ISIS: Who needs ground troops?

[cowslinger64]

Because ground troops are the only way they are going to be defeated.

The President said his goal was to "degrade and destroy" Isis/Isil. He cannot do that without ground troops. This opinion isn't just held by me but by his generals as well as prominent strategists. We can have a conversation about whether or not we want to go to war, or to stay home. I have no problem with such a debate or the positions of either side, but it was Obama who said he was going to destroy Isis/Isil, not me. Like his line in the sand, he spoke without conviction, or a plan. This is his problem, yet this AUMF proposal ties the hands of the next President at least until 2018. If the goal is to destroy the enemy, it locks us and the next President into defeat, his lies to the contrary notwithstanding.

That's exactly what the last president did and yet you defend him over and over while trashing Obama for anything he does. If it's one thing it should have been the other.. Every time. That's one of the main issues most here have with you, I'd say.. Having differing political or philosophical differences isn't the problem.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because ground troops are the only way they are going to be defeated.

The President said his goal was to "degrade and destroy" Isis/Isil. He cannot do that without ground troops. This opinion isn't just held by me but by his generals as well as prominent strategists.

But they don't need to be our ground troops; others are eager to do it and capable of winning. The generals know that too.

This is his problem, yet this AUMF proposal ties the hands of the next President at least until 2018.

[shrug] Congress issues it, Congress can change it. At any time. If Obama had asked for a 2016/2017 expiration date, you would accuse him of kicking the can down the road to the next POTUS and Congress.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But they don't need to be our ground troops; others are eager to do it and capable of winning. The generals know that too.

The generals and vette both also know that doesn't get KBR a contract....so fuck that.

Right vette?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Looks like it might be an up-Hill battle for Obama to get even the AUMF he is asking for.

By disallowing “enduring ground forces,” the Times reports, the administration hopes to split the difference between lawmakers who want to see an outright ban on ground forces and those who express concerns about excessive constraints on the commander in chief.

Controversially, the administration includes no language restricting the fight to Iraq and Syria, where ISIS has gained footholds. As the Times notes, this could pave the way for future U.S. operations in countries like Lebanon and Jordan, should ISIS encroach on those nations.

Not surprisingly, some lawmakers are already voicing significant skepticism:

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said as he left the meeting [between congressional Democrats and Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough] that he had “grave reservations” and that he had “yet to be convinced.”

Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, echoed the concerns of many lawmakers who are worried that giving the president approval would only reward a decade of mismanagement in the Middle East. “If money or military might would change that part of the world, we’d be done a long time ago,” he said. “In West Virginia, we understand the definition of insanity.”

 

[NeverEndingMe]

obama loves him some war!

 

[KingOrfeo]

See also:

Wednesday, Feb 11, 2015 02:52 PM EST

White House’s plan for war: What, exactly, does “enduring offensive ground combat operations” mean?

The White House's AUMF proposal isn't as bad as it could've been -- but it can't leave any room for ambiguity

Jim Newell

The White House finally got around to submitting its draft authorization for use of military force for Congress to consider, debate, amend, vote on, ignore, ruin, whatever. And if it passes in some form or another, the war that’s already been underway for nearly six months might actually rest on a solid legal foundation.

The good news for people who don’t like open-ended ground wars — which, shockingly but not shockingly, is not everyone — is that the administration won’t pursue what could euphemistically be described as “maximum flexibility.” It has backed away from its previous posture, as annunciated by Secretary of State John Kerry in congressional testimony last December, that it didn’t want an explicit ban on ground combat troops. That’s the key thing here, and it was a pleasure to make such a fuss over it.

The president has always claimed that he will not deploy combat troops to fight a ground war against ISIS in multiple countries in the Middle East. But according to the administration’s current, dicey justification for war — the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda and affiliates, and conveniently lenient legal readings thereof — the only thing getting in the way of a ground war is the president’s judgment. As in: President Obama could simply change his mind. Or incoming President John Bolton or Hillary Clinton could decide that yes, an open-ended ground war in multiple countries in the Middle East would be an excellent investment of resources. This is why it’s so important to straitjacket the presidency, and Obama seems to understand how this could affect his legacy.

Now it’s just a matter of getting the words right. Specifically, five words: “enduring offensive ground combat operations.” This is what the White House’s draft AUMF prohibits — the language it uses to bar the “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan,” as the White House puts it in an accompanying letter. The letter goes on to list exceptions:

The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.

If the prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations” explicitly means everything but those itemized exceptions — special ops on high value targets, spotters, search and rescue teams, intelligence officials, advisers — then that’s not so bad. Most of the AUMF proposals have allowed these exceptions. The “boots on the ground” that are important to restrict are those that could blossom into tens or hundreds of thousands.

But that’s just what the letter says, and a letter is just a letter. Meanwhile, this is all the the draft legislation itself has to offer:

(c) LIMITATIONS.—

The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

And… that’s the end of that section. Hmmm. Letting ”enduring offensive ground operations” just sit there like that, without any hard definition, runs the risk — or perhaps serves the intention — of allowing it to get loopholed beyond any recognition. Some hack lawyer for this or the next administration could come along and offer a legal opinion that “enduring” means, say, more than 100 years. Or that this war against various people in the desert thousands and thousands of miles away is strictly a defensive operation — there is no “offensive” nature whatsoever in these operations. This is about defending freedom! How dare you! Etc etc.

