Obama's War(s)

[Dos Equis]

How many wars and bombings has this Nobel Peace Prize winner been involved in?

Don’t Call It a War? Administration hit for refusing to use ‘w’ word for ISIS mission
Published September 12, 2014
FoxNews.com

The Obama administration is refusing to describe the expanded military campaign against the Islamic State as a war -- despite plans to launch airstrikes across two tumultuous Middle East countries, dispatch hundreds more U.S. military personnel and build a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network.

The reluctance to use that label has generated confusion on Capitol Hill, particularly in light of new intelligence estimates that the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s the size of a small army – and close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001. 

Yet in television interviews on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly avoided the term “war” to describe the mission, instead calling it a “major counterterrorism operation” that could last a long time.

“It’s hard to find a response to that,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”

McCain and other lawmaker suggest Kerry’s comments do not square with President Obama’s stated goal of defeating the Islamic State, or ISIS.

“This is John Kerry, vintage,” McCain said.

Other members of the administration besides Kerry appeared to be struggling to both define the conflict and the terms of victory, as the U.S. enters a new and potentially risky phase of its operation against the terror group.

Asked Thursday what would constitute “destroying” ISIS, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “I didn't bring my Webster's Dictionary with me up here.”

Earnest tried to explain the operation as falling under the umbrella of the 2001 authorization to use military force – the measure that provided the legal basis to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. (Kerry also compared the operation to strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen.)

The administration is using this argument in order to avoid seeking new congressional authorization for the fight against ISIS. 

But the Islamic State was not originally linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and has since split from the perpetrator of those attacks, Al Qaeda.

Some lawmakers say the administration is on shaky legal ground by treating this as a mere continuation of the counterterrorism missions in other countries, and is effectively downplaying the entire challenge ahead. 

McCain said that if the president doesn’t understand the difference between the Islamic State and terror networks in places like Yemen, “then … he is oblivious to the size, shape, strength and ability of ISIS. It’s like comparing a little league team to the New York Yankees.”

A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Thursday that the ISIS fighting force has sharply increased from the original estimate of at least 10,000 fighters.

“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August,” the spokesperson said. “This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”

Asked Thursday whether the government still views these operations as part of the “war on terrorism,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “It’s certainly not how I would refer to our efforts.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”

“Words matter,” McCaul said Friday.

McCaul praised the president for moving to expand the mission into Syria, where the “head of the snake” of ISIS is located. But he said the administration is being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.

“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/dont-call-it-war-administration-hit-for-refusing-to-use-w-word-for-isis-mission/

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/11/us-ground-troops-needed-to-defeat-islamic-state-in/

[Soul Crusher]

GWB predicted Obama's folly in 2007:

"If U.S forces were withdrawn before our commanders tell us we are ready
it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan." - George W. Bush

[Dos Equis]

[240 is Back]

sometimes you have to war in order to create peace.  reagan knew that.

[Soul Crusher]

[Dos Equis]

Doh!  I'm sure the White House is going B-slap this guy.  lol

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/us-pins-hope-on-syrian-rebels-with-loyalties-all-over-the-map.html?_r=0

[Dos Equis]

Keystone Kops.   

White House, Pentagon contradict Kerry, say US ‘at war’ with ISIS
Published September 12, 2014
FoxNews.com

The White House and Pentagon acknowledged Friday that the U.S. “is at war” with the Islamic State -- contradicting Secretary of State John Kerry and others who a day earlier refused to use that term, prompting criticism from lawmakers that the administration was downplaying the conflict.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby used almost identical language when pressed by reporters Friday whether or not the expanded military operation against the terrorist group is in fact a war.

“In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest said.

Kirby said “this is not the Iraq War” from a decade ago, “but make no mistake -- we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

The comments are a sharp turnaround from how Kerry described the military operation on Thursday. In interviews with CNN and CBS News, Kerry described it as a “very significant” and “major counterterrorism operation.” He told CBS News that “war is the wrong terminology.”

His spokeswoman, Marie Harf, also said she would not “refer to our efforts” as part of the “war on terrorism.”

