Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS.....

[MMC]

Kerry and BO just do not get it.....They are at War with us. They have declared War on us. They have shown their intentions and have gone after US Interests. How can he say we are not at War with them and then Defend the Bush policy of going after AQ with the War on Terror? Does this sound like an Administration that wants to get rid of the problem? What say ye?


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war." "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

"ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it. Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration's insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. "This group is and has been al Qaeda," Kerry said. "By trying to change its name, it doesn't change who it is, what it does.".....snip~

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS - CNN.com

 

[TheNextEra]

Kerry and BO just do not get it.....They are at War with us. They have declared War on us. They have shown their intentions and have gone after US Interests. How can he say we are not at War with them and then Defend the Bush policy of going after AQ with the War on Terror? Does this sound like an Administration that wants to get rid of the problem? What say ye?


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war." "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

"ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it. Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration's insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. "This group is and has been al Qaeda," Kerry said. "By trying to change its name, it doesn't change who it is, what it does.".....snip~

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS - CNN.com

It's actually a strategy on Kerry's part. By not saying we are at war with ISIS and calling ISIS "Al-Qaeda" he is able to use the war powers act already in place for Al-Qaeda.

Yes, it's a play on words I agree. However it's not that we won't strike ISIS, it is that by going this route the administration can do what it wants to against ISIS. I thought in the end-game that is what you wanted, to strike ISIS?

 

[humbolt]

Parsing and playing with language doesn't change a thing. If I don't call a flower a flower is it not still a flower?
This administration is stupid enough to believe that the public at large can't see this idiocy for what it is. They arrogantly believe they can call a goat a cat and nobody will notice.

 

[TheNextEra]

Parsing and playing with language doesn't change a thing. If I don't call a flower a flower is it not still a flower?
This administration is stupid enough to believe that the public at large can't see this idiocy for what it is. They arrogantly believe they can call a goat a cat and nobody will notice.

Again, the reason for this is so the adminisrtation can strike ISIS. By calling them an Al-Qaeda outfit, they can pretty much do whatever they want to ISIS under the war powers act already in place to attack Al-Qaeda.

I said above, I agree it's an entire play on words.

 

[humbolt]

It's actually a strategy on Kerry's part. By not saying we are at war with ISIS and calling ISIS "Al-Qaeda" he is able to use the war powers act already in place for Al-Qaeda.

Yes, it's a play on words I agree. However it's not that we won't strike ISIS, it is that by going this route the administration can do what it wants to against ISIS. I thought in the end-game that is what you wanted, to strike ISIS?

They'd get the authority they need either way, so why not call it what it is?

 

[TheNextEra]

They'd get the authority they need either way, so why not call it what it is?

I don't think they would get the authority. There are lots of groups out there saying just leave it alone and let the ME take care of it.

EDIT: Remember, this is an election year. Thre is a VERY good chance people up for re-election wouldn't vote for action. This way the adminisrtation can take action. If the administration were to lose an action vote, then they would effectively be crippled from doing anything.

 

[Perotista]

Kerry and BO just do not get it.....They are at War with us. They have declared War on us. They have shown their intentions and have gone after US Interests. How can he say we are not at War with them and then Defend the Bush policy of going after AQ with the War on Terror? Does this sound like an Administration that wants to get rid of the problem? What say ye?


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war." "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

"ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it. Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration's insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. "This group is and has been al Qaeda," Kerry said. "By trying to change its name, it doesn't change who it is, what it does.".....snip~

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS - CNN.com

Just like Vietnam was a counter-insurgency operation. Now don't get me wrong, if the president does what he said the other night I support him on it. I say if as he has given many a good speech and then failed to follow through with the action he stated he would do. But playing around with words is asinine. Any sustained bombing campaign that we have been conducting is war. It may not be a declared war or one even authorized by congress, but a war nonetheless. I just hope we go whole hog and not just a pin prick here and a pin prick there. The longer one draws out things like this the more causalities will occur in the long run. Better to hit the opposition, enemy hard to begin with and geterdone.

