home

Obama's Latest War Authorization Letter and ISIS Update

President Obama has written Congress explaining his decision to conduct airstrikes on Amerli:

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

As I reported on August 8 and 17, 2014, U.S. Armed Forces have conducted targeted airstrikes in Iraq for the limited purposes of stopping the advance on Erbil by the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), supporting civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar, and supporting operations by Iraqi forces to recapture the Mosul Dam. U.S. Armed Forces have also provided humanitarian assistance to the civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar.

On August 28, 2014, I further authorized U.S. Armed Forces to conduct targeted airstrikes in support of an operation to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians in the town of Amirli, Iraq, which is surrounded and besieged by ISIL. Pursuant to this authorization, on August 30, 2014, U.S. military forces commenced targeted airstrike operations in the vicinity of Amirli, Iraq. These additional operations will be limited in their scope and duration as necessary to address this emerging humanitarian crisis and protect the civilians trapped in Amirli.

[More...]

I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. These actions are being undertaken in coordination with and at the request of the Iraqi government.

The U.S. is still conducting airstrikes at the Mosul Dam. There were 3 today and 80 total. Didn't we already secure the dam? Why are we still bombing it? There have been almost daily strikes on it since the announcement of the takeover on August 18.

Everyone seems to be pushing Obama for an all out war against ISIS. I hope he doesn't cave to the pressure. The more equipment we send, the more ISIS will get its hands on. There is still no evidence ISIS plans to attack the U.S. Tweets by ISIS fanboys are not threats from ISIS.

By his restraint, Obama is showing leadership. The war-mongering Republicans should be tuned out. Here's an interesting op-ed in an Australian paper today about Obama and his strategy by a professor of strategic studies in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU .

In related news, ISIS appears poised to take the Deir Ezzor military airport in Syria. Last night, thousands of ISIS fighters started preparing for an onslaught. The commander of the airport, Brigadier General Issam Zahreddine, said basically, Bring it On. Today, he abandoned his troops and flew to his hometown. Here's a news article confirming his departure (use google translate) which has been reported on Twitter with photos all day.

On the Iraq side, it looks like ISIS and the Iraqi forces are engaged in a heavy battle in Tikrit. Earlier, it was reported that Iraqi Kurdish forces and Shiite militiamen retook the town of Sulaiman Bek near Tikrit, killing 23 Chechen ISIS fighters. ISIS has begun telling its supporters not to publish reports of battles in progress, so no details yet from them.

< Labor Day Open Thread | ISIS Executes Steven Sotloff >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If George Will is sounding semi rational (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    Maybe there is hope

    George Will, the conservative pundit who is usually unintelligible, breaks from the Republican talking points that paint Obama as weak for not immediately unleashing the Kraken on ISIS and then makes some good points on Fox News about how we should deal with ISIS. George actually applauded President Obama for not rushing into a nightmare scenario, praising him for his cautious approach.

    GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, yes, I mean, caution, which is what he's being criticized for, is a nice defect to have after the first decade of the century. On the other hand, the rhetoric has not been cautious. The president talked about rolling back ISIS, Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talking about the need to destroy ISIS. That means liberate large cities that have been taken, which you can't do with F-16s and F-18s.

    I think what the president is trying to do, and I sympathize with this, is to get the neighborhood to rally. I mean, look what's in the neighborhood. Saudi Arabia has 250 highly competent aircraft and an AWACS system to control it. You got Iran and Iraq, are enemies of ISIS, so is Syria, Jordan, and the Kurds who are, for all intents and purposes, a nation right now.

    So, you got six nations in the neighborhood. If they can't do it, we shouldn't.



    Of course, intelligence is key (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:37:45 PM EST
    and, with so many American and European Nationals volunteering for ISIS it shouldn't be too hard for our intelligence agencies to find out what ISIS's ultimate plans are.

    If their goals are to establish a regional, Mid-Eastern Caliphate then it's up to the big boys there (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc.) to neutralize them. On the other hand, if ISIS is following Germany's 1935-1939 steps for world domination, then that's a totally different picture.

    In either case, let's see what our security/intelligence apparatus comes up with.

    And we aren't alone in that either (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:34:43 PM EST
    NATO intel is involved as well.  Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia...all strong allies as well.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    The Bushes put together a coalition for going to war, it looks like the President is trying to put together a coalition to keep us out of a war.

    So far, so good.

    Parent

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:41:17 AM EST
    but I'm wondering how you figure that...

    It seems to me that we are making a big deal about confronting Russia with a reinvigorated NATO.

    To me, not a pleasant prospect.

    I also am skeptical that Obama will not step things up - bombings in Syria for example, once the midterm elections are over.

    My sense is that we are considering our foothold in Iraq to be what one of Obama's spokespeople called, "our interests". You know, 104 acre embassy with 15,000 personnel... and who knows what ties to Iraqi oil...

    I want to believe that Obama wants to keep us out of war, but I am having some difficulty doing so.

    Parent

    Saudi Arabia....well they need to be a little more (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    than just allies on paper in this thing.

    I don't think ISIS and whatever groups take their place ad infinitum will be stopped until the Middle Eastern countries want them stopped. Right now they are using these destructive forces to achieve their own ends, that will never be clear to us. Maybe it will take us leaving them all alone to fight it out for 10 or 20 years to make that happen.

    If they do not want to be partners in the modern world, so be it. My hunch is that most of them do, and will stamp this BS out if we were to stop enabling it.

    If we would take the trillion dollars we spend on these wars and buy everyone here a Tesla, this would be over tomorrow.

    Parent

    The complete history (none / 0) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 05:26:49 PM EST
    link to understand the macabre insanity...

    Parent
    My understanding is that (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    Bandar "Bush" is singularly responsible for the creation of ISIS and was removed from his position as head of Saudi intelligence due to this.

    Can you believe that though, best friend of the Bush clan Bandar created ISIS?  Should anyone be shocked?

    Parent

    The key will be evolving toward working (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 05:36:33 PM EST
    Together.  The religious fundies will always be the glitch that must be overcome.  Who wants to live in fear forever though of being slaughtered by "the other guys"?

    Parent
    How many from U.S. And Europe? (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:05:19 AM EST
    British government says when its citizens return to  the U.K. They will first be re-educated. I assume the U.S. has other plans.

    Parent
    WarMongering (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    I think that the warmongers here at TL have watched too many Dudly Dooright, and Superman cartoons.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    And,not enough of the history channel.

    Parent
    Just because the dam is currently secured (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 07:38:46 PM EST
    Does not mean that ISIS won't keep attempting to create positions close to the dam to use for future attacks, those positions are being hit and will continue to be hit and should be Jeralyn. You seem so proud at times that ISIS aggressively attempts to take territory, then stunned that airstrikes near Mosul dam will continue to be conducted on them until further notice.

    hardly (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 08:32:50 PM EST
    "proud". I am not an ISIS supporter. I find their actions as abhorrent as everyone else. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand them, and more importantly, figure out why they appeal to so many. Their followers may have legitimate grievances that can be addressed. Focusing only the "atrocities" and unsubstantiated threats does nothing but create fear. On the other hand, if we make an effort to understand them and their appeal, we may be able to develop a strategy to  disempower them.