Kerry’s comments, though, stirred confusion on Capitol Hill, coming a day after President Obama announced plans to expand airstrikes in Iraq and authorize them in Syria, while dispatching hundreds more U.S. military personnel.

Obama called for a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network. Meanwhile, the CIA confirmed that its latest estimates show the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001. 

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other lawmakers suggested Kerry’s comments did not square with Obama’s stated goal of defeating the vast terror network.

“It’s hard to find a response to that,” McCain told Fox News on Thursday night, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”

Kerry wasn't the only one having a hard time describing the mission on Thursday. National Security Adviser Susan Rice likewise told CNN on Thursday she wasn't sure whether it should be called a war or a "sustained counterterrorism campaign."

Senior State Department officials stressed to Fox News on Friday that Kerry's comments were consistent with what other senior U.S. officials were saying at the time, and made clear that the secretary remains on the same page as the rest of the administration.

"This was a deliberate, administration-wide adjustment in language," a senior State Department official told Fox News, "which Secretary Kerry would have also used today had he been asked."

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said earlier Friday that the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”

“Words matter,” McCaul said. He claimed the administration was being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.

“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.

But in the Pentagon and White House briefings Friday afternoon, it appeared the administration was backing off the earlier characterization.

Earnest clarified that the operation is not a case of the United States acting alone against the Islamic State, since the Islamic State, he said, is waging a war against the international community.

But he repeated that the U.S. is “at war” with ISIS as it is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/white-house-pentagon-contradict-kerry-say-us-at-war-with-isis/

[Dos Equis]

 

Krauthammer on ISIS: Obama Is ‘Ambivalent, Reluctant, Obviously Does Not Want to Do This’
BY FOX NEWS INSIDER
SEP 12 2014

Tonight on “The Kelly File,” Charles Krauthammer said President Barack Obama’s entire ISIS strategy “is really in trouble.”

Krauthammer explained that Obama isn’t asking for authorization from the Democrats because they are begging him not to cast a vote for war. Turkey – which is next to Syria – has also said that it will not allow us to use its air bases.  He also touched on Obama’s remarks comparing this mission to what we have done in Somalia and Yemen.

“Obama said we have to imitate what we did in Somalia and Yemen, which is quite ridiculous. Somalia – we’ve had two airstrikes all year. He’s gonna defeat ISIS – which his own administration is calling a threat unlike any we’ve ever seen – with two airstrikes, drone strikes? That doesn’t apply.”

Krauthammer: ‘President Trying to Save a Collapsed Presidency’

Krauthammer remarked that George W. Bush had 38 allies with boots on the ground, 25,000 allies on the ground with us.

“Obama as of today has zero,” he said.

Krauthammer said the biggest issue is that “you’ve got a president who is ambivalent, a president who clearly is reluctant, a president who obviously does not want to do this.”

Krauthammer: Obama ‘Was Unable to Manage the Victory’ in Iraq

He noted that Obama announced a surge and withdrawal date in the same sentence.

“They see a president who does not commit himself to win or to succeed, only to go in and to get out,” he said, explaining that allies are asking themselves if they’re going to follow a man into battle who clearly isn’t committed.

“It’s a lack of confidence in the president who draws a red line then walks away and pretends he never drew the red line at all,” he said.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/12/krauthammer-isis-obama-‘ambivalent-reluctant-obviously-does-not-want-do-this’

[240 is Back]

LOL @ repubs.

Half of them are shitting their pants in anger that obama isn't sending in 300,000 troops to defeat 31,000 ISIS.

Half of them are shitting the pants for starting another war/conflict that we sure as fck cannot afford as a nation.

There's no unified position here, other than "obama sucks and we'd do it better but we don't know how". 

At this point, everyone I know is so immune to the "blame obama" nature of everything.  yes, blame him monthly as you write check to obamacare.  yes, blame him for mocking "JV" AL-quida as terri'sts still decapitate anyone crazy enough to infiltrate them for a "story".   But blaming him for ISIS?  Bad guys are going to do this, over and over.  And over and over, good guys are going to get them.  All this "how could obama let this happen". ... um, no president in HISTORY has stopped bad guys from joining together and being bad guys.  Even bush, for all his Al-Q attacking for 7 years, didn't wipe them off the earth, just left them for the next POTUS.

