Posted on Feb 11, 2015
Obama hopes to finesse controversy over ground troops
3.09K
14
10
1
1
0
From: Marine Corps Times
WASHINGTON — A model of ambiguity, the White House isn't saying it favors a role for U.S. ground forces in combating Islamic State terrorists. But it isn't saying it opposes one, either.
Instead, the White House is floating legislation that pledges no "enduring offensive combat role" in authorizing the use of military force against extremists who have captured parts of Syria and Iraq, imposed stern Sharia law and summarily executed a string of hostages.
Applause was audible Tuesday from inside the room where White House officials presented the overall proposal to Democratic senators. But afterward, on the eve of the legislation's formal launch, there were lingering questions.
"I don't know what the word 'enduring' means. I am very apprehensive about a vague, foggy word," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
Other concerns came from Republicans who had been briefed earlier.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said administration officials had told him their proposal would not provide for the protection of U.S.-trained Syrian rebel troops on the ground in the event of an air attack by Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar Assad.
"It's an unsound military strategy. I think it's immoral if the authorization doesn't allow for us to counter Assad's air power," Graham said.
The White House's efforts to forge a compromise were shadowed during the day by confirmation of the death of a 26-year-old American aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, who had been held hostage by the Islamic group. Obama vowed justice for her killers, and Republican Sen. John McCain, who represents the state where she was from, seemed to grow emotional as he eulogized her on the Senate floor.
The White House and lawmakers in both parties said they hoped Congress would act quickly on the president's request, and its fate seemed likely to turn on the search for a compromise that could satisfy Democrats who oppose the use of American ground forces in the fight against IS, and Republicans who favor at least leaving the possibility open.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., discussing the White House's opaque formulation, predicted, "That's where the rub will be." He also said it was not yet clear if the proposal would cancel an authorization for the use of force that Congress approved shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Several other lawmakers who were briefed in earlier meetings said the legislation would be targeted exclusively against the fighters seeking establishment of an Islamic state, wherever they are and whatever name they use.
It also is intended to cancel a 2002 law that authorized the use of force against Iraq.
There is little evident dispute in Congress that a new authorization is needed, both to replace outdated laws and to underscore a bipartisan desire to defeat the terrorists seeking an Islamic state.
Obama so far has relied on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after 9/11. He said last year he had the legal authority necessary to deploy more than 2,700 U.S. troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces and conduct ongoing airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.
Looking ahead to Obama's expected request, some Democrats expressed concern about a three-year timeline, noting that would leave the next president free to carry out ground operations that Obama refused to approve.
On the other side of the political aisle, some of Obama's die-hard foes seemed unlikely to vote for anything that involved placing their trust in the current occupant of the White House.
Other Republicans have urged the president to request legislation now emerging, and they praised his willingness to do so, up to a point.
"This president, you know, is prone to unilateral action. But when it comes to national security matters, and particularly now fighting this barbaric threat — not only the region but to our own security — I think it's important to come to Congress and get bipartisan support," said John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-ranking Republican leader.
Cornyn and other Republicans have said it's important to have a military strategy robust enough to enable victory, and accused Obama of failing to do so.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/11/obama-hopes-to-finesse-controversy-over-ground-troops/23221665/
WASHINGTON — A model of ambiguity, the White House isn't saying it favors a role for U.S. ground forces in combating Islamic State terrorists. But it isn't saying it opposes one, either.
Instead, the White House is floating legislation that pledges no "enduring offensive combat role" in authorizing the use of military force against extremists who have captured parts of Syria and Iraq, imposed stern Sharia law and summarily executed a string of hostages.
Applause was audible Tuesday from inside the room where White House officials presented the overall proposal to Democratic senators. But afterward, on the eve of the legislation's formal launch, there were lingering questions.
"I don't know what the word 'enduring' means. I am very apprehensive about a vague, foggy word," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
Other concerns came from Republicans who had been briefed earlier.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said administration officials had told him their proposal would not provide for the protection of U.S.-trained Syrian rebel troops on the ground in the event of an air attack by Syrian forces loyal to President Bashar Assad.
"It's an unsound military strategy. I think it's immoral if the authorization doesn't allow for us to counter Assad's air power," Graham said.
The White House's efforts to forge a compromise were shadowed during the day by confirmation of the death of a 26-year-old American aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, who had been held hostage by the Islamic group. Obama vowed justice for her killers, and Republican Sen. John McCain, who represents the state where she was from, seemed to grow emotional as he eulogized her on the Senate floor.
The White House and lawmakers in both parties said they hoped Congress would act quickly on the president's request, and its fate seemed likely to turn on the search for a compromise that could satisfy Democrats who oppose the use of American ground forces in the fight against IS, and Republicans who favor at least leaving the possibility open.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., discussing the White House's opaque formulation, predicted, "That's where the rub will be." He also said it was not yet clear if the proposal would cancel an authorization for the use of force that Congress approved shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Several other lawmakers who were briefed in earlier meetings said the legislation would be targeted exclusively against the fighters seeking establishment of an Islamic state, wherever they are and whatever name they use.
