So he irks the fringe left more with his Bush-esque approach. Question is whether he gets any sort of public support as without that Congress wont support it. So if that happens does he continue to violate laws or not ?
The reason we are going back into Iraq is Obama's inattention to foreign policy in Iraq and his lack of understanding about the smart use of military power. Bush saw an enemy in Iraq and made the mistake of eliminating him, leaving a power vaccume there. Obama made the opposite mistake in Syria. Assad was fighting AlQueda but for some reason Obama saw him as a liability and while giving lip service to support of the Free Syrian Army, was intimidated by Putin and backed away from any action. As a result ISIS grew into a regional power in Syria and filled some of the vaccume left by a regrettable decision to pull our forces out of Iraq too early. In large part Obama's action in the Middle East helped to create the current situation there.
With respect to the speech last night, my major issue with it was that once again, as he did in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama telegraphed our military intentions there. He publicly limited our involvement to aid and bombs. I don't mind restricting the use of ground troops. Just keep your damned mouth shut about it. If you are playing chess, don't tell your opponent your next five moves.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." Attributed to Alexander Tytler
One of you will end up here next!
Declared wars are more clearly defined, as they must be if they are to be committed action of a nation. We still have no clearly defined mission in Iraq. We have, as we have had since Bush's war, a moveable mission at best, made up and amended as they go along. The "War on Terror" is a PR term created for the masses by the extremely talented and far sighted propaganda apparatus of the Bush Administration. It was perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Bush Administration. They mastered it.I think our forefathers kind of dropped the ball on this one. The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war, but it never states that a formal declaration of war is actually necessary for the military to be used. Nor does it state any detail about how declarations should be declared by Congress. It also doesn't empower Congress to end wars, so it's easy to argue that the AUMF declaration is still alive and kicking.
Exactly.In short, AUMF was a really bad way to declare war on terror. It was far too non-specific and can easily be used to justify military action against anyone whose deemed a terrorist, within any country's borders, if their presence can be tracked back as a threat to the United States.
Fearmongering? Fearmongering is now synonymous with warmongering. Same, same. I support neither.Well, that just sounds like wholesale fearmongering there.
Forgive me, I am a Vietnam Vet. I have learned to be a pragmatist. Saying the new addition to the "War on Terror" won't escalate is tantamount to "I'll only put it in a little bit, promise."
Sadly that is probably correct. If most Americans had actually made an actual commitment and suffered a palpable sacrifice perhaps they wouldn't have forgotten so soon. If we had declared yet another war, after a declaration of war in Iraq and one for Afghanistan and one for Yemen, and one for Somalia perhaps Americans would have a more realistic understanding of what we are doing and what the costs are in human lives and suffering and the huge financial burden imposed on the nation, and the long term commitments it owes and will owe to its veterans. Up to this point none of that is happening.What we're doing now is little different than what we did in Libya, and I think most Americans have forgotten all about that conflict.
Indeed and it is never too late to untangle a cluster****.Unfortunately that check was written 13 years ago.
"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf
Heya HB. Well you see Right away its back to Bush and him leaving a SOFA for BO to handle.....which BO couldn't handle that fact due to BO's own mentality about Iraq and what he thought was his Great Achievement. He was wrong. Then he ran from the problem.....thinking if he ignored it. It would go away.
Those powerful Sunni Tribes and Ousted Baathists would have never sided with the Terrorists. If BO peep would have just did his job in Iraq.....rather than trying to bask in his own glory. Thinking he had Iraq and Afghanistan, Right. What he really did was play on the American people being war weary. Now he looks like a fool all across that Global Stage.
Throughout 2014, powerful Sunni tribes and ousted Saddam-era Baathists have coordinated with ISIS to capture much of central, western, and northern Iraq. On the other side are demoralized Iraqi troops and increasingly sectarian Iranian-trained militias, some of which had been fighting in Syria. The U.S. didn't truly tune into the crisis until after a few hundred ISIS militants overran Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul on June 10. "There was a concerted effort by the administration to not acknowledge the obvious until it became so apparent — with the fall of Mosul — that Iraq was collapsing," The New York Times' Arango said on Reddit.
"Obama was hugely (and understandably) reluctant to authorize the use of force in Iraq — he considered ending the war there one of his chief accomplishments as president," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, told Business Insider recently. "But there wasn't much choice, as ISIS forces proved far more capable than U.S. intelligence had assessed, " he said.....snip~
Whichever it is, it's got to be a constant headache walking that tightrope every day of his life! Longstanding beliefs learned in childhood are nearly impossible to change, and I don't envy anyone who has to do it to keep totally different sides pacified. Taking the middle ground only works for a while, but a confrontation inevitably always comes from one side or the other - whose side are you on! I believe we might be seeing that now, but saying that three years will be enough to change a thousand years of ideology reality is nothing but rhetorical wishful thinking. One side or the other is going to be furious because they will feel betrayed - there doesn't seem to be alternatives here that I can see, other than buying time, which I think might be his reason for saying he hopes to see many splinter groups emerge, rather than one or two strong ones that we know currently exist. The problem is that they hate us more than they do each other!