Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
Not at all. Take a hard look at the entirety of those statements. Start by ignoring the first 9 since they have nothing to do with ISIS. At that point the mission was a punitive strike against Assad for using WMD. The next 7 statements in the article, when we’re actually talking about the mission to defeat ISSI, get squishier. Let’s look at the only two from this year.
First related to the AUMF request in Feb
He references it not being like the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. He references avoiding a prolonged ground war. We’re not necessarily committing to either. He also specifies that the current means can accomplish the endstate. Which still raises the question of what happens if the means don’t support the ends. In July, after Ramadi fell and with the Iraqi attack to reclaim Mosul on semi-permanent hiatus, Obama said (with my emphasis added)
I assume the start of that statement was related to a question about “boots on the ground” since he doesn’t use the phrase and it’s in the article. He references no current plans which doesn’t take the option off the table. He also clearly specifies developing local security forces. That’s what we just announced we’re going to do… in Syria using US troops that specialize in that very task.
Obama’s kept plenty of wiggle room about troop commitments with respect to operations against ISIS. He’s demonstrated a pattern of using some of that wiggle room. Lump them together and his thinking has been pretty clear for quite a while. It’s different than what the main message without the caveats implied though. “Why were you blowing feel good smoke up our asses Mr President” is a different issue than what he’s thinking.
But the post 9/11 AUMF is a dictatorial power isn’t it, in the mold of the old Roman dictator being given emergency military powers.
What’s the emergency for the US, is Assad planning an invasion of New York ?
The president can’t use the AUMF in Syria unless he’s going after AQ (which we aren’t…that’s why the president asked for an expansion of AUMF)…that’s why it ISN’T ‘dictatorial power’, but is actually fairly restrictive. We aren’t in Syria to combat Assad either, we are there fighting ISIS (which isn’t subject to the AUMF as originally written).
Seriously, where do you get this stuff from?
Too late he already has. And yes it is dictatorial. If you have no check on your power you can just order action.
Right here
Some nice person explain this please
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/aumf_02112015.pdf
"Jeh Johnson, then the Pentagon’s chief lawyer and now secretary of homeland security, said the 2001 law - passed before al-Qaida’s contemporary affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and north Africa existed, let alone the emergence of Isis, which is no longer part of al-Qaida - provided “sufficient” legal authority for contemporary US counterterrorism.
on Wednesday a senior administration official told reporters that the 2001 authorisation covered the war against Isis. Legal scholars have already debated its coverage of al-Qaida affiliates that did not exist in 2001. Isis, however, is not an al-Qaida affiliate, having been specifically disavowed by al-Qaida’s leader, Ayman Zawahiri. Ken Gude of the liberal Center for American Progress, a thinktank close to the administration, tweeted that he was “utterly shocked” the administration would contend the 2001 authority applied - an argument he had earlier in the day called “laughable.” Asked to explain the administration’s reasoning, a different senior US official acknowledged the “split” between al-Qaida and Isis but indicated the administration considered it legally immaterial. In an email, using the administration’s preferred acronym for Isis, the official wrote:
Based on ISIL’s longstanding relationship with al-Qa’ida (AQ) and Usama bin Laden; its long history of conducting, and continued desire to conduct, attacks against U.S. persons and interests, the extensive history of U.S. combat operations against Isil dating back to the time the group first affiliated with AQ in 2004; and Isil’s position - supported by some individual members and factions of AQ-aligned groups - that it is the true inheritor of Usama bin Laden’s legacy, the President may rely on the 2001 AUMF as statutory authority for the use of force against Isil, notwithstanding the recent public split between AQ’s senior leadership and Isil."
No. US is terrible at policy in this region. And has been for decades.
Consequence: US cannot get meaningful traction because US has let every single partner down repeatedly as it switches policy, backs away, withholds support etc, etc. You don’t take risks with unreliable partners because you end up dead. Instead, just take what you can whether it’s money or weapons.
It looks like the authorization for the use of force against ISIS which was proposed by President Obama earlier in 2015 and then Congress failed to act on it. By doing so, they have condoned the President’s actions and logic regarding the relationship between al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the preceding AUMFs. In my opinion their argument that ISIS is a change in name only from al-Qaeda is weak. This sort of gray area needs to be worked out, but Congress does not wish to do so and action is necessary.
If it is determined that the Russian airliner crashed, due to a bomb on board, then Putin will probably attack ISIS with everything he’s got.
That should settle the matter.
Must be why Saudi Arabia has been ‘let down’ repeatedly over the decades. :dubious:
You should read about the relationship between SA and ISIS.
That could be the largest commitment of Russian military power since Afghanistan. Russia has quite a bit of experience in fighting in countries where they aren’t wanted. The results would be obvious.
I have, still doesn’t mean the US is an unreliable partner, rather, SA is unreliable to the US.
You say this almost gleefully. I wonder how much of what Putin’s got you feel he could realistically get to and support in Syria…and why you feel that this would magically fix the problem and get rid of ISIS.
You’ve lost me, is this your point; it’s okay for the US to be an unreliable partner throughoyt the region because … SA has supported ISIS?
Actually, it’s your argument that doesn’t make any sense. You start with an assumption that the United States is acting erratically, implying that we’re pissing off our friends in the region. In fact, the influence of the United States in the region is probably as great as it has been for the last two or three decades. We’re still the #1 friend of many countries in the region, and that hasn’t really changed at all.
Then to defend your incorrect assertion, you say that Saudi Arabia has supported ISIL. Setting aside the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not have any policy to support ISIL, XT correctly points out that this has nothing to do with your accusation of the US being an unreliable partner.
eh?
I feel like I have to pull out a little doll to point to the place where your poor argument about the decline of the U.S. hurts me. It’s the brain.
I wouldn’t bother, rationality doesn’t appeal to him as much as spouting a bunch of ‘right on!’ left wing soundbites.