    I am very opposed to the U.S. using military force to defeat them, for all the reasons I've given previously. We should have learned by now, after Iraq and Afghanistan, that war is a losing proposition -- for us, especially.


    Parent

    I think, in many ways, trying to (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:27:23 PM EST
    understand ISIS is like trying to understand the scorpion, or the rabid dog.  Yeah, maybe we can learn why ISIS does what it does, or why people are drawn to them or support them, but I don't think in the end that it changes anything.

    Whether it's war on a micro-scale, or a macro one, it's not the answer - no one's been able to win in that region.  Our intervention just feeds the hate, brings more people to the cause, and makes life worse for people who just want the kinds of lives that don't involve drones and bombs and death and destruction.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:07:55 PM EST
    We have many allies in the region.  What a load Anne

    Parent
    So, you're opposed to occupation/war, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:09:47 AM EST
    and you agree that our occupation of Iraq bred hate: two things we agree on.  

    You think it takes social revolution - and I don't disagree; I don't believe the majority of the people in the region want to live the way they're living now.  But how does that happen?  Can you bomb people into that?

    As for our allies in the region...was that the answer all along?  How come nobody else figured that out?

    My main question about these allies?  How on earth can you count on them over the long haul?  

    I hate the atrocities as much as anyone; I hate even more that there is atrocity everywhere, of some kind, and we seem to be more interested in "new" atrocity than the kind that's been going on for years.  

    Parent

    Nobody is bombing people into that (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    We are bombing a military force attempting to take the dam.  It is a military force that has no code, no scruples, and we should never take part in allowing them the use of a dam that they can destroy millions of lives with.

    Parent
    I think our recent intervention in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:17:41 PM EST
    is getting at least mild praise and support from multiple segments in Iraq. It isn't feeding the hate nearly as much as it is gaining us respect. Clearly, the humanitarian assistance is causing the recipients to be thankful. The Kurds are appreciative. Many segments of the Shiitte-Iraqis are at least mildly appreciative. Some Sunni-Iraqis too. Some of the bordering countries are appreciative. I assume even the Iranian soldiers fighting in the north with the Iraqi army and Kurds is appreciative of the US bombing efforts that are assisting their fight. World opinion seems to be mainly supportive.

    Parent
    I think, in many ways, trying to (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    I think, in many ways, trying to
    understand ISIS is like trying to understand the scorpion, or the rabid dog.  Yeah, maybe we can learn why ISIS does what it does, or why people are drawn to them or support them, but I don't think in the end that it changes anything.
    Agreed.

    My guess is, before ISIS, these supporters felt relatively powerless.

    Now, with ISIS, they feel more powerful, are correcting the unfairnesses they suffered, are writing history.

    Parent

    Although, I'm tired of war in the Mideast (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    I have to disagree with you. After seeing the VICE report on the Islamic State, I am convinced these people need to stopped. Dead. But I don't think we should be doing it alone. ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, whatever the flavor of the week, is a danger to the region and the world. They are religious nuts and zealots and a cult of personality for Baghdadi.

    Unfortunately, the US bears much responsibility for their rise. We broke Iraq. Period. Like him or not, Saddam gave Iraq some semblance of stability. Like Tito did in Yugoslavia. Not everyone needs or wants "American democracy." It's just not in some folks DNA. And we have got to stop trying to force in on the world. We break a whole lot more than we fix with our meddling.

    But ISIS, these guys are evil incarnate. I support whatever means necessary to wipe them out.


    Parent

    We thought Saddam Hussein (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:40:22 PM EST
    was evil incarnate too.

    ISIS can be contained without another ground war.  I doubt it can permanently occupy much more territory--boxed in by Assad on one end and Iran on the other end.

    Better intelligence (spies), covert raids, and drones....just as we are attacking Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia....may be the best bet.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, I wish you were right (2.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    But every way I look at it all I see is a group of people who have been radicalized by their belief in certain sections of the Koran.

    That they are wrong in their interruption changes nothing. ISIS and the other groups are at war with us and won't stop. Dying to them is meaningless. Our choice is this.

    Do we fight them now or later?

    Parent

    Are You Talking About... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:04:20 PM EST
    ...ISIS or the United States.

    I ask because you wrote Koran, but as I remember the Gee.Ohhh.Dee talked to our fearless leader and gave him the thumbs up on invading Iraq first.

    The only thing ISIS is doing that we didn't do is cutting off heads; we just bombed them so the bodies we unrecognizable, but most heads still attached.

    If only the option to not fight was still on the table like it was in 2000...

    Parent

    Scott, I see that you still (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    have difficulties in understanding.

    I wrote:

     

    (some Muslims)have been radicalized by their belief in certain sections of the Koran.

    If that hasn't done the trick, please advise as to what else has caused them to fly jet airliners into building's and behead people while screaming "God is Great!"

    As to God speaking to Bush I don't remember that, although, based on your usual information bank, I have no doubt that you believe he did.

    Of course your base complaint is that we should not have invaded Iraq.  My position also remains the same. Given what Bush knew at that time it is mu fervent prayer that all future Presidents will act the same.

    When it comes to protecting the country taking chances should be a no no/

    I too wish we had an option, as did when Obama decided to pull the troops out. Unfortunately we don't.

    BTW - ISIS has behead another American.

    Parent

    I would hope that future presidents... (4.75 / 4) (#86)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    ...learn from Bush's blunders and when in one of those "Given what Bush knew at that time" situations, put a lot more effort into making sure they aren't being suckered the way he was (if you want to interpret his actions in the most favorable way possible, which is to say that he was more stupid than evil).

    Parent
    Nah, I'll go with evil (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:32:37 PM EST
    Just look who his mother is. That should tell you everything you need to know. He's the kind of spoiled brat, a rich, punk, a never-held-a-real-job, Ne'er-do-well. The kind that used to pull the wings off butterflies. He'd make Eddie Haskell look like a stud.

    And, after he got tired of the baseball team his Daddy bought for him, they got him an Army, Navy, and, Air Force to play with.

    Parent

    Personally (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    I would go with stupid and evil.

    Parent
    Ditto (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 09:30:51 PM EST
    Just look who his mother is. That should tell you everything you need to know. He's the kind of spoiled brat, a rich, punk, a never-held-a-real-job, Ne'er-do-well.

    Obama

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    Is what known as a desperate cry for attention.  For the love of god don't jump thru the hoop.

    Parent
    Do tell (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    Obama was rich?  Never-held-a-real-job?

    Heh.

    Parent

    To quote Don Rickles (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 06:03:02 AM EST
    "Hello, dummy."

