Obama hopes to finesse controversy over ground troops

Marine Corps Times — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:13:28 -0500

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/

Response by Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP made Feb 11 at 2015 10:30 AM

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:30:40 -0500

"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...

Response by LTC Herman Valentine made Feb 11 at 2015 11:42 AM

LTC Herman Valentine — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:42:13 -0500

More Half-Assed Bull S#@t!!!!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 11 at 2015 12:04 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:04:21 -0500

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?

Response by MSgt Michael Durkee made Feb 11 at 2015 12:28 PM

MSgt Michael Durkee — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:28:32 -0500

If it does come to it, our ground forces will win the hearts and minds. Two to the heart, and one to the mind.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 12:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:31:51 -0500

"War is merely the continuation of politics by other means" - Carl von Clausewitz

I have never been a fan of the President personally, and I thoroughly believe he drew us out of Iraq far too soon, however I understand his desire to incrementally push the envelope open a little farther after each "crisis" thereby conditioning the American public to support full intervention in Syria and Iraq. If the American public begins to falter on this intervention on his watch, it will be the Democrats that have to pay the price in the next election cycle.

That being said it is time to go back into Iraq, and this time the military needs far less interference from the Obama Administration than has historically been the case. For those who are concerned that we may not enter Iraq I offer you another quote that may offer you solace:

"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, you just need to give them the opportunity to exhaust every other option first." - Winston Churchill

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 12:33 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:33:00 -0500

My prediction: we'll send troops, and they will be ignored by the administration. Just as we are done with combat operations in Afghanistan, even though there are still something like 10,000 troops there, along with active airfields, daily close air support sorties, and millions of tons of equipment. But no combat.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Feb 11 at 2015 1:50 PM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:50:17 -0500

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.