Posted on 08/23/2014 5:56:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
If there’s one thing that will generate bipartisan consensus on the Hill, it’s that the United States needs to get serious about confronting the Islamic State (ISIS) militarily. The National Journal recently posted a piece by James Kitfield, a senior fellow at Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress, argued that it’s time the U.S. declares war on the Islamic State–and have a debate on the U.S. interests at stake:
Washington is overdue for a serious debate about what U.S. national interests are threatened by the Iraq crisis.
…
Most importantly, ISIS today represents a direct and growing threat to the United States. It has attracted an estimated 12,000 foreign fighters to its black banner flying over Syrian and Iraqi territory, including hundreds of Europeans and Americans who can travel freely with Western passports. It has a bigger sanctuary, far more money, and is more indiscriminately murderous than al-Qaida was on Sept. 10, 2001. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has assured anyone who will listen that he eventually intends to direct his jihad at the United States, telling the U.S. soldiers who released him from prison in 2009, "I'll see you in New York."
A congressional authorization targeting ISIS, however limited in time or geography, would go a long way toward clarifying for the American people this growing threat to their security. In a recent exclusive interview, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the outgoing director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told me that Islamic extremist groups that have adopted al-Qaida's nihilistic ideology are stronger and more threatening today than before 9/11.
Although, Kitfield knows the risks the Obama administration faces by weighing into this debate, especially since the president campaigned on getting our troops out of Iraq:
There are other authorities Obama could draw on to justify U.S. military action, but both are problematic. Congress's 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks has long been interpreted to allow military attacks against al-Qaida and "associated forces." It remains the justification for the administration's targeted-killing-by-drone program. But al-Qaida has famously disenfranchised ISIS over its penchant for wantonly slaughtering fellow Muslims, and the Obama administration has said it wants to reform and eventually repeal the 2001 AUMF.
Even more problematic is Congress' 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. While still on the books, the 2002 AUMF is anathema for a president who ran for office touting his opposition to the Iraq War, and Congress's vote that enabled it. When the House of Representatives recently voted overwhelmingly to bar the administration from deploying military forces to Iraq for a "sustained combat role," the White House thus sought to pair that resolution with a full repeal of the 2002 AUMF.
Yet, as Dan noted earlier this week, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) announced their solidarity with ISIS. They’re now helping them how to avoid U.S. airstrikes and how to maximize their influence over the region. Even before this alliance was struck, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski said earlier this month that the Pentagon was estimating that dealing with ISIS would be a 10 to-20 year challenge.
Over at Hot Air, Noah Rothman wrote that conservatives generally agree that we should go to war in Iraq and Syria, but not occupy them.
Rothman cited Krauthammer in his piece, noting that ISIS is overextended. They have about 15,000 men trying to maintain control of an area four times the size of Israel. We wouldn’t need 250,000 men, which is what we mobilized by March of 2003 to go into Iraq; a smaller force would be more than necessary to drive Islamic State forces out of Iraq. When it comes to Syria, Krauthammer admitted that it’s a situation that would require a different strategy, one that could our troops in harm’s way; it’s a totally different animal.
Yet, even if the case is made cogently; even if the both parties agree; there’s still the Reid issue. Mr. Reid isn’t too happy about a vote reauthorizing the use of force in Iraq since it’ll prove disastrous for Democrats in tight races (via the Hill):
Will the Senate hold a vote less than two months before the midterm elections to authorize military strikes in Iraq?
Democrats in both chambers have called for Congress to take action, but it’s a vote Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) almost certainly wants to avoid as he seeks to keep the upper chamber majority in his party’s hands.
Democratic strategists warn that voting on a use-of-force authorization before the election could prove disastrous to Democratic candidates in tough races.
Although, if there’s one senator who doesn’t want a ground war with ISIS, it’s Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who said, “I do not want to see us caught again in a ground war…I do believe there needs to be a heck of a lot of discussion in the Congress as to what our long-term plans are in Iraq and in the region.”
One biting irony in this whole mess is that the former Baath party officials and generals in Saddam’s army that we purged in 2003 are giving the Islamic State political credibility with locals–and are responsible for securing their victory in Mosul. Yet, these two groups “aren’t natural allies” (via Foreign Policy):
The group of ex-Hussein loyalists, known alternatively as the Naqshbandi Army or by the acronym JRTN -- the initials of its Arabic name -- helped the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, win some of its most important military victories, including its conquest of Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. It has also given the terrorist army, which is composed largely of foreign fighters, a valuable dose of local political credibility in Iraq. JRTN, which was formed as a resistance group in 2006, is made up of former Baathist officials and retired military generals, and is led by the former vice president of Hussein's revolutionary council, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who was once one of the most-wanted men in the country during the U.S. occupation.
