Posted on 01/23/2016 6:17:45 AM PST by Kaslin
The speed of the news cycle and the media obsession with the presidential horseraces have crowded out a crucial development in the war on ISIS and related Islamic jihadist groups.
House Speaker Paul Ryan has been sounding out colleagues for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The current AUMF, which was written in 2001 and targeted groups connected to 9/11, has not been renewed. Believe it or not.
Bravo for Paul Ryan's statesmanship. But a new AUMF must be accompanied by a clear U.S. declaration of war against ISIS. We will never destroy them without a full-blown war declaration.
Now, there are important details regarding the AUMF. Ryan is correctly opposed to the Obama White House ISIS strategy, which would bar widespread use of U.S. combat troops in Syria and Iraq and would place limits on the length of military options. Sound familiar? It's Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. The new speaker won't stand for it. Good for him.
The White House wants to forbid "boots on the ground" and wishes to prohibit "enduring offensive ground combat operations." The use of Special Forces would be allowed, but that would expire after three years. In other words, Team Obama would tie the hands of the U.S. military and send all the wrong signals to our enemies.
But if the Republicans in the House and Senate show some backbone, they can get an AUMF without all the Obama prohibitions. Heaven forbid the Joint Chiefs be able to run a war.
This brings me back to the key point. In his pursuit of a new AUMF, Speaker Ryan must seek a formal U.S. declaration of war against ISIS. It is extraordinary that this has yet to be done. It should have happened 15 months ago, or surely after the horrific terrorist events in Paris.
I cannot understand why the president has yet to call an emergency NATO meeting to declare war on the Islamic State -- which, by the way, has declared war on us.
But our president wants no part of that. Remember the Obama reelection-campaign narrative? Terrorism has been defeated and is no longer a problem. So how can you declare war on something that is not a problem?
Retired four-star general Michael Flynn, a recent head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said, "I don't think enough people in our country see ISIS for what it is, and I think part of that is because our leadership has really denied the fact of who this is that we are facing . . . I think they failed to tell the truth."
The fact is, this is the greatest national security problem of our time. ISIS attacks from Europe to California have tragically proved that again and again.
So, how can it be that the Washington leadership has not produced a war declaration which would surely rally the American people? A war declaration adds urgency, energy, and immediacy to the war.
What's more, a war declaration would be a forcing device, outlining the American strategy with respect to the Islamic State and terrorism in general. What is it we want? How will we know when we get it? How does the war end? How long do we stay? What are our postwar intentions?
These are a few of the questions that must be asked and answered so that the American people will know what the American government intends to do. In this way, a war resolution will not only underscore the importance of this conflict, it also will help rally Americans to the cause.
It's a question of leadership, really. It's a question of commander-in-chief.
It's a question of congressional responsibility.
And it's a question for the presidential candidates in both parties. Answer it, please.
The White House and Congress must be truthful with the American people. No more pulling punches. A war will be a war, with the availability of all of our resources on land and in the air, and with the unfortunate reality of collateral damage in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. The great American military understands that costs must be suffered if American freedom is to be protected.
As retired four-star general and former Army vice chief Jack Keane recently told Congress, "There is no substitute for an effective ground force supported by air power. Air power is an enabler, not a defeat mechanism."
So we must do whatever it takes to destroy ISIS. Right now, it's not clear that the U.S. is winning.
This is both national security and homeland security. But we will not win this war unless we take the battle -- in full force and without limits -- to ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The best way to protect the homeland is to utterly destroy our enemies where they live.
And gave a vapid, directionless address which asked for nothing.
and the UN
Oh yes, I remember Bush going to the UN, hat in hand, begging for some meaningless "resolution". He should have been impeached right then and there.
When was the last time Japan engaged in military adventurism?
Excellent point
1945, after wave upon wave of catastrophic loss, including the sinking of their main battle fleet, the incineration of their cities by conventional weapons, the deaths of millions of their soldiers, sailors, and pilots, and the imposition of starvation by blockade.
You do that to Arabia and Pakistan, and then, if they don't surrender to our occupation nuke 'em, yes, I agree that would work.
The comprehensive and total defeat and subjugation of the Japanese nation involved more - much, much more - that the two atomic bombs.
Here's the point. If the loss of four carriers at Midway, MacArthur's Island Hopping campaign, Curtis LeMay's firebombing of most of Japan's civilian infrastructure, the great Marianas Turkey Shoot, and all the rest, hadn't induced Imperial High command to surrender...
Just maybe, it was the nukes.
It took Hirohito personally broadcasting his message to get the military high command to give up.
So I conclude, nukes are powerful.
Note, too. How peaceful do you think a military occupation of Japan would've been, in the absence of nukes?
You know, to learn lessons about military occupation of any erstwhile caliphate -- as though the lessons of Iraq and Syria aren't clear enough.
Incidentally, if you think the rest of the world hates the US now? Imagine if we tried to impose starvation by blockade on the Middle East.
Who would enforce an embargo on the sale of oil by Saudi Arabia, for instance?
You forgot Indonesia.
I think the Subud influence in Indonesia might make it possible to vassalize them.
I agree with your modest proposal. You know... in this day and age with cell phones, go pro cameras and youtube..... a person can search you tube for “Syria war” and watch hours and hours of footage from there. To begin with, the place already looks like London did after Germany bombed it. The devastation of some of those cities is MUCH worse than I initially realized.
Cynic in me says Homs and Ramadi must be atop where the pipeline goes. Homs is shocking.
I think so too. I think they are trying to own the land where the pipe, or transport trucks move the oil out. It’s cloaked in a religious war, but it’s about the money.
And with oil cratering, the whole project is stalled and Isis has to layoff!
Homs is practically the smoking heap of rubble mentioned in the bible.
Yes. I always read those prophecies and equated it with nuclear war. They are being fulfilled with convential warefare. Even some of the suburbs of Damascus are starting to see it. Honestly, I’m not sure I want boots on the ground there. I don’t want our guys all shot up over that. We have to find a way to bankrupt ISIS, and secure our borders and let it be.
This is a religious civil war.
Who’s side are we on?
Are we going to fight for Sunni Islam or Shia Islam to take the upper hand in a particular geographic reason?
Why? They will still be fighting each other as they have been for 1400 years and the religious war will flare up again either in Syria or somewhere else.
I fail to see why we need to support one faction of Islam or another faction of Islam.
I don't think you are the only one does.
I don’t want a single American troop in any ME sand unless he wants to assist, either.
The declaration can’t happen until the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in our government is eliminated.
And that is factual
The war in Syria does have elements of the Shia-Sunni struggle present, but the real war is Islam against everyone else on Earth.
From the JQ Adams quote above
and he (Mad Mo) declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.
It is Muslims attacking Muslims .. same as it ever was.
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.