    Parent
    We aren't attempting to take over a country (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    Though Jeralyn like BushCo did, and I do not subscribe to a philosophy that we have done things that cause terrorists to attack us and those performing acts of terrorism aren't responsible for their choices.  We are interacting with all the global entities out there on this too.

    I don't think we should stand idly by while forces commit horrible atrocity.  I think such situations have to be weighed out by our leaders as well as possible consequences.  I won't be verbally threatened by murderers though and go run and hide under my bed or look the other way so long as they just aren't murdering me or mine, just everyone else.  

    Parent

    I think the US ought to be learning now (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:35:27 PM EST
    that pulling out of Iraq and doing very little in Syria is also a losing strategy.

    My view is that if Obama had listened to many of his advisors and kept 20,000 or so troops in Iraq,  provided more support in Syria to moderates, and backed up his talk with the Syrian president, that much of what is occurring now would not have happened.

    Keeping troops in Iraq and a closer eye on Maliki would have prevented him from immediately turning on the Sunnis literally the day after the US pulled out. The US should have forced Maliki to follow Iraq's constitution (which required more inclusion). The US should have forced Maliki to keep paying the Sunni sheiks who were part of the Awakening. Some of these people are apparently now part of ISIS. The US should have forced out Maliki several years ago. By keeping troops in Iraq and paying more attention, at least some of that would have been achievable. By not keeping troops in Iraq and keeping some amount of influence there, the US let the gain of the Surge and thereafter completely slip away.

    By not being more active in Syria, the US let ISIS gain strength and get further organized. By not immediately using airstrikes when ISIS came surging into the Mosul area, the US allowed ISIS to seize a very large amount of weapons and related supplies. It would not have been hard to spot and bomb the humvees, tanks and trucks heading for Syria.

    Now, the US has part of a foot in Iraq and is helping the Iraqi army and Kurds fight ISIS, but is stuck in and with a very complicated situation.

    I think Obama and the US are going to be forced into stepping up our involvement. I expect more intervention in Syria soon and continued and perhaps increased support in Iraq.

    Parent

    And this is bull too (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:45:22 PM EST
    We had no business occupying Iraq.

    Current operations aren't about occupation.  Our occupation DID breed hate, and we are out of that THANK FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!  Obama made all absolute right choices there!

    Very few in the Middle East want to live how ISIS plans to make everyone exist.  They are butchering other Muslims.  We are part of humanitarian efforts and that is exactly where we need to be and stay.

    Just because all the village sociopaths and psychopaths of the world can now discover each other on the internet, that doesn't call for a war.  What it does call for is a social evolution in the Middle East, and that's going to happen if we support but don't take responsibility for......

    Parent

    Why do you insist on living in the past? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:19:50 AM EST
    I'm looking at the MIddle East since 2008. I've stipulated many times on this site that invading Iraq was a mistake. It happened; it can't be undone. The US and the world just has to live with it, move on, and figure out what to do now.

    I'm talking about what the US is doing now in Iraq. It is getting far more praise and support, than it is breeding hate. Can you not have any discussion about the Middle East, without reverting to the Iraq invasion being a mistake.

    Parent

    We are doing exactly what we need (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:35:22 AM EST
    To be doing right now

    Parent
    I think so too (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    Because understanding past (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:37:12 PM EST
    mistakes is the key to not repeating them.

    And it was a very big and recent mistake.   We need to keep that firmly in mind.

    Parent

    All hail the FSM! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    I'm with you MT. Like or not, we broke it. Iraq was a blunder of enormous proportion by Bush/Cheney. I think both belong in prison for it. However, it is what it is today and we hold much responsibility for that and we cannot ignore it. We can wish ISIS to go away and try to absolve ourselves of responsibility and action.

    Parent
    Speaking of atrocities (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jack203 on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:14:44 PM EST
    The media seems intent on downplaying or mischaracterizing the atrocities committed against the Sunnis.

    The execution of unarmed prisoners may not be as high profile as the ISIS beheadings.  But they're both brutal, both war crimes, and being committed by both sides.

    I read an article about 10 days ago with a headline something to the affect of ISIS TERROR on the RISE, and within the article they linked three events.  Two of the three events were atrocities committed by Shiites against Sunnis.  Obviously you cannot blame ISIS for that.

    One article is admittedly a small sample size.  But there is no denying the American media is on feeding frenzy mode against ISIS.  They did something similar against the Assad regime 2 years ago, but it's even worse against ISIS.

    I'm glad Obama is proceeding cautiously on this and not committing a full scale war on whoever the American media proclaims is the boogeyman of the month.

    A question... (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:51:15 AM EST
    This would appear to be a letter by the President informing congress about what military action he is taking.

    That doesn't seem to me to be quite the same thing as seeking its approval or the approval of the people of the United States.

    It seems like a meaningless formality.
    Hello. I'm bombing.

    I don't know anyone who doesn't already know who he is bombing and the stated rationale.

    We don't need a letter.

    Has any member of Congress objected to (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:23:15 AM EST
    the apresident's letters?

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    no idea how any particular member of Congress might react to this communication from the President.

    I was speaking from the point of view of a citizen.

    It seems to me, based on the text I read, that this is some gesture meant to lend an air of legitimacy to the bombing campaign. Or an air of inevitability.

    In any case, having read it, it did not appear to me to provide any information that isn't currently available on any newscast or newspaper in the country. So I assume it had some function other than providing information to congress.

    Parent

    Educate Yourself (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:35:39 AM EST
    Rather than feel despondent that Obama is once again trying to fool you, or cover up illegitimate acts, you may want to educate yourself on the War Powers Act.

    The letter, sent under the War Powers Act, is the third missive the president has delivered to Capitol Hill since he approved air operations in Iraq on Aug. 7.

    The Hill

    Parent
    Rather than exhibiting (none / 0) (#54)
    by dk on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    despondence through lack of skepticism, perhaps you should not conflate the statement of a fact (the issuance of a notification is a requirement of the War Powers Act) and an opinion (the explanation of the reasoning behind a military action in such a notification is not a cover up of illegitimate acts).

    Parent
    Convolutions? (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    poodle talk?

    Really not sure what you are saying, but you do seem to have an agenda.

    Parent

    Who doesn't? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dk on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    General Zinni (none / 0) (#23)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:25:18 AM EST
    on Meet the Depressed on Sunday said that if the US put just two brigades of soldiers on the ground in Iraq right now and not wait they could drive ISIS back into Syria in a heartbeat.

    Zinni also said that he wished (none / 0) (#25)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    the US "wasn't so paranoid about boots on the ground". He said the US can't even define it. With special ops and advisors, there are already boots on the ground.

    Zinni is a former marine general, head of CENTCOM, and special envoy to the Middle East.

    Parent

    Saw that (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    It caused an acid like flashback to "we will be welcomed as liberators"

    Parent
    Driving the back into Syria (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:33:08 AM EST
    is no solution. They will just regroup and re-energize. They need to be eliminated. Not driven back to anywhere, other than an early grave.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    and as GW says we shouldn't do it by ourselves.