ISIS and JRTN aren't natural allies. The former wants to erase Iraq's current borders and establish a caliphate, while the latter has been a largely secular movement that seeks to regain the official power and influence it held before the U.S. invasion in 2003. But they are aligned in their opposition to, and hatred of, outgoing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government. Each side wants him to go, and JRTN recognizes that ISIS stands the best chance of violently overthrowing the Iranian-backed regime in Baghdad.
Then again, the Wall Street Journal reported today that the Islamic State’s momentum was maintained due to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's decision to “go easy on them,” thinking they would “cannibalize” the rebel Free Syrian Army. That was a big mistake.
Right now, our State Department State Department wants to make something clear, “This is not about ISIL versus the United States.” I don't think we're going to be able to play that game very long.
State Dept Rejects ISIL's Claim It Is At War With America
To declare war on ISIS is to declare war on an idea. How does one separate the notion and teachings of ISIS from the notions and teachings of Islam? They appear to be the same.
Then, how do you justify letting several hundred thousand purveyors or believers in that idea legally immigrate to the United States?
Question...if a country declares war on you is it given that by default you are at war with them....declared or not!!!
Well, if ISIS already declared itself at war with the U.S., then there’s no reason why we shouldn’t respond in kind.
Obama is thinking about it.....We should have an answer in 8-12 months.
We only declare war on abstractions and inanimate objects (poverty, drugs, terrorism, lunch).
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah....
It’s juss tooooo confusing, ya know. Tryin’ to fight an IDEA rather than a coupla cities you can blast to pieces ‘n all.
Plus, the blood ‘n bad press, ‘n all that.......
Better to take a nap, or mebbie a coupla rounds of golf..........
Not only that, to declare war on ISIS would be to recognize it as a nation. Not only that, war has already been declared on ISIS.....the war on terror since 911.
I'm dumbfounded and sickened that the world powers didn't set aside differences when ISIS was still in a column marching into Iraq. ISIS could've been disintegrated as soon as they exhibited their intentions in Mosul.
The American policy will be one of containment.
The containment area is currently being finalized. The Iraqi containment area will be a line somewhere south of the Kurdish territory and somewhere north of Baghdad. The same is true in Syria but not as currently obvious.
The Syrian Kurdish area will be incorporated into the previously Iraqi kurdish area. There is some question as to how far west the ISIL border will extend. Aleppo may be the most westerly point.
Neither Syria nor Iraq will ever recover to the original borders.
is ISIS a country now?
If we declare war on ISIS, can we in the same piece of legislation order Obammy to quit saying ISIL? Please....
It is not ISIS itself....it is the islamists of any type.
The islamists silence and conscript even moderate muslims into their jihad....just like ordinary Germans, Hungarians, etc. were forced to fight for the NAZIs. You cannot separate the two.
Right now, there are still separate factions of islamists (Sunni, Shia, etc.) that are fighting each other for control of the caliphate. Once one group emerges as dominant, the others will fall into line with them....over 1 billion strong.
We can fight them today, as separate groups or let our children fight them as a united force tomorrow.
We are reliving the 1920s and 1930s rise of evil all over again.
I’d say yes to your question.
War has been declared!! Break out the gold clubs and up-armored golf carts. Oh, we will need plenty of range time for the troops. FORE!!!
Declare war? No. A formal declaration of war is not authorized, inappropriate, and obsolete under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations governing belligerencies. A declaration of war is also appropriate as an instrument of belligerency between two sovereign states, whereas ISIS/ISIL is not recognized as a sovereign state. Instead, ISIS/ISIL constitutes an organization of criminal bandits, pirates, and terrorists lacking status as a sovereign state or as lawful combatants. The law of warfare already provides for states and private persons to combat bandits and pirates wherever they are found. The U.S. Constitution already makes it an obligation of the Federal Government to wage war upon bandits and pirates. All that is required from Congress is an AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) against this organization of criminal bandits, pirates, and terrorists.
“I’m dumbfounded and sickened that the world powers didn’t set aside differences when ISIS was still in a column marching into Iraq. ISIS could’ve been disintegrated as soon as they exhibited their intentions in Mosul. “
The world’s only superpower and the titular moral leader does not, at the moment, have a leader. Nobody is in the wheelhouse. We shall be lucky if the ship of state does not wreck on the reefs.
Don’t declare war on ISIS. Declare war on global terrorism, include ISIS in that group and take them out that way.
Correct. It’s a holy war. It’s all in the name of “religion” to them and if you’re not of their “religion” you’re killed. They’ll only get stronger if allowed to continue.
Islam fits the description. We should seek an AUMF against Islam and all Muslims.
Seriously. The core problem will not go away until we figure out the nature of the problem and attack the root. It's Mohammedism.
Declare war on anyone whose creed is to kill infidels.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.