Now I can understand taking it easy for awhile while the Iraqi army reconstitutes itself. But when the time comes, hit hard, hit fast and then hit harder and faster.

 

[MMC]

It's actually a strategy on Kerry's part. By not saying we are at war with ISIS and calling ISIS "Al-Qaeda" he is able to use the war powers act already in place for Al-Qaeda.

Yes, it's a play on words I agree. However it's not that we won't strike ISIS, it is that by going this route the administration can do what it wants to against ISIS. I thought in the end-game that is what you wanted, to strike ISIS?

Well for American Politics maybe.....but then not telling our enemy we are at war with them, what does that say or show the enemy? If they don't think we are serious. They will feel even more emboldened.

Asked how much of the interpretation lets Congress get away from a vote on going after ISIS -- a scenario lawmakers would like to avoid in an election year -- Kerry responded "none." "It is going to be our policy to separate (al-Assad), who is mostly in the western part of Syria, in a certain corridor from the eastern part of Syria, which he doesn't control," Kerry said. "ISIL controls that part. So it is clearly ... not a very difficult task to target ISIL."

While American leadership is "indispensable," he said, "we cannot destroy this group on our own. Defeating this common enemy calls for a common cause, and we're taking it on to succeed together.".....snip~ <<<<< (same Link)

Now that part about Bombing ISIL and staying away from Assad.....sounds good to me and I like. One problem tho.....look what he says about the MB backed Rebels.

Although I do strongly disagree with him on we can't destroy ISIL on our own. We could.....but then its not just our problem. So others need to step up to the plate and tke their swings.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They'd get the authority they need either way, so why not call it what it is?

The play on words is to allow Obama to have his "non-new, non-war" without the need for Sanate demorats to go on record as voting for Iraq war III and the brand new US involvement in the civil war in Syria. Many Senate demorats want to let Obama and the republicants take the blame (credit?) for the escalation of the endless ME war. Since this non-new, non-war likely starts, in earnest, after the already decared "victory" date in Afghanistan it does not even need much (if any) budget action - thus a simple CR will allow its funding.

 

[humbolt]

I don't think they would get the authority. There are lots of groups out there saying just leave it alone and let the ME take care of it.

EDIT: Remember, this is an election year. Thre is a VERY good chance people up for re-election wouldn't vote for action. This way the adminisrtation can take action. If the administration were to lose an action vote, then they would effectively be crippled from doing anything.

Political considerations are always an element, but they shouldn't be the defining one in this case. I'm pretty certain that despite objections in some corners, the authority would be granted. And ISIS is AQ is Hamas and all the rest of the radical Islamic organizations. They're all the same thing - there's no magic in changing names - no difference in their objectives and no difference in who their stated enemies are. The duck test apples here. My reaction is consistent with this administration's repeated efforts to not call things what they are. It's pretty obvious at this point that there aren't any ME countries handling ISIS at all. Rumsfeld was a very controversial Defense Secretary. Whether you liked him or not, you had to like his conduct at certain news conferences in which he blew right by the "gotcha" questions by unequivocally stating the truth as it was. That would be a good model right around now.

 

[humbolt]

The play on words is to allow Obama to have his "non-new, non-war" without the need for Sanate demorats to go on record as voting for Iraq war III and the brand new US involvement in the civil war in Syria. Many Senate demorats want to let Obama and the republicants take the blame (credit?) for the escalation of the endless ME war. Since this non-new, non-war likely starts, in earnest, after the already decared "victory" date in Afghanistan it does not even need much (if any) budget action - thus a simple CR will allow its funding.

Yeah. I know what they're doing. I just think it sucks. We owe our military more than this type of crap allows.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yeah. I know what they're doing. I just think it sucks. We owe our military more than this type of crap allows.

I agree - when we start having military missions/campaigns that are not "wars", like we have done (are doing?) in Somalia and Yemen and falsely declaring "victory", while everyone knows that we did not win, we are letting our enemies know that time is on their side. We seem to have learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam - you can win every battle and yet still lose the war.

