Posted on Dec 2, 2015
Do you believe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may have committed career suicide by contradicting President Obama?
7.9K
94
48
6
6
0
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/261644-general-we-have-not-contained-isis
The United States has "not contained" the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the nation's top military officer said Tuesday, contradicting President Obama's remarks last month about the terror group.
"We have not contained" ISIS, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
The comment runs counter to what the president said days before ISIS launched a string of attacks across Paris.
"I don't think they're gaining strength. What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them," Obama told ABC News.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, later said the president's remarks applied specifically to Iraq and Syria.
Dunford said ISIS has been "tactically" contained in areas they have been since 2010 but added, "Strategically they have spread since 2010."
His remarks were in response to questioning by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) on whether ISIS has been contained at any time since 2010.
Dunford added that ISIS posed a threat beyond Iraq and Syria to countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Jordan.
Forbes also got Dunford to disagree with Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who testified alongside him.
Carter had declared during his opening statement that "we're at war" with ISIS.
Forbes pressed Dunford whether the U.S. was at war with ISIS, and who declared that war.
"We are technically not at war," Dunford replied.
An academic report released Tuesday said that American support for radical Islamism has reached “unprecedented” levels.
“What we do see in the United States is an unprecedented mobilization” that is “bigger than any other mobilization we have seen since 9/11,” Lorenzo Vidino, the director of George Washington University’s program on extremism, said during an event releasing the report.
The report found that the types of Americans drawn to ISIS vary widely in terms of race, age, education and family background. Yet they are largely all united by their use of social media, which ISIS has been able to master as its reach has grown.
FBI Director James Comey has said that federal officials have launched ISIS-related investigations in all 50 states.
Obama, who is in Paris for talks on an international climate change agreement, has also used the trip to meet with world leaders about the threat from ISIS.
The United States has "not contained" the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the nation's top military officer said Tuesday, contradicting President Obama's remarks last month about the terror group.
"We have not contained" ISIS, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
The comment runs counter to what the president said days before ISIS launched a string of attacks across Paris.
"I don't think they're gaining strength. What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them," Obama told ABC News.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, later said the president's remarks applied specifically to Iraq and Syria.
Dunford said ISIS has been "tactically" contained in areas they have been since 2010 but added, "Strategically they have spread since 2010."
His remarks were in response to questioning by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) on whether ISIS has been contained at any time since 2010.
Dunford added that ISIS posed a threat beyond Iraq and Syria to countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Jordan.
Forbes also got Dunford to disagree with Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who testified alongside him.
Carter had declared during his opening statement that "we're at war" with ISIS.
Forbes pressed Dunford whether the U.S. was at war with ISIS, and who declared that war.
"We are technically not at war," Dunford replied.
An academic report released Tuesday said that American support for radical Islamism has reached “unprecedented” levels.
“What we do see in the United States is an unprecedented mobilization” that is “bigger than any other mobilization we have seen since 9/11,” Lorenzo Vidino, the director of George Washington University’s program on extremism, said during an event releasing the report.
The report found that the types of Americans drawn to ISIS vary widely in terms of race, age, education and family background. Yet they are largely all united by their use of social media, which ISIS has been able to master as its reach has grown.
FBI Director James Comey has said that federal officials have launched ISIS-related investigations in all 50 states.
Obama, who is in Paris for talks on an international climate change agreement, has also used the trip to meet with world leaders about the threat from ISIS.
ISIS
Terrorism
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
15
15
0
At this point, there is no more promotions he can get, either by rank or billet. The only thing that can happen is that he can get relieved (fired), however this is a Senate Confirmed position. He is literally the Subject Matter Expert when it comes to military affairs. He has no obligation to "tow party line" especially as the Military is NOT part of the Executive Branch. We are OPCON/ADCON to it, however we have Constitutional Obligations to BOTH the Executive & Legislature.
