and treasure without ‘promise’ of complete commitment? Also, what are his promises worth – does his performance match the promise of his stated goals?

He has made himself a cypher, hiding his records behind vault walls. The only thing the American people have to judge this president on is his performance. How’s Obamacare working out for you? Are you comfortable with the hard lean ‘left’ our nation has tilted towards? Our borders are open and unsecured with drug wars right on our border, but now he wants to fight a war 10,000 miles away, after placing the country in trillions of dollars in debt? The influx of Muslim immigrants is astounding, and these would be considered by many as potential recruits for any future warfare we have with an Islamic entity such as ISIS. We see from Iraq or Afghanistan how just a few dedicated people can totally destroy a peaceful society, so why import onto our shores a peoples group who have a long history of refusing to assimilate? How has this worked out for England and the EU? Does the Obama administration seek to follow in the footsteps of France with it’s No-Go Zones and Muslim Enclaves, sending war fighters overseas to fight American troops?

Also, over the years both President Obama and his administration appointees have consistently and actively sought to align themselves with the Muslim hegemony, so what is his goal now? Is he offering our country to be the warrior front for those who refuse to fight the Islamic State themselves? China has a long history of one-child per family, resulting in an over-balance of young males – let them send their armies to fight and bleed. Let the Muslim countries pay China to fight and die for them.

What is Obama’s goal for America in all this chest thumping war fighting, send over our armies and equipment into the wastelands of distant countries – and then abandon them? Don’t we have enough wounded and psychologically crippled men now, do we need more? In the past, Obama (and Mrs. Clinton) have been busy giving arms to the ‘moderate Muslim rebels’ that have ended up in ISIS hands – along with selling billions of dollars worth of arms to Qatar and other Muslim nations. Why should we send our young men and women to face these weapons now, only to have America weakened and placed further in debt?

The Obama government is great at spending money and making grandiose plans, perhaps it’s time for out Dear Leader to sit down and shut up instead of getting us involved in another half-baked plan to shed our blood and treasure on distant shores. If someone else was sitting in the White House – someone who was actually transparent and could be trusted with his intentions to further strengthen America, then I would consider sending armies over to fight the armies of the Muslim caliphate. HOWEVER, having a Muslim apologist with his hidden agenda’s as our leader, I think wisdom dictates that Congress strongly oppose Obama in this war fighting.

I just don’t think that Obama deals well with current reality, being to busy trying to manufacture his own virtual world. I think he views America and Americans as pawns to be ‘used & abused’ at his whim.

I guess the instructions from Tehran finally arrived.

PersonFromPorlock | February 10, 2015 at 11:50 am

If Obama ‘wages war’ against ISIS, it will be half-measures, hesitations, failure, and spin, resulting in a once-again disgusted America that only wants ‘out’. Better we should wait until the next administration.

IS, in multiple “states” across the ME has declared themselves a nation state.
we need a formal declaration of war and then we need to actually fight the war.
end this crap using every weapon we have.
easiest way to comply with nuke treaties is to get rid of the nukes.

Sammy Finkelman | February 10, 2015 at 6:48 pm

Somebody ncould at least give he Kurds more armored vehicles..

Limiting what gets sent to Ukraine could perhaps be understandable, because Russia can escalate, and at the end of this is nuclear war, so you can say it would all depend on how far Russia wants to go, and you might as well have fewer rather than more people killed in the process. But there is no reason to avoid escalation with ISIS. In fact, escalation was what happened in Kobani, and that does not resound to ISIS’ advantage.

Sammy Finkelman | February 10, 2015 at 6:50 pm

The authorization to use force against ISIS/ISIL/IS/”the” Islamic state/Da’esh/whatchamacallit will have an expiration date.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend