The (non) war against the (non) Islamists

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387879/when-words-lose-their-meaning-jonah-goldberg/page/0/1?splash=

SEPTEMBER 13, 2014 4:00 AM

When Words Lose Their Meaning

The president would like to think the Islamic State isn’t Islamic, and that we aren’t at war with it either.

By Jonah Goldberg

THEY’RE NOT ISLAMIC, THEY’RE NOT EVEN I-CURIOUS

For instance, my column from yesterday is on the president’s contention that the Islamic State is not Islamic. The assertion fits perfectly with the extended philosophical throat-clearing you just waded through. I mean talk about letting names and things wander off from each other!
Imagine, just for the sake of argument that, say, the State Department’s Jen Psaki sat down to interview an Islamic State fighter over coffee.

Psaki: “Hi. What’s your name?”
Mohammad: “Mohammed.”
Psaki: “Were you named after your father?”
Mohammed: “No. I am named after the One True Prophet Mohammed.”
Psaki: “Interesting. So what’s the name of your organization?”
Mohammed: “The Islamic State.”
Psaki: “Oh, that’s exotic. What does that do?”
Mohammed: “We have sworn to Allah that we will bring about a global caliphate as he commands us through Mohammed and the Koran. Inshallah, we will kill the pagans, Jews, and infidels and convert the Christians to the one true faith.
Psaki: “Oh my, that sounds like quite a project. So, let me ask you, what religion should I put down here, Mohammed.”
Mohammed: “I am Muslim. I will give my life for Islam. It’s right there in the name: Islamic State.”
Psaki: “Well, I can see that this will just remain one of those mysteries. I’ll just put down agnostic.”

LARGE-SCALE COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS ARE HELL

Sadly, only after I wrote my column did I learn that not only does the administration insist that the Islamic State isn’t even a smidgen Islamic — as the president might say — but we aren’t at war with it either. “If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with [the Islamic State], they can do so, but the fact is that it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts,” Secretary of State John Kerry explained yesterday.
Advertisement
“We’re engaged in a major counterterrorism operation,” he told CBS, “and it’s going to be a long-term counterterrorism operation. I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity.”
Okay, wait a second. I can understand — no matter how ridiculous I think the claim may be — the argument that we are not at war with the Islamic State. I can certainly understand the argument — again, even though I reject it — that we don’t want to pay the terrorist group the “compliment” of saying we’re at war with it.
But hold the phone. John Kerry is saying that “war” is the wrong analogy? Really? It is okay to analogize the fights against poverty, cancer, climate change etc., to war, but we can’t analogize sustained bombing campaigns with coordinated ground offensives to it? Oh my stars and garters. It’s like the effort to get rid of the Islamic State is the Moral Equivalent of Pension Reform.
It gets worse. Olivier Knox of Yahoo News asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest, “What does victory [in the fight against the Islamic State] look like here?”
Earnest earnestly replied, “I didn’t bring my Webster’s dictionary with me up here.” Meanwhile, the disconnect between names and things has gotten to the point where a senior administration official thinks Saudi Arabia is “galvanized” against the Islamic State because it has an “extensive border with Syria.” Except for the fact that it doesn’t, this is a very powerful point. So much for Mark Twain’s observation that “God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
Of course, the administration is simply following the president’s lead. Given how rabid Kerry, Hagel, and others were just a few weeks ago, it’s pretty obvious that Obama has told his team “opstay ayingsay arway.” In his heart the president just doesn’t like words like “war” or “win.” That’s why he “ended” the Iraq War. That’s why when asked to explain what “destroy” means he said it meant to reduce to a manageable problem. That’s why the administration keeps talking about mitigation. That’s why they long ago replaced the “War on Terror” with “overseas contingency operations” and rogue states with “states of concern.” Hey, maybe we should just start calling it “the Islamic State of Concern”?
This of course reminds me of Winston Churchill’s famous line, “We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall mitigate on the beaches, we shall degrade them on the landing grounds, we shall reduce them to manageable problems in the fields and in the streets . . . ”
Really, anyone can play. Release the dogs of overseas contingency operations! Haven’t you read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of Mitigation”?
Look, as I suggest in my column, there’s room in a war for bending the truth if it helps win the war. The problem here is that when you’re bending the truth that you’re even at war, what truths are worth telling? As I wrote last week, I still think Obama’s greatest concern isn’t how to conquer — or even “manage” — the Islamic State or terrorism in general but how to find the right words that will rescue him from political hassles, responsibility, and blame. Rather than say he misjudged the Islamic State, he told Chuck Todd he never even called them the “Jayvee” team, which was a lie.
If Obama’s theory of the world is right, this may all work out for him. If jihadism is a minor nuisance that we can manage without much distraction or effort, then his word games might even make sense. But if we are really facing a more substantial and long-term threat, then his word games are not just stupid, they are dangerous because they put further distance between names and reality, between problems and solutions.

Quote :

America’s most terrified senator: Lindsey Graham’s never-ending doomsday visions

Lindsey Graham says ISIS can destroy entire American cities and kill all of us. A look at a very scared man

No doubt we will be seeing Toyota pick up trucks with ISIS terorrists any day now on our streets...LOL.

edge540 wrote:

No doubt we will be seeing Toyota pick up trucks with ISIS terorrists any day now on our streets...LOL.

Yep.....along with beheadings in Times Square.

Whose strategy do you adhere to when it comes to fighting a (non)war? The strategy of a couple of stinkin' generals, or the strategy of a real live community organizer?
Tough call.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rift-widens-between-obama-us-military-over-strategy-to-fight-islamic-state/2014/09/18/ebdb422e-3f5c-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html

Rift widens between Obama, U.S. military over strategy to fight Islamic State


By Craig Whitlock September 18 at 8:47 PM  

Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strainin what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship.
Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group.
Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat wastying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”
Mattis’s comments came two days after Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took the rare step of publicly suggesting that a policy already set by the commander in chief could be reconsidered.
Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled.

House Troll wrote:

Whose strategy do you adhere to when it comes to fighting a (non)war? The strategy of a couple of stinkin' generals, or the strategy of a real live community organizer?
Tough call.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat wastying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”
[/i]

Lots of spare time now that he's retired. Hmmm,polishing up his resume perhaps in hopes of becoming a Fox news meat puppet?

Conveniently left out by the troll?

Quote :

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried to reassure the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that civilian and military leaders at the Pentagon were in “full alignment” and in “complete agreement with every component of the president’s strategy.

The foreign policy of this country is determined by the the president and not war mongering retired generals.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution got it right.

Why Civilian Control of the Military?
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45870

It's too bad some people can't grasp that concept.

edge540 wrote:

The foreign policy of this country is determined by the the president and not war mongering retired generals.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution got it right.

Why Civilian Control of the Military?
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45870

It's too bad some people can't grasp that concept.

Yep,and me? I'll trust the judgment of the guy who got Bin-Laden....President Barack Hussein Obama,not some right-wing troll that has been wrong about everything.

Artie60438 wrote:

   
Lots of spare time now that he's retired.    

Yes, retired, meaning someone who has ‘Been there, done that’ as it relates to military service and strategy, as opposed to the community organizer, meaning someone who has ‘Been there, done that’ as it relates to bake sales and car washes.

Artie60438 wrote:

   
Conveniently left out by the troll?

Quote :

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried to reassure the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that civilian and military leaders at the Pentagon were in “full alignment” and in “complete agreement with every component of the president’s strategy.

Conveniently glossed over by the Eunuch: the word “tried”.

Artie60438 wrote:

   
I'll trust the judgment of the guy who got Bin-Laden....President Barack Hussein Obama ….    

Yes, Barry is still trying to get the blood spatter off of his combat boots, isn’t he?

       

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

   
Lots of spare time now that he's retired.    

Yes, retired, meaning someone who has ‘Been there, done that’ as it relates to military service and strategy, as opposed to the community organizer, meaning someone who has ‘Been there, done that’ as it relates to bake sales and car washes.

Or saving the auto industry and getting the nation back on track after the mess Bush left.

Artie60438 wrote:

   
Conveniently left out by the troll?

Quote :

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried to reassure the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday that civilian and military leaders at the Pentagon were in “full alignment” and in “complete agreement with every component of the president’s strategy.

[b]Conveniently glossed over by the Eunuch: the word “tried”.

Oh pardon me, He may have not convinced right-wing nujobs bent on a witch hunt.

Artie60438 wrote:

   
I'll trust the judgment of the guy who got Bin-Laden....President Barack Hussein Obama ….    

[b]Yes, Barry is still trying to get the blood spatter off of his combat boots, isn’t he?
[/quote]He was in the WH situation room keeping apprised. Your boy Dubya OTOH,was
fully in charge when planes flew into buildings and 3000 Americans were killed. Bin-Laden was still at large when he left office and Obama was left with another mess to clean up and he did.

Knowing how your predictions always fall flat on their face makes me confident that the President is pursuing the right course of action.

Now what's your plan? Or are we going to hear crickets as usual?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

  Now what's your plan?

My plan?
It would be to base my military strategy on advice from those who have actual experience with military strategy.
Like generals, for instance.

I'm gonna take an educated guess that you've never been a student of history. If you had you would know that FDR disagreed with his military advisors during WW2 and that war turned out pretty well,didn't it? I've been watching the Ken Burns Documentary "The Roosevelts" currently showing on PBS channels. It is truly a masterpiece! Perhaps you should invest some time in it and educate yourself.

Now as far as President Obama goes let's look at the capture of Osama Bin-laden shall we?