(15)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC (Join to see) - The military is regulated by Congress, through both the Army & Navy Clauses, the War Clause, and the Military Regulations Clauses (among others). The President CONTROLS (Opcon/Adcon) the Military through the CINC clause. Officers are Commissioned by the Legislative (delegated to the President below O5). Enlisted are sworn to follow orders of the President, but officers are not. It's a separation of Powers issue, but the Military is not actually "part" of either branch of Government, and swears to the Constitution itself (we're not part of either Branch).
Andrew Johnson was Impeached for firing Secretary of War (Tenure of Office Act) if I recall correctly. However that specific act was declared unconstitutional. My point about him being a Senate Confirmed position wasn't that the President couldn't fire him (he absolutely can), it was that he has an obligation with that vested Power (Constitutional) to be "truthful" to Congress on Executive matters.
Andrew Johnson was Impeached for firing Secretary of War (Tenure of Office Act) if I recall correctly. However that specific act was declared unconstitutional. My point about him being a Senate Confirmed position wasn't that the President couldn't fire him (he absolutely can), it was that he has an obligation with that vested Power (Constitutional) to be "truthful" to Congress on Executive matters.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
"The [Federal Trade Commission] is regulated by Congress, through both the [Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause] (among others). The President CONTROLS (Opcon/Adcon) the [FTC] through the [Appointments Clause; and the implicit power of Removal, among others]. Officers are [Confirmed] by the Legislat[ure] (delegated to the President [for "inferior officers"]). [All employees swear, essentially, the commissioning Oath]."
All I have done is substitute the FTC for the Military, but it could be done with most, if not all, Executive agencies. The FTC is actually somewhat strange because it is not a Cabinet agency, but DOS would work just as well.
Next you say "It's a separation of Powers issue, but the Military is not actually "part" of either branch of Government, and swears to the Constitution itself (we're not part of either Branch)." The Separation of Powers doctrine keeps the branches from excessive interference with the others (e.g. Congress cannot adjudicate cases or controversies in law or equity, except for certain cases such as impeachment). Control of the military is not a Separation of Powers principle; if anything, it is a sharing of powers issue. Finally, nearly every federal employee swears the same Oath to support and defend the Constitution. Nevertheless, the FTC and the Military are parts of the Executive Branch. All positions within the Executive Branch are creatures of Congress, but that does not place Service members in the Legislative Branch.
To the drive-by reader this may seem academic or semantic, but the distinction is very important under our constitutional structure. I also firmly believe that Service members should have a better sense of our federal composition than the public at large.
All I have done is substitute the FTC for the Military, but it could be done with most, if not all, Executive agencies. The FTC is actually somewhat strange because it is not a Cabinet agency, but DOS would work just as well.
Next you say "It's a separation of Powers issue, but the Military is not actually "part" of either branch of Government, and swears to the Constitution itself (we're not part of either Branch)." The Separation of Powers doctrine keeps the branches from excessive interference with the others (e.g. Congress cannot adjudicate cases or controversies in law or equity, except for certain cases such as impeachment). Control of the military is not a Separation of Powers principle; if anything, it is a sharing of powers issue. Finally, nearly every federal employee swears the same Oath to support and defend the Constitution. Nevertheless, the FTC and the Military are parts of the Executive Branch. All positions within the Executive Branch are creatures of Congress, but that does not place Service members in the Legislative Branch.
To the drive-by reader this may seem academic or semantic, but the distinction is very important under our constitutional structure. I also firmly believe that Service members should have a better sense of our federal composition than the public at large.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC (Join to see) - When you say nearly every "employee" swears the same oath, I counter that Office Holders swear one oath, which is the same for the VP, Officers, Congress, and most Special Agents, while Enlisted swear an entirely different oath (there are as many of us as there are of all the others combined, if not more). The enlisted Oath includes the "Orders of the President (et al)..." which is lacking in the Oath of Office.
The Separation/Sharing of Power is definitely a semantic issue, and I can see your point, though I look at it from the "fear of standing Armies" side of 1800~ and the ability of Congress to defund/dismantle the military administratively/economically, much like they are doing now. Being "owned" by the Executive means nothing when you are "funded" and "manned" by the Legislative. When we deal with the military, there are specific Constitutional (named) requirements which just don't exist with most other Agencies, especially those that 'cross' branches of Government.