It also is intended to cancel a 2002 law that authorized the use of force against Iraq.
There is little evident dispute in Congress that a new authorization is needed, both to replace outdated laws and to underscore a bipartisan desire to defeat the terrorists seeking an Islamic state.
Obama so far has relied on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after 9/11. He said last year he had the legal authority necessary to deploy more than 2,700 U.S. troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces and conduct ongoing airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria.
Looking ahead to Obama's expected request, some Democrats expressed concern about a three-year timeline, noting that would leave the next president free to carry out ground operations that Obama refused to approve.
On the other side of the political aisle, some of Obama's die-hard foes seemed unlikely to vote for anything that involved placing their trust in the current occupant of the White House.
Other Republicans have urged the president to request legislation now emerging, and they praised his willingness to do so, up to a point.
"This president, you know, is prone to unilateral action. But when it comes to national security matters, and particularly now fighting this barbaric threat — not only the region but to our own security — I think it's important to come to Congress and get bipartisan support," said John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-ranking Republican leader.
Cornyn and other Republicans have said it's important to have a military strategy robust enough to enable victory, and accused Obama of failing to do so.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/02/11/obama-hopes-to-finesse-controversy-over-ground-troops/23221665/
ISIS
Barack Obama
Combat
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
Let's go to war. Rock their world with some gunships, arty, missles, rockets, and best of all Ground Troops. The rest of the world needs to come to terms and make a circle around Syria and Iraq and just squeeze until it pops.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Lucas Dyer M.S.
SSG Aaron Walker, be careful what you wish for...especially in our line of work. It doesn't always end in your favor.
http://blueforcetracker.com/article/A-battle-won-by-handshakes
http://blueforcetracker.com/article/A-battle-won-by-handshakes
Lucas Dyer, author of "A Battle Won by Handshakes," previews his time spent in Afghanistan with the Second Marine Expeditionary Brigade and the tactics his unit employed.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
"Instead, the White House is floating legislation that pledges no "enduring offensive combat role" in authorizing the use of military force against extremists who have captured parts of Syria and Iraq, imposed stern Sharia law and summarily executed a string of hostages."
So, air strikes over months (years?) do not fall inside this oh-so-carefully-crafted-bucket? Are they not enduring? Or offensive? Or combat?
The politicians are attempting to "control" the battlespace by defining the war they want to fight as opposed to committing the resources to execute the fight in which we find ourselves. Air strikes are "easy" since nobody can stop us (so they think). Ground forces are bad because it takes longer and there is significant potential for US casualties, to say nothing of the "you break it, you own it" mentality.
What's lost in this approach is what it will take to achieve our strategic objective - which I'll assert remains unclear. POTUS has asserted the objective is destruction of ISIS, but has failed to communicate how that destruction will be achieved as a result of our actions - presumably both kinetic and non-kinetic (e.g. diplomatic, financial, etc).
In other words, another strategic failure in the making...
So, air strikes over months (years?) do not fall inside this oh-so-carefully-crafted-bucket? Are they not enduring? Or offensive? Or combat?
The politicians are attempting to "control" the battlespace by defining the war they want to fight as opposed to committing the resources to execute the fight in which we find ourselves. Air strikes are "easy" since nobody can stop us (so they think). Ground forces are bad because it takes longer and there is significant potential for US casualties, to say nothing of the "you break it, you own it" mentality.
What's lost in this approach is what it will take to achieve our strategic objective - which I'll assert remains unclear. POTUS has asserted the objective is destruction of ISIS, but has failed to communicate how that destruction will be achieved as a result of our actions - presumably both kinetic and non-kinetic (e.g. diplomatic, financial, etc).
In other words, another strategic failure in the making...
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Some have accused me of hating the President. That simply isn't true. I hate the mold from which he is cast.
Let's be honest. "Floating" trial balloons is nothing new in politics. President Obama is merely practicing a highly evolved form of the same art used by other Presidents. Forgive me if it appears that I am picking on Democrats (but they do seem to have mastered the art), but FDR was a master of it though a poor one compared to President Obama. He too was elected on a promise to stay out of a foreign war and then worked his buns off to get us into it. It seems that engaging in the war on terror is just as important as the earlier one against the Axis powers. I will give FDR credit for being able to name the enemy while BO can't.
Micromanaging the military via politics also is not new. Again, President Obama is merely practicing a highly evolved form of the same art used by other Presidents. (Oops, here I go again with a Democrat as an example.) LBJ is the archetype of that sort of Commander-in-Chief. Of course, LBJ had help, Scty McNamara and his band. President Obama, on the other hand, keeps the reins firmly in his grasp. (It makes one wonder why he has appointed so many Tsars.) BO is often touted as "the smartest man in the room", so often that he seems to have fallen into the trap of believing it.
Inventing a new political vocabulary to obfuscate the opposition is another time tested, time-worn practice. Again, President Obama is merely practicing a highly evolved formm of the same art used by other Presidents. (Let's see, who is a good example of that one? What's the use in hesitating. Can you guess who I'll use?) President Clinton did not have sex with that woman (so long as you could tell him what "is" is). BO now muddies the discourse with "enduring offensive combat role". What the hell? Give that man a prize!