Quote :

Obama met with the National Security Council on March 14 to review the options. The president was concerned that the mission would be exposed and wanted to proceed quickly. For that reason he ruled out involving the Pakistanis. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other military officials expressed doubts as to whether bin Laden was in the compound, and whether a commando raid was worth the risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Planning_and_final_decision

That turned out pretty well too
What's your plan?[/quote]
I've already addressed it,dumbass.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

  Now what's your plan?

My plan?
It would be to base my military strategy on advice from those who have actual experience with military strategy.
Like generals, for instance.

LOL, if JFK had taken the advice of his generals back in 1963 you wouldn't be here emitting right wing bullshit.

Tell us jack, if you were the president would YOU send ground troops back to Iraq?

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

  Now what's your plan?

My plan?
It would be to base my military strategy on advice from those who have actual experience with military strategy.
Like generals, for instance.

LOL, if JFK had taken the advice of his generals back in 1963 you wouldn't be here emitting right wing bullshit.

Yeah,from your link:

Quote :

The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution.

That there lies the problem. The military is good at waging war,but know very little when it come to diplomatic or
political solutions.
That's why people like warmongers Grampy McCain and his sidekick Blanche DuBois AKA Lindsay Graham are dangerous.

happy jack wrote:

Whose strategy do you adhere to when it comes to fighting a (non)war? The strategy of a couple of stinkin' generals, or the strategy of a real live community organizer?
Tough call.
[/b]

‘Imminent Attack’ in U.S. Prompted Airstrikes on Khorasan

Quote :

Airstrikes in Syria against the extremist Khorasan group were prompted by planning for an “imminent” terror attack on U.S. soil, the Pentagon said.

“We believe the individuals plotting and planning it were eliminated” in the eight U.S. airstrikes overnight, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said today in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” program.

Obama 1 Troll 0

I really can't disagree with this:

ISIS Declares War, Stirs the Lone Wolf Pot

Quote :

I have maintained since the U.S. began airstrikes against ISIS that military intervention was a mistake that would only result in ISIS targeting America. Before the strikes, ISIS had never expressed an intent to attack the U.S. It was focused on tearing down borders in the Middle East to create a unified Caliphate state in which Sharia law would be imposed. It had nothing to do with us. It asked for recruits to join them in the middle east, not take action elsewhere.

When the mission creep began, and the U.S. expanded the airstrikes beyond its initial promise to limit them to humanitarian efforts and protecting American facilities and personnel, it became almost a foregone conclusion that we were headed back to yet another unnecessary, ill-advised war we probably won't win, that will come with a huge price tag both in dollars and lost human lives.

The decision to continue the air strikes may go down as the worst decision in Obama's presidency. And for all the wrong reasons, it will likely cost the Democrats the White House and Congress in the next election. The war mongers who stupidly think he should have acted with more military power sooner will rule the day.

. . .

ISIS should go back to establishing its Caliphate and fighting the Iraqi forces, rebel groups and al Qaida factions in the Middle East who have refused to give it their allegiance. The U.S. should go back to its position that Iraq and ISIS are not our problem, the problems cannot be solved militarily, and it is the responsibility of the other governments in that part of the world, not the U.S., to respond to ISIS. Our assistance should be limited to providing intelligence to the other countries (something at which we unfortunately excel.)

If the other countries aren't up to the task, or are unwilling, and our choice is accepting a unified Caliphate state with Sharia law in the Middle East, or decades of war and destruction, along with heightened surveillance in the U.S. to prevent domestic terror threats, I (regrettably, but firmly) vote for the Caliphate state. It's time for the U.S. to stop the pretense we are the world's global police force and drop the notion that the entire world must live in a democracy, whether they want to or not.

I disagree with this:

Quote :

The decision to continue the air strikes may go down as the worst decision in Obama's presidency. And for all the wrong reasons, it will likely cost the Democrats the White House and Congress in the next election. The war mongers who stupidly think he should have acted with more military power sooner will rule the day.

Utter nonsense.

If Barry had let those those people on the mountain be slaughtered by not doing anything, THAT would have gone down as one of the worst decisions in Obama's presidency. It would have been political suicide.
He would have been eviscerated.

76% of Americans support the air strikes.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/10/iraq-yazidi-isis-jihadists-islamic-state-kurds

Oh wait....
Field Marshal Billo The Clown's solution.

Bill O'Reilly's plan to defeat the Islamic State: A mercenary army of 25,000

https://news.yahoo.com/bill-oreilly-plan-to-defeat-isis-25000-mercenary-army-141145969.html

Heretic wrote:

I really can't disagree with this:

ISIS Declares War, Stirs the Lone Wolf Pot

I can. We can't let an organized group of jihadists with 10's of thousands,perhaps even way more,lunatic followers to just march on and keep expanding their reach and influence. I hate to use this analogy but they operate through fear and intimidation,the same way Hitler did in the run-up to WW2. Unchecked they will continue to grow. Just look at what they've done in a relatively short period of time. We even have other Arab countries supporting this because they know they could be next.

I'm certainly not in favor of boots on the ground and another game of whack-a-mole but I don't see any downside to our assisting them from the air.