    But unfortunately we ignored the problem until it got so big now it's hard to find a solution.

    President Obama could have been planning a reaction to ISIS for months if not a year but chose not to.   Now he is again scrambling to choose between a bunch of bad outcomes.

    Sounds familiar.

    Parent

    President Obama could have been planning (none / 0) (#37)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    a reaction to ISIS for months if not a year but chose not to.

    Yeh but he had so many other things to be concerned with -- that slice in his drive for one thing and those yips in his putting stroke.


    Parent

    Uncle, I read your comments because, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    for the most part, they are intelligent, incisive, and, deductive. This post wasn't any of those things (unless, it was meant to be humorous, and, I just didn't get it)

    I'm certainly no fan of Barack Obama. In fact, you might say I've been one of his harshest critics. But, I know a little something about war, death, and suffering. And, faced with the confluence of life & death issues he's faced with, I believe he's done, and, is doing, just about as well as one man can do.

    Calm, rational, analysis, combined with surgical, and, effective, utilization of force is what we need over there, and, it's what President Obama is giving us.

    There's a lot to not like about President Obama. His handling of the Mid East Rubik's Cube he's been handed isn't one of them.

    Parent

    His golf and fundraising diversion (none / 0) (#47)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:09:53 PM EST
    in lieu of dealing with Presidential decision-making has become a matter of legend --

    The Daily Mail in London has been featuring stories dealing with it for months now.

    Parent

    What comments (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    like that miss is the fact that Obama is policy avoidant.

    Parent
    Policy Avoidant (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    Same old schtick from you,

    Obama the do nothing president.

    Parent

    He even said (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:46:53 PM EST
    himself that he doesn't care for policy. It's not his thing.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    Seems to suit your fantasy of the do nothing president.

    Got a quote?

    This seems to sum up your POV:

    He doesn't care very much, he's not prepared, and he doesn't spend a lot of time thinking things through. It's like Obama just ponders the issues in-between shots on the golf course, formulates his policy by shooting from the hip, then gives a speech about it and thinks his work is done.

    TownHall

    always interesting when the liberals and the wingnuts start mouthing the same rhetoric.


    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    has nothing to do with golf despite your desire to make it so. It's his disinterest in policy is what I'm talking about. He likes to hand stuff off to somebody else to handle which is different than what Town Hall is saying. Disinterest does not mean things don't get done it just means that Obama is not the driving force on getting anything done.

    Parent
    That does seem true (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:12:04 PM EST
    And some of his hand offs have been stunning while others were stunning :)

    Parent
    Got A Quote? (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:36:59 PM EST
    He even said himself that he doesn't care for policy. It's not his thing.
    ]

    Or did you deign that from his taupe suit?

    Parent

    He said it in (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:07:21 PM EST
    a debate back in the primaries in 2008 but I cannot find it or I am not good at googling for things.

    And what the heck are you talking about with regards to a tan suit?

    Parent

    Heh, and we're both on Talkleft already :) (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    Trip was smooth, appt was spectacular.

    Parent
    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    you had a good trip back. I of course got in the wong lane when I got out onto Cobb Parkway and ended up having to go on 285 South and then a truck ran me off in the median. Darn made it there with no problem but Tom Tom didn't do so well getting me out of there and on my way back home.

    Josh and my youngest would so totally have a blast with their nerdy computer stuff.


    Parent

    Sorry traffic was so challenging (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    We were leaving as the heavy rain storm began, it was a short storm gratefully.  So many kids are playing on the Steam platform now, even Josh's friend in Poland does.  On the weekends they are able to find time to play together.

    Josh doesn't spend his moola much, but Steam has game sales and when a game that they have all been coveting goes on sale Josh sometimes buys it for the group he games with so they can all play together.  Usually ends up between $20 to $30 and 5 to 7 players get the game.  Steam really has Xbox and Playstation beat when it comes to devising game experiences as a group.  A single Xbox or Playstation game starts at $50 for one player.

    Parent

    Compared to Which President? (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:29:36 PM EST
    Daily Mail?  Right wing gossip rag..  may as well be fox..

    Apparently you have not looked at any comparison of Obama's vacations to other Presidents..  

    or you are making wingnut hay.  

    Parent

    What ever DM is (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    it is writing the facts.

    Parent
    hahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    Yes it is a fact that today is Tuesday.

    Parent
    Somewhere. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    Some stories in life and the Daily Mail (none / 0) (#60)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    just don't fit into those neat little pigeon holes of

    right versus left

    They just simply are.

    Parent

    Daily Mail most read articles (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    From your link.

    MOST POPULAR STORIES

    How the baby born with the upside-down head has defied doctors who told his mother to let him die - and is now a motivational speaker

    Just HALF of women can locate the vagina on a diagram of the female reproductive system

    'Your cowardly lack of leadership has left a gaping hole': Parents of SEAL Team Six soldier killed in action call for President Obama's resignation in searing open letter about his handling of ISIS

    Ashlee Simpson dons lacy white gown to say 'I do' to Evan Ross in lavish (rain-soaked) Boho-style wedding... and sister Jessica is matron-of-honor

    Plus 4 about nude celebrity photos.

    Clearly the place to go for serious journalism.

    Parent

    The mindless goading (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:33:56 PM EST
    For war by the daily mail and Fox News rival the goading of  Isis to drag us into their web  sometimes it is a wonderment as to which is more evil, if we exempt the beheadings

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    But when you start going on about Obama playing golf instead of working it puts you smack into wingnut central.

    Parent
    But when you start going on about (none / 0) (#68)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    Obama playing golf instead of working it puts you smack into wingnut central.

    Well then I span the political spectrum because everybody in Washington is well aware of it -- and they laugh about it -- including Obama himself -- and his SS caddies who spend a lot of time looking for his balls in the rough -- right and left.

    Parent

    You know what (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:51:33 PM EST
    About the spanning the spectrum thing you are correct.   I usually have MSNBC on in the BG if I am not paying attention to the TV.  ADHD requires at least two inputs at all times.  And after the third day in a row of that a$$hat Tweety making sneering comments about Obama playing golf I changed that.  No more MSNBC between 6-7 until Matthews dies or retires.

    Parent
    Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:05:41 PM EST
    has been awful almost forever. This is why I thought the O****bots back in 2008 were making a huge mistake embracing him. For some reason he seems to have nine lives.

    And I'm sure he's just spouting the Washington cockatil crowd rhetoric.

    Parent

    You will miss absolutely nothing if you (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:02:13 PM EST
    never watch one more second of that show, or any of the others that are passing themselves off as providing meaningful information and opinion.

    Not to mention how much better your blood pressure and mood will be - and - you can do something with those minutes that actually matters: so, a win-win-win!

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:17:13 PM EST
    I never embraced him.  Or even liked him.  But recently he seems to be becoming actually unhinged.

    Parent
    He is so maddening, (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    he, literally, has me screaming at the screen.

