The sound is deafening. Knees are jerking all over the country. Some are jerking, because Obama’s plan to combat ISIS is doing too much. The rest are jerking, because Obama’s plan to combat ISIS is doing too little. At such a time, what’s a knee to do? At least for now, my knee is going to wait. Here’s some analysis, the speech, a link to the transcript, and some commentary.
“I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.” ~President Obama
In a prime-time address to the nation (video below) President Obama laid out a plan to deal with the militant group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), which currently has large portions of Iraq as well as parts of Syria – an area about the size of Maryland – under its control.
“So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”
President Obama made it clear that he would take this action, even inside Syria, and would be sending an additional 475 American service members to Iraq to support increased airstrikes. The President also called on congress to provide funding to train Syrian fighters, and continued humanitarian aid for those directly affected by ISIS.
ISIS or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) was formerly a major faction of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the same AQII we fought in Iraq post Saddam. However they were disavowed by Al-Qaeda central over actions in Syria, and the fact that they disobeyed orders to kill fewer civilians.
The brutality of ISIS dwarfs Al-Qaeda’s, with mass killings along the path as they take over more and more land, as well as the beheadings of kidnapped journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Their aim is to establish a caliphate (an ever expanding Islamic homeland under Sharia law) in Iraq and Syria. U.S. officials and experts believe they have immediate ambitions for Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel as well, an area referred to in the Arab world as the “Levant”, which is why the President refers to the terrorist group as ISIL and not ISIS. And regardless of quibbling over ISIS or ISIL, one point the President made deconstructed the notion that ISIS/ISIL deserves to be called either “Islamic” or a “State”, pointing out that the terrorist group is not truly Islamic, as no religion including Islam would condone their actions, and more often than not their victims are other Muslims. Nor are they truly a “State”, States have internationally recognized sovereignty, terrorist groups don’t, even if they do temporarily capture a lot of land.
In the most controversial portion of his speech, President Obama claimed (with echoes of George W. Bush declaring himself “the Decider” bouncing back from the distant walls of the canyons of modern history) that he has the authority to act alone, but then added that he welcomes the “support” of Congress. Implied was that if he didn’t get the support of Congress, he would proceed anyhow…
Inserted from <Liberals Unite>
Obviously Republicans are screaming for all out war, and that is the worst possible approach. It’s exactly what ISIS wants. On the left many are saying Obama is no different from Bush. I take issue with them too. For starters, Obama is not trying to lie us into combat the way Bush did. He has not even claimed that ISIS is an immediate threat to the US. Instead he claims that, unless they are stopped now, they could become a threat to the US, an accurate evaluation. Also under Bush, participation by foreign troops was minimal, with the US and Brits carrying the brunt of the combat load. Obama minimizes exposure to combat for US personnel. Those are huge differences.
Here is the speech in it’s entirety.
And for a complete transcript, click here.
The problem with what Obama had to say is that it’s incomplete. There’s still much to much that we do not know. At this point, I consider it more of an introduction. As for Congress, they do have the prerogative to act, but have so far shown no more inclination to do anything more that duck their own responsibility. Obama is claiming authority under the 2001 AUMF, but Congress may cancel that, if they so choose. I expect posturing, whining, accusations, and little more.
The most constructive view I have seen to date came in a discussion between Rachel Maddow and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
For now, I’m going to wait and see what develops. But I will say one thing. With ISIS beheading Americans, failure to take some action is the fastest way to ensure political defeat.
18 Responses to “ISIS: Now What?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I'm pretty sure most here woud agree that we don't want to send combat troops over there to fight. Drone and missle strikes against the cowards who call themselves ISIS or ISIL is perfectly acceptable to me. The Hawks on the Hill like McConJob are banging the drums not to slowly. Congress led by Agent Orange is "debating" whether to allow the President the funding he needs to combat this new Bush- created enemy. They wil likely vote next week while complaining that Pres. Obama didn't act fast enough after the first beheading of an American citizen.
