Legal Authority for Fighting ISIS — As the Pentagon gears up to expand its fight against ISIS, a fundamentalist Sunni militant group that controls large areas of Iraq and Syria, Congress appears perfectly willing to abdicate one of its most consequential powers: the authority to declare war.
Editor's notes: We have not declared a war to be a "war," since 1942. I really do not care about this particular debate. It is how this "terrorist" action is conducted, that really matters. And on that point, most observers do not believe this will have any more success than Obama's failed efforts in Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt or Libya.
Obama intends to manage this new war effort in Iraq from his sense of ideology, not from the point of view of winning the conflict. As a result, thousands will [continue] die at the hands of ISIS, because Obama is determined to lead from behind . . . . . . . and do not think, for a moment, that he has given up on that notion. Most reports of the past two days, have Obama reversing his desire to lead from behind. But, that is not the case, and time will prove this point to be true.
From an Obama perspective, "leading from behind" gives him the opportunity to deny personal responsibility and blame others - who should be taking the lead - for his failures The only redeeming value in playing this "leading from behind" word game, is that the American people no longer believe much of anything the man says.
There is a second "redeeming value" to all this: the fact that additional failure goes to winning or losing the next election(s).
Understand that winning in Iraq depends on whether Obama allows his military to fight this war. As Commander and Chief, he knows more about running a fruit stand than he does about waging war, but personal ignorance has never been a determinate factor with Obama.
The question for the moment is this: Will we be successful in Iraq? Another way of asking the same question is, "Will Obama allow his military the freedom to win this war?" I believe I know the answers to both questions.
And, I believe that you know the answers, also.
bush first went into Afghanistan and destroyed al Qaeda, there, in 100 days. He took 14 months to gather congressional support, round up 48 nations in support, 38 of which put boots on the ground (28,000 allied troops), and won that war in five years with the lowest casualty rate in human history.
ReplyDeleteObama took that victory, one which he claimed for his own, the lying sack of crap that he is, pulled all our troops out leaving no residual force behind, gave all of our military equipment to the Iraqi's, and announced that he had done what Bush did not finish, and lost that war because of his Middle East desertion. policy.
Understand that we still have troops in Germany, by request of that government, and left troops in Japan for 12 years, following its defeat in WW II.
Now we have Kerry promising that the Obama/Kerry coalition will be a model for building coalitions in the future. To date, this blowhard has a 9 member coalition that does not included the Brits, Germany, Turkey or any of the Middle East nations. On Thursday of this week, Obama made it clear that he is running this new Iraqi war, not his military leadership, a decision as arrogant, misinformated, and preposterous as any he has made to this date.
You write (above), "Even idiots know that victory is only temporary in this part of the world," which is precisely true. That is why Obama could not pull out of Iraq after claiming that nation to be strong, sovereign and stable. Like you say, even an idiot should know better. Glad we agree on that.