    Once, just once, how I would love for a guest to say to him, "Will you, please, just shut the f%ck up, and let me finish my sentence? What the hell is the matter with you? Are you freakin crazy? Why bother having guests when all you do is shout over them when they're trying to make a statement, or, answer a question.

    You are the rudest host on television, and, personally, I think you're sick.

    Get help, Chris. I mean it, you need it....bad!"

    You know what I'm saying? Isn't there a director on the scene? How can they let him interrupt, and, talk over every guest he has? Jesus! he's so irritating!

    Parent

    I think he must have (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 06:53:29 PM EST
    Compromising photos of Jeffery Immelt.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    I many have to watch him just to see how unhinged he is. Honestly though I probably have not watched him since probably 2000 when he was a Bushie.

    Parent
    And what plan, pray tell, (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 09:58:10 PM EST
    should that have been?

    Armchair Generals abound....

    Parent

    Pot (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    Meet kettle

    Parent
    two brigades? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    That is a lot of troops.....

    Driving them back into Syria--for the time being.   Not a long term solution, as we have already learned.

    Parent

    I would like to think that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    Obama's caution is part of some greater "strategy" but what evidence do we have that he ever has a "strategy"?

    I think Obama is frustrated that foreign policy is dominating his second term.  I think he really thought he'd ended the Iraq war, put the war on terrorism to bed and in a few months would have Afghanistan all wrapped up.   Now he's having trouble dealing with the reality that the world is getting more dangerous not less.

    I give him credit for being hesitant to use force in terms of "boots on the ground" but I don't give him credit for doing so based on some overall plan.

    To me he's making it up as he goes along.

    About the only foreign policy result that we can give him credit for is our withdrawal from Iraq.  That is something he set out to do and did.  

    In every other policy or action he's fumbled, bumbled his way to a result and then given reasons or excuses for why he eventually did what he did.

    Lybia
    Syria
    Afghanistan
    Ukraine

    On and on.  In and out.   Assad must go.   Chemical Weapons are a Red line.   Afghanistan is the good war.   Authorize a surge, then plan for our withdrawal.   Putin is isolate while he takes Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.  These are just a few examples.

    The president has a world view that the US is not the world's police and in a way I agree with him.  However we have to live with the results when we withdraw our influence from certain regions of the world.    The world this president inherited was a world that did see us as the police.  

    Obama does not to me seem comfortable with this reality and I can understand it because to me we wasted a lot of time, money and human lives on the Iraq war and to some extent our over commitment to the war in Afghanistan.  

    However that doesn't change the reality of the world and now other world leaders see us as hesitant, unsure of ourselves and reluctant to do anything that will really change the outcome.

    So the results are Putin doing whatever he wants, Arab nations bombing Libya without even telling us, ISIS running a muck etc...

    It is simply not true that we didn't see ISIS coming.   The president for whatever reason chose not to confront this problem until he was forced to by events on the ground.   It was not just Hawks warning him that this could be in issue.   He was briefed long before he made the "JV" comments that this could be an issue.

    To me the president needs to decide does he want to officially withdraw us from all these events or does he want to get involved in a meaningful way.

    Right now we are in this weird middle ground of taking some action but never enough to make any real difference.   Unless you count Libya.  There we made a difference.  It was just a horrible one.

    So we'll see what he does.   Maybe he will get a coalition of the willing together and we'll confront ISIS and stamp the cancer out.

    I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    NIce post, Slado. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    I agree with most of what you said.

    Parent
    Vague post (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    with standard fare of Obama should "just do something."

    I disagree with most of it.

    Parent

    I think you nailed it. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    We DO need to stop trying to be the policeman of the world. While there may be an unwillingness to "lead" on foreign policy, I think most of western Europe and what passes for a stable country in the Arab mideast is grossly lacking in leadership and action. It seems that Europe is happy to put it's collective head in the sand with perhaps, recently, the exception of David Cameron.

    Everyone seems to agree that Putin is wrong, that ISIS is wrong, but no one, absolutely no one wants to step up the plate to do anything about either.

    I don't believe global war is the answer. Quite the opposite. But I also believe that's what we are going to end up with so long as everyone sits on the sidelines as just watches to see what is going to happen next.

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    If we aren't the world's policeman - then who is?  Someone will step into the role, and I don't think having China in that role is a good idea.

    Especially when stories are coming out like this.

    Parent

    Do you have any evidence (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    China has ony interest in doing this, 1, and 2, maybe the whole idea of "a world policeman" is the root of the problem.

    Parent
    So, we should go back in? (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:02:21 PM EST
    Repeat the last ten years over again?

    Parent
    I thought Libertarians didn't like paying taxes? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    where are the resources supposed to come from to deal in any substantive way with all those situations around the world you enumerated, Slado?

    Or Is your post a lead-in to some sort of privatization scheme that will insure that geopolitical situations around the world won't be "fumbled and bumbled" in the future? Because otherwise, at the moment it sounds like your anti-Big Government Pro-Big Government impulses are conflicting in a major way.

    The fact is that the fantasy-reach of many, many Americans monumentally exceeds our grasp.  

    Parent

    This libertarian would lead (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    The money would come from social warfare programs and a restructuring of our defense and intelligence apparatus.   There's plenty of money to go around.  It just means we have to spend it better.

    However to make any of that happen the president would need to do the following...

    A) Have a clear vision on what America's role is in the world.
    B) Sell the American people on it

    Those two things are severely lacking from our president.   The policy of "Not doing stupid stuff" to me is a policy of inaction.   We have this whole military machine, intelligence apparatus, foreign aid etc... set and in place.   Use it or loose it.   Until Bush the 1st left office the job of president from FDR to him was easy when it came to foreign policy.   Fight communism and push the American way of life.   Once we lost our great adversary it became a little murkier.   Bush the 1st had the first Iraq war.  Clinton the Bosnian war and GW the post 9/11 world.   Each had a clear mandate, a clear policy goal for American foreign policy but the common theme was we are the great good int he world and we must be the ones to implement it.

    This president to me tries to have it both ways.  At his core I think he believes America has been too involved in world affairs for too long and that money could be spent here.

    But while I'm not totally unsympathetic to this argument like all things it's not a zero sum game.  Not involving ourselves in world affairs has a result.   We leave a huge void and someone fills it.  We will loose influence, both politically and economically.  

    Look no further then Europe.   They dismantled their military as a continent post WWII and took a position in the passengers seat when it came to the Cold War.   Doing so enabled them to establish a large welfare state and focus on internal rather then external affairs.

    To me I don't think it's a coincidence that we became the worlds economic engine.   Say what you will about where we are today but we wouldn't have gotten here if we hadn't meddled in everyone Else's business.

    This president to me doesn't get it.   He has to make hard choices either way.   Listen to Rand Paul and withdraw or listen to Hillary and other Hawks and stay engaged because being engaged keeps us on top.

    Unlike many libertarians I really don't think it's an option to withdraw.  Like it or not.  Fair or not.   We've become the policeman of the world because if not us who?