I didn't see them cut their long vacation a little shorter to come back to the Hill and go to work to find a solution. They had more important things to do like work on their tans and campaigns to hold onto their empty seats.
Congress? Work?!!? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil" because we have others — Obama keeps saying "Iraqi forces" but it's really mostly the Kurds — to do the ground fighting for us. The strategy of US air attacks weakening ISIL so that local ground forces can push them back is a tried and proven one; we and the Kurds have used it to beat ISIL in several crucial battles in northern Iraq already.
I just hope that at some point during all this Obama does the right thing and sees to it that the Kurds get the recognized independent state they're fighting for. They've more than earned it.
And while crushing ISIL is genuinely in the US interest, the real winner in the whole situation is going to be Iran. There's nothing we can do to prevent that, and it's a less bad outcome than most plausible alternatives.
As usual, the American people will remain oblivious because they're distracted by focusing on the domestic US political ramifications of all this.
I fully agree, but I doubd the Kurds will, because greater Kurdistan includes a big chunk of Turkey. The other problem is thos. Hpw will we keep boots off the grown if a plane goes down in their territory?
Thanks for this TC. I expect the Repugs to be complaining about everything here – just judging from their behaviour for the last umpty years. They will be throwing mud here, there and everywhere, and hoping that some of it sticks to give their supporters something to cheer about. I do think this course of action is the best thing that President Obama can do in this horribly difficult situation – as you say to do nothing is to look weak, and America's allies need help against these psychos!
Is that fair to authentic psychos? 🙂
Roert B (Care2) says: ISIL "is nothing more than a well organized and brutal crime syndicate, hiding behind a religion they have managed to mangle." It's a great description. It also fits the Republican party. My knee will be waiting along with yours, TC. I don't dare let it jerk at this stage.
I think you'll like the description I'm about to post.
Just one of the reasons I was against invading Iraq was no matter if we stayed 2 months, or 20 years, as soon as we left insurgents and terrorists would move into Iraq; without the despot Saddam to counter them. There was no AlQuida in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam would not allow that.
Of course this mess was started by Bush's lies, but Obama was left overseeing the troop withdrawl. Believing Obama was smart enough to know the bad guys would enter Iraq when we withdrew, he should have had plans to encounter that problem. Especially if we say it is in our national security interests. I'm OK with letting some other means take care of the problem, but since we are going to do it, there should have been a strategy in place to meet that known threat.
Steve, Obama repeatedly tried to negotiale a new statua of forces agreement to do just that, but the Maliki regime was so used to abuses under the Bush Reich thst they refused.
I'll agree that this is not much more than a Whack-a-Mole strategy.
And I'll also agree that Whack-a-Mole in the Middle East is probably as good as we can hope for.
All you Rethuglicans that can offer a better responsible plan, please step forward.
… … … … CRICKETS!
They all just stepped backward.
I await with bated breath…
Ditto!
"An opening statement, rather than a closing argument" Rep. Schiff makes sense to me. I like that the Prez threw down the gauntlet to Congress, asking them to do their jobs. I don't want us involved in another war, but we have to do something to help those who are fighting ISIL, these barbarians need to be stopped. They are not true believers of Islaam, but rather opportunists who want to make a name, and eventually fortunes and power for themselves. Evil proliferates when good people do nothing.
See my reply to Joanne.
IMO, the Republicanus/Teabagger dominated Congress will not support the POTUS and will in fact whine about him taking what appears to be unilateral action, regardless if he has authorisation under the AUMF. This looks similar to the border problem in that the Congress essentially dared POTUS to act as they left for vacation.
As to whether I agree with the American and alliied troops plan in the Levant and Iraq, to not act is suicide. The trick is taking the right action at the right time. Since Russia supplied Iraq with weapons and materiel over the years, it makes me wonder what its position is in all this. Will they sell materiel to ISIL to make money for their ongoing foray into the Ukraine?
And about that vacation, how can the Congress vacate when they were never there doing any work in the first place?
I think they will say he is doing too little, offere funding for much more, and say it has to be paid for with cuts in services to the poor.