No, I do not hate President Obama. He is, I believe, the President that we deserve. Think about it. Do you believe in our principles memorialized Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." It's easy to alter ours. We have elections to peacefully alter it at will. However, it has been our will to not only elect Barack Obama President, but also reelect him. Thus, he is the President we deserve.
Who am I to argue with We the People?
Let's be honest. "Floating" trial balloons is nothing new in politics. President Obama is merely practicing a highly evolved form of the same art used by other Presidents. Forgive me if it appears that I am picking on Democrats (but they do seem to have mastered the art), but FDR was a master of it though a poor one compared to President Obama. He too was elected on a promise to stay out of a foreign war and then worked his buns off to get us into it. It seems that engaging in the war on terror is just as important as the earlier one against the Axis powers. I will give FDR credit for being able to name the enemy while BO can't.
Micromanaging the military via politics also is not new. Again, President Obama is merely practicing a highly evolved form of the same art used by other Presidents. (Oops, here I go again with a Democrat as an example.) LBJ is the archetype of that sort of Commander-in-Chief. Of course, LBJ had help, Scty McNamara and his band. President Obama, on the other hand, keeps the reins firmly in his grasp. (It makes one wonder why he has appointed so many Tsars.) BO is often touted as "the smartest man in the room", so often that he seems to have fallen into the trap of believing it.
Inventing a new political vocabulary to obfuscate the opposition is another time tested, time-worn practice. Again, President Obama is merely practicing a highly evolved formm of the same art used by other Presidents. (Let's see, who is a good example of that one? What's the use in hesitating. Can you guess who I'll use?) President Clinton did not have sex with that woman (so long as you could tell him what "is" is). BO now muddies the discourse with "enduring offensive combat role". What the hell? Give that man a prize!
No, I do not hate President Obama. He is, I believe, the President that we deserve. Think about it. Do you believe in our principles memorialized Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." It's easy to alter ours. We have elections to peacefully alter it at will. However, it has been our will to not only elect Barack Obama President, but also reelect him. Thus, he is the President we deserve.
Who am I to argue with We the People?
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I Love how you've framed that: "I do not hate the President, but I do hate the mold from which he's cast." That sums my attitude about the man perfectly. In the same week in which the President's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, is making the rounds on the cable news circuit peddling his tell-all book in which he boasts of how the President masterfully deceived the American public by essentially campaigning on a position that he was opposed to same-sex marriage, only to later "evolve" on the issue just prior to gearing-up for his re-election run, the President is asking the American people and the Congress to place their trust and confidence in his judgement and discretion as it relates to combatting an enemy the Administration refuses to identify as Islamic Terrorism. This request comes a mere 6 days after the President seemingly made an awkward and defensive moral equivocation of the present-day threat from Islamic Extremism to the actions of Christian Crusaders 920 years ago, and 5 days after closed-door meetings between the President and a number Islamic groups, including a few that have been investigated extensively for links to financing foreign terror groups in the past.
When combined with this Administration's track-record on foreign policy, I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt, but how can one overlook the failure to broker a SOFA with the Iraqi government in 2011 that would have allowed for a residual force adequate to meet the continuing training and support needs of the fledgling Iraqi Security Forces? What about the Administration's role in fostering instability throughout the region during the Arab Spring of 2012? What about the failure to enforce the violation of the chemical weapons "red-line" in August, 2013? The list goes on...
When it comes to our regional partners and allies, it has been a historical fact that you can find no truer ally than Israel. Yet for the past 6 years, this Administration has sought to marginalize Israel and minimize the the significance of our relationship to the point that there is now a tension between our two nations that has never before existed. Israel has every right to be concerned with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, since that nation has long professed it's desire to wipe Israel and the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. Yet the Administration, in it's zeal to broker an agreement with Iran, seems willing to gamble with Israel's very existence.
It doesn't instill great confidence in a leader who has played so fast and loose with his own character and integrity. Where I come from, these things matter. But I've been told they're both just pieces in the game if you choose to play the Chicago way.
When combined with this Administration's track-record on foreign policy, I want to give the President the benefit of the doubt, but how can one overlook the failure to broker a SOFA with the Iraqi government in 2011 that would have allowed for a residual force adequate to meet the continuing training and support needs of the fledgling Iraqi Security Forces? What about the Administration's role in fostering instability throughout the region during the Arab Spring of 2012? What about the failure to enforce the violation of the chemical weapons "red-line" in August, 2013? The list goes on...
When it comes to our regional partners and allies, it has been a historical fact that you can find no truer ally than Israel. Yet for the past 6 years, this Administration has sought to marginalize Israel and minimize the the significance of our relationship to the point that there is now a tension between our two nations that has never before existed. Israel has every right to be concerned with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, since that nation has long professed it's desire to wipe Israel and the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. Yet the Administration, in it's zeal to broker an agreement with Iran, seems willing to gamble with Israel's very existence.
It doesn't instill great confidence in a leader who has played so fast and loose with his own character and integrity. Where I come from, these things matter. But I've been told they're both just pieces in the game if you choose to play the Chicago way.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google