    What the libertarian in me does say is we could be way smarter about it and not think we can change the world over night with our military.   Iraq was a complete mistake.  

    We must be engaged, we must lead, we just have to be smarter about it.   I think that's the core of the "stupid stuff" comment but they take it to far and let other people take the lead and then are surprised when other people do a crappy job.

    It's not easy by any means.   That's why we should lect people with experience or at least a vision in the first place.   Looking back on what Obama was selling it is pretty easy to draw a line from those speeches in Berlin and Cairo to where we are today.

    Today is the Obama doctrine, or lack there of played forward.   We left a void and the bad guys filled it.

    What's he going to do about it?   Time for him to make up his mind and sell the rest of us on what the plan is.

    I believe that as with communism Militant Islam is the ideological challenge of this generation going forward.   We either choose to let it take root and live with the consequences or we start fighting it in earnest.   With every tool in the tool bag.  Not just with speeches, half measures and tough talk.

    Parent

    Pay for it all by cutting social welfare programs (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    of course. How predictably libertarian of you.

    Meanwhile, under the rubric of the abstract consolidating of "America's place in the world", you're advocating the biggest social welfare program of all: with the usual libertarian reverse-chivalry/social Darwinism involving robbing the poor and giving EVEN MORE to the most privileged in the form of the govt contracts, tax breaks and the revolving door status quo..

    What form of Catholicism is it that you said you practiced?

     

    Parent

    Withdraw our influence (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:00:26 PM EST
    you write.

    You mean withdraw our ground troops.

    What concretely should Obama have done differently aside from the Lindsey McCain chestnut of leaving in ground troops?  

    Parent

    I swear (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    the more this stuff goes on the more I miss having Hillary at state. Hillary could at least explain what is going on, she would be able to twist a lot of arms in other countries (not try to hold them hostage like GW) and explain her strategy for handling this.

    As fervent an advocate (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    as I was for Mrs. Clinton in the previous primaries, I very much fear she would, if President at this time, have re-committed U.S. forces to an unknown amount of time in the ME.

    Parent
    But she doesn't play golf (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    That we know f. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    Oh man, now you've got me thinking (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    which leisure activity will they ride her a** about?  Uh-oh, she does hang out with Bill Clinton. That can't be good.

    Parent
    Personally (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:53:52 PM EST
    I hope she takes up golf.  Just to chap their a$$.

    Parent
    Yes, because Mrs. Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    isn't nearly as intellectually astute, cognitively skilled, historically aware, nor, appropriately cautious as you are.

    Parent
    Anne, is that you? (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    (How did you come up with this conclusion?)

    Parent
    Hillary is not cautious (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:08:43 PM EST
    Know her well ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:21:19 PM EST
    ... do you?

    Parent
    She has been in favor of the (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    hawkish response going back to AUMF.

    Parent
    That's all you've got? Figures (4.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:31:30 PM EST
    As opposed to the guy whose foreign-policy judgments you wholeheartedly endorse.  You like Obama's foreign policy, whereby he threatened to use direct, US military force in Syria - repeatedly, in fact - and threatening US military action (aka "enormous consequences") if Syria crossed a (shifting) "red line", but HC suggesting we should have helped the Syrian rebels means shes "hawkish".

    Heh.

    Parent

    We will see (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:34:33 PM EST
    Hillary is likely to run  and win.

    A challenge from the Left would be good.  If not Elizabeth Warren then Bernie Sanders.   She needs to explain where she stands.    And needs to know if does the full LBJ on war, she will be challenged a la Gene McCarthy.

    Parent

    Whatever (none / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:41:33 PM EST
    A challenge from the Left would be good.  If not Elizabeth Warren then Bernie Sanders.   She needs to explain where she stands.    And needs to know if does the full LBJ on war, she will be challenged a la Gene McCarthy.

    But completely irrelevant to your double-standard.

    Parent

    It is not about debating points (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:43:11 PM EST
    but a way forward.

    I do not agree with the hawkish approach.

    Parent

    Sure you do (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:54:09 PM EST
    When HC suggests we should have given US aid to Syrian rebels, you call it a "steering a different and more interventionist and militarily aggressive approach than Obama," "letting her inner hawk fly free" and "carving out a place to the right of Obama on foreign policy.   Very disappointing."

    OTOH,

    When Obama repeatedly threatened direct, US military action in Syria, you said nothing, except "But I like Obama's foreign policy."

    Looks like you're just fine with the "hawkish approach" when the hawk's name is Obama.

    Parent

    Well, the incident you refer (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:00:25 PM EST
    to involved the use of chemical weapons, a key difference.

    And, there were no air strikes on Syria.

    Do you really think Hillary is less hawkish than Obama--or Biden?

    You can try to make me the issue but there are more than a few people who are concerned.    

    Parent

    No difference (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:50:05 AM EST
    Well, the incident you refer to involved the use of chemical weapons, a key difference.

    No difference.  Obama made the threats of direct, US military action before such weapons were used.  Clinton made her comments about aiding Syrian rebels after the chemical weapons were used against them.  How does that make her position more "hawkish"?


    And, there were no air strikes on Syria.

    And?  Again, how does Obama's flip-flop on airstrikes in Syria make HC's non-existent threat of airstrikes more hawkish?


    Do you really think Hillary is less hawkish than Obama--or Biden?

    Couldn't say.  Then again, I'm not the one "formally rescinding my support" of HC based on her "letting her inner hawk fly free" (for advocating indirect aid to the Syrian rebels) while praising Obama's foreign policy (for threatening direct, US military action in Syria).

    You can try to make me the issue but there are more than a few people who are concerned.

    You keep saying that to justify your position/claims.  The birthers always tried the same logic - "It's not just me!  Look at this poll ... lots of people believe it!"

    Parent

    Yes, there is a difference between (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    chemical weapons and conventional weapons.  It is a well recognized difference under international law.  

    Hillary's position on war and peace is not defined by your taking a very narrow circumstance with respect to Syria.

    She has a bias for action.  Perhaps a strength in some situations.   She does come across as strong and decisive.  But she has been on the side advocating the use of military force in almost all situations that we have faced.   She has opposed Biden on many issues.

    She will have time to fill in her views but her recent interview is concerning.  

    You say you do not know if she is to the right of Obama on the use of military force.  Well, I would like to know.   Sometimes doing nothing is the best course.  I would like to see her show us she is not inclined to decisive action in every instance.  

    Parent

    Are you being serious? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:20:26 AM EST
    No one is consuming there is no difference between chemical and conventional weapons - that's just silly.  What I was pointing out was your double standards in criticizing HC for advocating aid to the rebels in Syria (where chemical weapons had been used) and your silence/approval of Obama's threats of direct, US military action in Syria (where chemical weapons were being threatened).

    As far as your desire to see whether she is to the right of Obama, more aggressive, you've already flatly stated that she is based on her Syria comments, where she advocated indirect US involvement rather than direct US military action.  Then there's the AUMF, but given that Obama didn't have to vote and specifically stated he didn't know how he would have voted if he had to vote on it, is not very useful.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    There is a big difference between what Obama said, his threat to Syria regarding WMD's aka a very large stockpile of chemical weapons, and what Hillary wanted to do as SOS, namely arm the rebels in Syria.