[whork]

LOL @ repubs.

Half of them are shitting their pants in anger that obama isn't sending in 300,000 troops to defeat 31,000 ISIS.

Half of them are shitting the pants for starting another war/conflict that we sure as fck cannot afford as a nation.

There's no unified position here, other than "obama sucks and we'd do it better but we don't know how". 

At this point, everyone I know is so immune to the "blame obama" nature of everything.  yes, blame him monthly as you write check to obamacare.  yes, blame him for mocking "JV" AL-quida as terri'sts still decapitate anyone crazy enough to infiltrate them for a "story".   But blaming him for ISIS?  Bad guys are going to do this, over and over.  And over and over, good guys are going to get them.  All this "how could obama let this happen". ... um, no president in HISTORY has stopped bad guys from joining together and being bad guys.  Even bush, for all his Al-Q attacking for 7 years, didn't wipe them off the earth, just left them for the next POTUS.

Good post.

Party of personal responsibility has been reduced to a bunch of spineless bureaucrats with big voices and no courage.

[240 is Back]

Good post.

Party of personal responsibility has been reduced to a bunch of spineless bureaucrats with big voices and no courage.

I'd probably agree with whatever their war policy was... if i knew what it even was.   But they dont know, it's all over the place.  Half want a war, half want zero involvement, and they all hate obama.

[tonymctones]

LMFAO at idiots complaining that people arent subscribing to group think

[Dos Equis]

As of yesterday, we are at war again, bombing ISIS in Syria.  Wasn't the president on TV less than a year ago begging the American people to support bombing Assad?  And now we are bombing Assad's opponents? 

This really is like a very bad dream.  We are so screwed. 

[Soul Crusher]

As of yesterday, we are at war again, bombing ISIS in Syria.  Wasn't the president on TV less than a year ago begging the American people to support bombing Assad?  And now we are bombing Assad's opponents? 

This really is like a very bad dream.  We are so screwed. 

 

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/23/Obama-in-2009-Jets-Used-in-Syria-Outdated-and-Unnecessary


 

[Coach is Back!]

As of yesterday, we are at war again, bombing ISIS in Syria.  Wasn't the president on TV less than a year ago begging the American people to support bombing Assad?  And now we are bombing Assad's opponents? 

This really is like a very bad dream.  We are so screwed. 

It's not a war. We're just containing them and degrading them. 

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/6101495/obama-defeat-isis

[Dos Equis]

It's not a war. We're just containing them and degrading them. 

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/6101495/obama-defeat-isis

I wonder if they will call this one "non-kinetic" too.   

[Dos Equis]

Army chief: Division headquarters will deploy soon to Iraq
Sep. 23, 2014
By Michelle Tan
Staff report

As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.

Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”

It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year.

The division headquarters deploying to Iraq is expected to be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the 1,600 troops President Obama has sent to Iraq. Many of these troops are advising and assisting the Iraqi Security Forces, others are providing extra security, while others are providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. The headquarters also is expected to head up the joint operations center that since July has been run by Maj. Gen. Dana Pittard, the deputy commanding general for operations for U.S. Army Central.

Odierno’s comments were made Friday to a group of defense reporters in Washington, D.C.

During the wide-ranging interview, Odierno discussed the critical role played by the Army’s two-star division headquarters.

“The complexity of the environment that we have to operate in now, and probably the next 10 to 15 to 20 years, we need these headquarters,” he said. “If you ask me one of the stress points in the Army, it’s our headquarters.”

The Army has 10 division headquarters, including two in Afghanistan and one in South Korea.

On Monday night, the U.S. mounted its first airstrikes in Syria, targeting the Islamic State and also the Khorasan group, a little known terrorist cell.

Monday night’s massive air assault hitting 22 targets across Syria was a historic operation that signals a new expansion of a war that is likely to last for years.