I'm not saying we are part of the Legislative. I'm saying we are neither, nuanced difference. It would be akin to being a resident of DC rather than Virginia or Maryland. The vested Powers of the military come from the Legislature, and are exercised by the Executive. It takes both to bring them to bear (sharing of Power), and either to grind them to a halt (separation of Power).
The Separation/Sharing of Power is definitely a semantic issue, and I can see your point, though I look at it from the "fear of standing Armies" side of 1800~ and the ability of Congress to defund/dismantle the military administratively/economically, much like they are doing now. Being "owned" by the Executive means nothing when you are "funded" and "manned" by the Legislative. When we deal with the military, there are specific Constitutional (named) requirements which just don't exist with most other Agencies, especially those that 'cross' branches of Government.
I'm not saying we are part of the Legislative. I'm saying we are neither, nuanced difference. It would be akin to being a resident of DC rather than Virginia or Maryland. The vested Powers of the military come from the Legislature, and are exercised by the Executive. It takes both to bring them to bear (sharing of Power), and either to grind them to a halt (separation of Power).
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I was talking about the Oath of non-military federal employees; nearly all take the same oath as the VP.
I don't think the issue is semantic. The Military performs an exclusively Executive function. Your argument that "Being 'owned' by the Executive means nothing when you are 'manned' and 'funded' by the Legislat[ure]" leads to the (incorrect) conclusion that the only Executive entities are the President and Vice President, the only explicitly mentioned Executive offices. Congress could de-fund the FBI and divest it of its powers, but that doesn't mean the FBI is not Executive. I think Separation of Powers does not mean what you think it means. And here is the difference. Those "duties" which Military officers swear to "well and faithfully discharge," and which enlisted Service-members swear to obey, are Executive in nature, and Executive powers are vested in the President.
I don't think the issue is semantic. The Military performs an exclusively Executive function. Your argument that "Being 'owned' by the Executive means nothing when you are 'manned' and 'funded' by the Legislat[ure]" leads to the (incorrect) conclusion that the only Executive entities are the President and Vice President, the only explicitly mentioned Executive offices. Congress could de-fund the FBI and divest it of its powers, but that doesn't mean the FBI is not Executive. I think Separation of Powers does not mean what you think it means. And here is the difference. Those "duties" which Military officers swear to "well and faithfully discharge," and which enlisted Service-members swear to obey, are Executive in nature, and Executive powers are vested in the President.
(0)
(0)
Joe Dunford was my regimental commander. He will tell it as it is, and that is his job. I'm very glad to see him in the Chairman's role.
(12)
(0)
9
9
0
A few thoughts:
- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a terminal position. All who have held the position have retired from the position (that I am aware of).
- The Chairman's (and every military person's) first loyalty is to the Constitution and not to POTUS.
- The job of the Chairman is to provide his military expertise and advice to POTUS. Sounds to me like he is doing just that.
- The job of the Chairman is also to support POTUS militarily. It is NOT his job to support POTUS politically. If POTUS wants to alter or spin facts on the ground to suit his political purposes then he can do that.
- The Chairman serves at the pleasure of the President. These are nice words that mean the Chairman can be fired (or asked to resign) at any time for any reason.
- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a terminal position. All who have held the position have retired from the position (that I am aware of).
- The Chairman's (and every military person's) first loyalty is to the Constitution and not to POTUS.
- The job of the Chairman is to provide his military expertise and advice to POTUS. Sounds to me like he is doing just that.
- The job of the Chairman is also to support POTUS militarily. It is NOT his job to support POTUS politically. If POTUS wants to alter or spin facts on the ground to suit his political purposes then he can do that.
- The Chairman serves at the pleasure of the President. These are nice words that mean the Chairman can be fired (or asked to resign) at any time for any reason.
(9)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google