    Rather than split hairs about who is more Hawkish or more to the right, I would point out that Hillary was 100% behind Obama threatening Assad over his chemical stockpile. Obama was not for arming the rebels.

    And bottom line especially regarding foreign policy there is little difference between Hillary and Obama.

    For once in a long time, I am happy that the US government under Obama is NOT playing warmonger in the current ISIS crisis.

    His measured and reflective stance is a BIG relief.

    Parent

    We'll see (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    I am not so sure.

    Parent
    Not so sure Hillary (none / 0) (#135)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 12:45:50 PM EST
    would not be more inclined to the use of military force.

    Parent
    Kind of OT, but have you seen (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    any comments from Hillary on Israel's plan to seize more land on the West Bank?

    The United States levied unusually harsh criticism at Israel on Tuesday, denouncing plans to seize a large tract of West Bank land for Israeli homes.

    The State Department called on Israel to reverse its announced plan to appropriate nearly 1,000 acres in the occupied West Bank.

    "We are deeply concerned about the declaration of a large area as `state land' to be used for expanded settlement building," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement. "We call on the Government of Israel to reverse this decision."

    Back on-topic: I also have my concerns about Hillary in regard to ISIS and the region in general.  Can't seem to stop thinking about that comment she made a while ago about how she regarded Assad as a reformer.

    While I am happy that Obama is taking it slow, I wish I could stop thinking that we're like the frogs in the increasingly-hotter pot and one day - to late -  we'll realize we're boiling to death: we'll be at war again and it won't be a big deal.  Just a feeling - hope I'm wrong.

    I just don't seem to have much of a level of trust anymore.

    Parent

    Plan to Sieze Land? (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    I was under the impression that it was a done deal.

    Parent
    I agree with you there (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    Let's just say IMO she would have reached for Task Force Black sooner than Obama did.

    Parent
    Interesting Question (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    Well, it is interesting to speculate about Hillary's approach to engaging in military action.

    It is clear that her talk is tough, and I believe it is because for a woman to have a shot at POTUS, not to mention Senator, she has to be a warmonger, or at least talk tough, really tough, because of the stereotype that women are weak.

    Obama on the other hand has to do the opposite, as a world leader he has to stay calm and in control to counter the stereotype of the angry black man.

    The question I think about is if Hillary were POTUS today, would she cave in to the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, McCains or would she take a similar path that Obama is taking, which is gather allies around the world before taking serious action.

    I tend to think that Hillary's warmongering bluster is to get votes, and were she elected POTUS she would follow the current Democratic party policy that Obama has followed, which is patience.

    Parent

    I hope you are right (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    I don't know how reflective he is now squeak (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    He has been intel gathering for awhile now.  I think the Sotloff beheading did it!  He had been assembling a special operations apparatus with the UK.  And I think the murder of Steven Sotloff was the last straw.  ISIS is now going to have a very long series of really really bad days that nobody is going to be allowed to tweet about unless they want to lose their head too.  

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    Compared to the GOPers, Obama is not running to congress in order to get them to vote on a new war. Nor is he making War speeches, and telling America that ISIS is about to start coming across the Mexican border.

    His approach is quite patient, relatively speaking.

    IOW, he does not appear to see the need to puff himself up to show off his manhood.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    And thank all the Gods.  I get enough posing, posturing, and propaganda from ISIS.  I know the Republicans can't help themselves, but at least our President is representative of the gravity of the situation.  Not like that windy posing douche bag Bush....Oy

    Parent
    What's the difference? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:31:16 PM EST
    There is a big difference between what Obama said, his threat to Syria regarding WMD's aka a very large stockpile of chemical weapons, and what Hillary wanted to do as SOS, namely arm the rebels in Syria.

    More specifically, based on MKS's conclusions, how does advocating indirect US support for Syrian rebels (against whom the chemical weapons are being used) = a more aggressive, "Hawkish" approach than direct, US military action against Syria.  Unless you're suggesting he didn't mean it and it was all for show ... in which case you could just as easily assume the same of her position.

    Parent

    Your Convolutions to Defend Hillary (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:52:23 PM EST
    Are really not worth it, imo.

    And I am not sure why you feel the need to defend Hillary, as she has always been tough when it comes to war talk.

    Obama certainly less rhetoric when it comes to tough war talk.

    But hardly any difference. She was Obama's SOS.

    And if you want to keep score, which apparently you do,
    even if Obama's warmongering matched Hillary on every potential international skirmish one to one..  

    they did not agree on arming the Syrian rebels.

    As far as Obama's rhetoric when it came to Assad, it is part of his foreign policy. He strongly believes that WMD's need to be eradicated.

    Parent

    Strange, ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    Are really not worth it, imo.

    ... considering this is your second comment in response to my posts on this, which have nothing to do with "defending Hillary" and everything to do with pointing out the hypocrisy in MKS's attack on her and defense of Obama.

    they did not agree on arming the Syrian rebels.

    As far as Obama's rhetoric when it came to Assad, it is part of his foreign policy. He strongly believes that WMD's need to be eradicated.

    So when it comes to WMDs, you're saying that Obama is "hawkish".

    Huh.

    Point taken.  OTOH, it sounds like another POTUS ...

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#158)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    So when it comes to WMDs, you're saying that Obama is "hawkish".

    Huh.

    Point taken.  OTOH, it sounds like another POTUS ...

    You show your hand...  I really had no idea.

    Guess I have not been following very closely.

    Parent

    No idea what "hand" ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 06:17:17 AM EST
    ... you're imagining now.

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    seriously beginning to wonder if we aren't going to have to have ground troops to get rid of ISIS. Maybe this will work out like Kosovo and only bombing can do it but I'm not so sure.

    Parent
    That would be repeating the mistake (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    ISIS is the Hitler of the moment in the Middle East. We got rid of Saddam Hussein because he was a brutal dictator and had WMD.  He was Hitler.  

    Now, ISIS is Hitler.   And, last year the ISIS enemy Iran was like Nazi Germany.

    Now, we go back in and we don't even have a allegation of WMD.....

    Parent

    The crux (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 07:08:37 AM EST
    of the problem might have been Obama holding onto Bush's plan and not creating one of his own.

    Naw, these guys are way worse than Saddaam ever was.

    Parent

    Remember Saddam Hussein (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    gassing hundreds of Kurds?

    ISIS is getting what it wants when it panics many here.

    They are a regional threat whose potential for terrorist attacks can be dealt with short of war and a ground invasion.

    But, yes, I am concerned that Hillary may be with you in supporting a possible ground war.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    I remember that and that happened exactly how many years before we went into Iraq? I think it was a good ten or more years prior.

    Parent
    Let's hold our horses (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:15:06 PM EST
    Ground troops would not necessarily prevent the murder of journalists held in captivity.