U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft dropped precision-guided missiles on two separate and distinct extremists groups, targeting command-and-control headquarters, barracks, training camps logistical nodes and other sites, defense officials said.

“You are seeing the beginning of a sustained campaign,” Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the Joint Staff’s director of operations, told Pentagon reporters Tuesday.

On Friday, Odierno also emphasized that destroying the Islamic State will be a long-term effort.

“We have to realize this is a long-term threat, this is a long-term commitment,” he said. “If you don’t believe they want to attack the West and America, you’re kidding yourself. That is their goal.”

Staff writer Andrew Tilghman contributed to this report.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140923/NEWS08/309230066/Army-chief-Division-headquarters-will-deploy-soon-Iraq?sf31502441=1

[240 is Back]

LOL @ Repubs whose d*cks were so hard for war for 8 years... suddenly they're the biggest pacifists on the planet lol. 

[whork]

LOL @ Repubs whose d*cks were so hard for war for 8 years... suddenly they're the biggest pacifists on the planet lol. 

No integrity or leadership what so ever.

[240 is Back]

No integrity or leadership what so ever.

they used to sing songs about bombing iran.  they wanted to elect a president than sang war caroles, cause 2 wars just wasn't enough for them.

suddenly they're all greepeace about it...

[whork]

they used to sing songs about bombing iran.  they wanted to elect a president than sang war caroles, cause 2 wars just wasn't enough for them.

suddenly they're all greepeace about it...

Its their strategy. Oppose Obama at any cost even if they throw their principles out the window.

Their base will forgive them though,they have the attention span of a house-fly.

Just ask BB and Coach. Heck BB started this thread. The man who thinks Bush was a good president now starts anti-war thread's. But dont expect any accountability from the voters of the party of personal responsibility. 

[Dos Equis]

Obama at the UN: He Really Doesn’t Get that He’s at War
by KEITH KOFFLER on SEPTEMBER 24, 2014

There’s a reason President Obama and his advisors don’t want to use the word “war” in describing what we are doing against ISIS. It’s that they really don’t believe they are at war. They really don’t get it.

The president seems to be thinking that he’s playing a game of “Risk” with his high school friends in Hawaii.

Obama UNObama this morning stepped to the rostrum of the United Nations at the very moment he has launched attacks against the foe of the civilized world – and even of the uncivilized portion too. You would think, naturally, that he would be rallying the troops, so to speak, since this is supposedly an international coalition. That he’d be sustaining morale by explaining the danger, issuing a call to arms, and assuring jittery allies that we won’t relent until the job is done.

But no, what we got was a lecture to the Mideast Muslim world about how they have to start behaving themselves in order to undermine the rationale for ISIS. They have to talk to each other, join hands, chant the Chimes of Freedom, and stop arguing about religious matters.

Stop arguing about religious matters? Sure.

Listen, this little talking to directed at Muslims is a good idea, and I give Obama credit for doing it. He seems to have shed  a little political correctness and decided to ask, in effect, Where’s the outrage among Muslims about Islamism and why are you funding it?

This was a good line, directed in particular at the Saudis:

It is time for a new compact among the civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source: the corruption of young minds by violent ideology.

That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down.

But the president is naive and ultimately laden with hubris. The tyrants, Islamists, and self-servers who run the Middle East are not going to change their ways just because Barack Obama says so.

No one’s going to reform themselves unless the alternative looks too unattractive. That is, unless extremism is met with violence and defeat.

Ronald Reagan didn’t start negotiating with the Soviets until he had made it very clear to them that we would oppose them and seek to destroy their ideology, whether by arming Afghan rebels or promoting missile defense.

What Muslim leaders and societies might do, rather than suddenly start powwowing it up over hookahs, is join us in a shared fight for against ISIS, which for them is an important battle to wage.

And for this, Obama would have had to stir their imaginations with visions of conquest against our shared enemy while making it clear he’s enthusiastic about the task and isn’t going to extract himself at the first sign of bad news.

But no. Opportunity squandered.

The way to defeat Islamist extremism is to defeat it. We can talk about community organizing in Riyadh later.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/09/24/obama-war/