Posted on 09/13/2014 9:05:29 AM PDT by rktman
Via Breitbart, another dim attempt by the White House to keep this new Iraq intervention in Americans rhetorical comfort zone. Wars are long, involve vast numbers of fighters on both sides, and absorb much blood and treasure; our victories in war lately tend to be unsatisfying and ephemeral too. Counterterrorism, though, is lightning fast, typically involves a small number of military assets, and is usually decisive. (It also conveniently doesnt require a new AUMF.) The Bin Laden raid is the supreme example. By the White Houses own reckoning, rolling back ISIS will take three years at least, already involves a thousand U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and lots of U.S. airpower, and requires a coalition of many nations, both regionally and in the west, to implement. According to the CIA, ISIS itself has somewhere between 20,000 and 31,500 jihadi guerrillas in the field. Which model, war or counterterrorism, seems to you a better fit for that situation?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
WWII was over in about four years for the US.
If you are dropping bombs on people and you don’t want to call what you are doing “War”, then the only other descriptive noun you can use is “Terrorism”.
That is so true!
What was the murder of Gaddafi?
Thus speaks she who is probably the greatest living expert on nothing!
Why conduct a counterterrorism operation when they’d already declared the war on terror to be over?
If you aren’t in it to win it, why bother?
Obama’s polling lousy and so as with the delay of immigration executive action until AFTER the election, this is just a bunch of distraction.
Do the mouthing’s of these clowns have any credibility? Is it not shameful to even report them as it gives them credibility? Has not DC become Detroit?
Maybe they should just send the Ferguson SWAT team over there. If that doesn’t work they could always threaten to send secstate john f’n kohn-heinz-kerry over there for an extended lecture. I’d sure as hell capitulate if I had to be subjected to that droning imbecile.
“..If you arent in it to win it, why bother?”
::::::::::
Politics. Period.
So this non-war is going to be run by the FBI Counterintelligence Division?
Actually there is a good point to be made there.
Terrorism is more correctly a Guerrilla War tactic. And as a tactic terrorism as a rule does not occupy territory.
From this point we can say that what ISIS is doing in Syria and Iraq is not strictly speaking terrorism because they are taking and holding territory.
But what Obama is doing could be considered terrorism because his bombing is taking place without any military or territorial objective and without any declaration of war.
I see, so you need a coalition of the unwilling to help you in this operation?
Personally, Susan, I wouldn’t help you do anything at all, because you are a slithering snake.
The Obama treasury is still denying that the Bostom massacre was a terrorist attack (which in turn denies businesses their insurance claim).
This lying Islamist bastard refuses to acknowledge any domestic terrorist attacks under his watch.
So with that being said, WHAT is a counterterrorism strike when we aren’t even “experiencing” terrorism?
The “Hopenchange” administration keeps making changes and keeps hoping.
Hey Susan, there’s a difference between a terror cell and an army, you know.
interesting perspective. I would love for the press to float that idea to the WH and see how they respond.
I love glass.
Sand, when heated to a high degree becomes glass....
“If you are dropping bombs on people and you dont want to call what you are doing War, then the only other descriptive noun you can use is Terrorism.
But, But, But ... pResident 0bama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. You make him sound like a Palestinian.
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.