Or there’s the most obvious path regarding “advisers.” Hell, “possible presidential candidate” Lindsey Graham, relentless in his thirst for death, is already sniffing out this one:

Niels Lesniewski @nielslesniewski
Follow
Sen. Graham mentions possibility of 10,000 US ground personnel for combating #ISIS. As advisers.


1:11 PM - 10 Feb 2015

It’s just a draft, sure, fine, but that language will need some tightening up. As Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the leading House Democrats on this issue, says in a statement today, the AUMF “should place more specific limits on the use of ground troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without the President coming to Congress to make the case for one.” (He also notes another major problem: the new AUMF doesn’t address the 2001 AUMF. Meaning, if this new one were to pass and sunset in three years, the next administration could revert to the broad, problematic reading of the 2001 AUMF under which the White House is currently operating.)

The obvious problem with regards to tightening the prohibition of ground combat troops is that the Republican party controls Congress. And its leaders will want to move in the opposite, more expansive direction. It seems ironic, at first, that the Republican party would want to give the Imperial Tyrant President the broadest imaginable executive authority here, authority that the Imperial Tyrant President himself isn’t even calling for. This isn’t really about the current president, though. It’s about the presidency. The stakes aren’t just about who’s in charge today, but about who’s going to be in charge come January 2017 and beyond. If that person wants a ground war against ISIS, they should have to come to Congress and make that case.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It means Obama doesn't want to destroy or defeat Isis.

It will be destroyed no matter what Obama does.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

the obaNa is a man! the greatest Cuckold EVER!


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51G%2B1QaICCL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Read the OP again.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Read this again:

"It means Obama doesn't want to destroy or defeat Isis. It means that Congress should reassess this President's motivations and fitness for commanding American forces in war. The parameters of his toothless request for AUMF is highly suspect and unprecedented in American history. I'm beginning to think Congress should deny his request. They should state that he already has the authority to attack terrorism anywhere in the world and can use whatever force he needs to do the job. Let Obama, the CinC, decide not to use ground troops if he doesn't want to. Let Obama put his own personal imprimatur on his actions. If he wants to tie the hands of our military, let him do so and suffer the political consequences personally."

Vetteman
__________________

it was bullshit the first time you posted it, it's still bullshit now.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You're a whole sack o' shit. He already has the authority. Show me where he doesn't.

It doesn't work that way Vettebigot, you made the claim, it's up to you to prove it. It's not my responsibility to disprove your assertions.
I said you're full of shit, so prove your case or semper fi the fuck down.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You're a whole sack o' shit. He already has the authority. Show me where he doesn't.

Do you mean, under the 2001 AUMF, or constitutionally? The latter question is debatable, controversial, and unresolved by the courts.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

He has the authority either way when Americans are being threatened or the national security interests of the nation come into play. In the present case Obama has the authority under the former AUMF which grants broad authority to attack terrorism wherever it exists.

He wants Congress to craft a faux AUMF that underwrites his timidity, so that when he is timid and unwilling to win, he can say, "hey look at that the AUMF, I don't have such authority. In the beginning he wanted geographical limits placed on his authority as well as force and tactical limits. No President in history has ever asked for such constraints on his constitutional authority as CinC, and none has ever been granted by Congress. Obama does not want to win, doesn't want the authority to win, isn't up to the job of CinC.

So your position is that for as long as terrorism exists anywhere, that AUMF is valid?

So war without end, forever and ever, amen?

But you would be wrong. Read the AUMF, pay particular attention to section 2.


Preamble

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

John Yoo? The very same John Yoo who was instrumental in enabling the torture of detainees? THAT John Yoo? I won't even get into th fact that the paper you're citing has nothing at all to do with current events, being 13 years old.

The AUMF issued just after the attacks on 9/11 states specifically it's intent:

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

You don't just get to grab the final phrase and decide that the rest of the paragraph doesn't matter. If the AUMF had been followed as written we wouldn't have been in Iraq at all. Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan and didn't move into Iraq until after we created a massive power vacuum by deposing it's dictator, then disbanding it's government, army, and police forces.

Saddam was a lot of things, a truly horrible excuse for a human being, but being a secular dictator put into power by the Ba'ath Party, he was no friend to radical religious fanatics like Al Qaeda. No secular dictator would allow a radical religious movement to get a foothold in his country, because they would be a threat to his regime.

ISIS did not exist on 9/11 and was not involved in the planning, authorization, execution, nor did they aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. The previous AUMF does not apply no matter how much you want to insist that it does.

Al Qaeda doesn't want anything to do with ISIS and has disavowed any ties to them. As a matter of fact, the two have engaged in hostilities against each other in Northern Syria.

 

[KingOrfeo]

John Yoo? The very same John Yoo who was instrumental in enabling the torture of detainees? THAT John Yoo?

Also one of the legal minds behind the W Admin's extreme interpretation of the Unitary Executive theory.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Cool topical toons.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Graeme Wood writes in The Atlantic:

And yet the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have given baya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?

Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.

The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest. Al-Qaeda’s core is rare among jihadist groups for its focus on the “far enemy” (the West); most jihadist groups’ main concerns lie closer to home. That’s especially true of the Islamic State, precisely because of its ideology. It sees enemies everywhere around it, and while its leadership wishes ill on the United States, the application of Sharia in the caliphate and the expansion to contiguous lands are paramount. Baghdadi has said as much directly: in November he told his Saudi agents to “deal with the rafida [Shia] first … then al-Sulul [Sunni supporters of the Saudi monarchy] … before the crusaders and their bases.”

<snip>

Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive. And as more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like.

 

[unregistered]