    We could control all of Iraq, and Syria as well, and still not prevent these types of murders.  I know everyone wants to strike back.  But starting another war will not prevent what has occurred or future kidnappings and murders.

    Covert action and Delta Force is our best bet...And drones....those drones that everyone hates.....to take out enemy leadership.

    Parent

    This is the real issue (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    I think Biden has been more right than Hillary about the Middle East....

    Parent
    Have you read Kerry's NYT op-ed? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:29:29 PM EST
    It's here.

    Reading it, I go from thinking he's playing on fear to liking his coalition approach.  I don't like the can't-do-it-with-airstrikes-alone parts - mainly because my level of trust is just really, really low.

    And the other thing is, though, that I had to actually search to find out what our SoS is thinking, planning, doing.  I can't decide what that means - if anything.  Am I just not watching enough news?  I feel like it's been like this for a while - like a long while.

    I watch the news, and I feel like the usual suspects - not just the McCain/Graham crowd, but the former-this and former-that who are all working in the defense industry now - are champing at the bit to send in troops - and I just think that way lies disaster.

    I guess I just don't know what to think.


    Parent

    Truthfully (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 07:11:58 AM EST
    Anne is very hard to know what to think. It seems to me we are continuing the willy nilly nonsense of the Bush Administration in a lot of ways.

    Parent
    Bush invaded Iraq (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 09:04:40 AM EST
    That was a mistake.  We should not make the same mistake twice.

    Obama is not like Bush.  Lindsey McCain wishes it were so.

    Hillary is not willy nilly, but let us see how thoughtful as opposed to aggressive she will be in foreign policy.

    Parent

    Here's (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    my problem and it's pretty much what you're saying is that we can't do this or that because Bush did this or that.

    My problem with Obama boils down to what exactly is the strategy. We don't do dumb things is not a strategy.

    What I see happening is that since Obama apparently has no strategy that he is going to end up doing what McCain wants maybe not right off the bat but over time slowly but surely. If Obama thinks we should stay out of then he should just say so. If he thinks these guys are trying to bait him into something then he should say so. He should articulate exactly what he thinks is going on and what the solution should be if any.

    Parent

    That is what Hillary said (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    I am not convinced we need some grand strategy.

    Ad hoc, limited and careful is just fine by me.

    Parent

    A strategy (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    doesn't have to be large and grand.

    And ad hoc puts McCain and Graham in the driver's seat.

    Parent

    This is bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    You are basically saying Obama is going to be duped by McCain and Graham because he does not have a grand policy. Thus, Obama is really a tool of the warmongers.

    Ridiculous.  Occam's razor. Hillary talks tough because she is more willing to use military force.  Obama is not going forward with grand war talk because he is less inclined to use military force.

    If you are anti-war, you need to take a close look at Hillary.  She needs a stiff challenge from the anti-war left.

    And ad hoc means you tailor what you do to the circumstances.  As opposed to trying to impose some grand scheme on the world.  It is a very good strategy.

    Someone needs to hold Hillary's feet to the fire on issues of war and peace.

    Parent

    Speaking of "bizarre" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 08:25:43 PM EST
    You keep making these kinds of conclusory statements with nothing to support them.

    Ridiculous.  Occam's razor. Hillary talks tough because she is more willing to use military force.  Obama is not going forward with grand war talk because he is less inclined to use military force.

    What "tough talk"?  You mean threatening Syria?  Oh, ...

    ... wait.

    Parent

    Well, McC and G (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    certainly do have a policy,

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:14:04 PM EST
    and when there's a vacuum they are going to go in and fill up what's there for good or bad.

    Parent
    Fortunately, they haven't the power (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    at present.

    Parent
    That's why they trotted out Biden (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    And Hagel.

    Parent
    I am willing to bet (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 09:11:07 AM EST
    They have been briefed on the special operations underway right now.

    What I remember keenly at this time is that the last time task force black was activated I knew nothing about it until it was done.

    And the media was making fun of US forces not being able to find "the Zarqawi", but task force black was destroying Al Qaeda in Iraq and they got Zarqawi too.

    I think it is already underway, but there is a smoke screen up that does not tip off ISIS.  Mixed messages on CNN. I think that's deliberate.  And as the politicians come forward to say we have to attack and they throw anti-Obama smack on everything, they are shoring up their re-electability but at the same time it makes it look like nothing is happening yet.  But I think it is already underway.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    My problem with Obama boils down to what exactly is the strategy. We don't do dumb things is not a strategy.

    Well it is easy to quote Hillary, and pat yourself on the back for being so intelligent. But your willful ignorance is getting really stale here.

    It is absurd to whine about Obama having no policy, and to continue to argue that he does not know what he is doing.

    It seems that his overriding principal is to act accordingly, rather than have a one liner for you so that you can say that you do not agree with his policy.

    It is clear that your opinion about Obama is hardened and worthless at this point. You sound just like the GOPers to me.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    what is it? He needs to articulate exactly what it is then.

    I never said he didn't know what he was doing. What I said was he's willy nilly which is not the same thing. He's oh, I think I'll do this today and that tomorrow fly by the seat of his pants and attempting to community organize our allies. Again, you can't get them to sign on unless you have some sort of strategy or goal in mind.

    Parent

    I believe his strategy is similar (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    To what was used to disable and dismantle Al Qaeda in Iraq.  And there isn't much about that that isn't classified.  He is going to remain calm and focused and US and UK special forces have begun hunting the ISIS leadership.

    It isn't a strategy you publicize.

    Combine that with our agreements with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt,  Kuwait, Turkey and others, it is going to get very difficult for ISIS.

    I think I may have now had my question answered though as to why we have been very recently arming ME countries if it is true that some were paying ISIS leadership to NOT attack their countries.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 05:42:35 PM EST
    I hope you are right. His inability to communicate even an outline is very frustrating.

    Parent
    Considering the things that ISIL...ISIS (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    Has done "in response", and the fact that they still have 20+ captives that we know of, I don't see him clarifying his response.  It would just be throwing them red meat to make something horrible on video out of.

    Parent
    Clear to Me (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    But you may be blocked, as you clearly have had great enmity toward the guy since before the primaries.

    Parent
    Don't blame (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    me for the guy's poor communication skills squeaky. I guess you must have extra special sensory perception to understand what he means. To me he talks in circles and I'm like what the heck did he just say?

    Look no further than after the ACA was passed and he could not explain to people and that vaccuum allowed the GOP to "explain" it to people did it not?

    He needs to be able to speak clearly and concisely and edit out all the talking in circles stuff.

    I mean c'mon who says "we don't have a policy"? He keeps leaving holes for somebody else to drive a truck through.

    Parent

    Let McSame et al. Drive the Trucks (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    Obama is holding a stop sign and his inspectors are mothballing each truck.

    I think that you may be reading, watching too much TeeVee...

    because, I do not hear any of the GOP crap.

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 08:27:00 AM EST