 

[MMC]

Just like Vietnam was a counter-insurgency operation. Now don't get me wrong, if the president does what he said the other night I support him on it. I say if as he has given many a good speech and then failed to follow through with the action he stated he would do. But playing around with words is asinine. Any sustained bombing campaign that we have been conducting is war. It may not be a declared war or one even authorized by congress, but a war nonetheless. I just hope we go whole hog and not just a pin prick here and a pin prick there. The longer one draws out things like this the more causalities will occur in the long run. Better to hit the opposition, enemy hard to begin with and geterdone.

Now I can understand taking it easy for awhile while the Iraqi army reconstitutes itself. But when the time comes, hit hard, hit fast and then hit harder and faster.

Mornin Pero. :2wave: Well if you recall BO saying he had his Team working on a strategy.....he still decided to, not follow what their advice was and go with this 4 pronged attack. So for myself, I am wondering if he is really going to give it his all.


Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS.....

The Washington Post reports today that when the president tasked military leaders with devising the best strategy to defeat ISIS, the Pentagon presented a plan that involved a limited number of combat "boots on the ground." They were rebuffed, in favor of a more politically-palatable light footprint approach:

Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option. Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State, Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House...Recommitting ground combat forces to Iraq would have been highly controversial, and most likely would have been opposed by a substantial majority of Americans. But Austin’s predecessor, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, said the decision not to send ground troops poses serious risks to the mission. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis said. “You’re giving the enemy the initiative for a longer period.”.....snip~

Report: Obama Overruled 'Best Military Advice' on Ground Troops to Fight ISIS - Guy Benson

 

[humbolt]

I agree - when we start having military missions/campaigns that are not "wars", like we have done (are doing?) in Somalia and Yemen and falsely declaring "victory", while everyone knows that we did not win, we are letting our enemies know that time is on their side. We seem to have learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam - you can win every battle and yet still lose the war.

We simply delay the inevitable at a much higher cost later. The time will come when we lack the resources to do what's necessary.

 

[polgara]

Yeah. I know what they're doing. I just think it sucks. We owe our military more than this type of crap allows.

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

So we are being "brought into the fold," by the leaders in the ME. How nice. That means they now love and trust Obama, right? No, this means we are now going to be held directly responsible for everything that happens over there by getting more involved, IMO. Doesn't anyone want to remember what has been happening over the past many months? Since the regime changes we made in Egypt, Libya, and Iraq made things so much better for the region that they now apparently see that our interference was a good thing, why don't we ask them for the money it's going to cost us to get rid of all their problems for them - they all have more money than we do! No need for Obama to ask Congress for the billions it's going to cost us. :shrug:

 

[humbolt]

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

So we are being "brought into the fold," by the leaders in the ME. How nice. That means they now love and trust Obama, right? No, this means we are now going to be held directly responsible for everything that happens over there by getting more involved, IMO. Doesn't anyone want to remember what has been happening over the past many months? Since the regime changes we made in Egypt, Libya, and Iraq made things so much better for the region that they now apparently see that our interference was a good thing, why don't we ask them for the money it's going to cost us to get rid of all their problems for them - they all have more money than we do! No need for Obama to ask Congress for the billions it's going to cost us. :shrug:

Morning Pol. I have no idea exactly what our objectives are from a military perspective. I hope the military understands. I'm doubtful Obama's coalition is going to amount to much that's meaningful on the ground. Some money would help, at least. I'm doubtful as well that this action will end with anything that looks like victory at all. I think we're just going to chase them under a new set of rocks somewhere over there. They'll be back.

 

[polgara]

We simply delay the inevitable at a much higher cost later. The time will come when we lack the resources to do what's necessary.

I'm apprehensive because I think that time has already arrived! I recently read that for the first time, our debt is now greater than our GDP, and growing! Small wonder that so many countries don't trust our dollar any more, and are making plans to replace it. So much for hoping our crumbling infrastructure gets fixed, because bandaids only last so long! It's more important to meddle in the ME, I guess, than handling problems here - like maybe thinking of a way to provide jobs for the unemployed to get them off the welfare wagon? :thumbdown:

 

[humbolt]

I'm apprehensive because I think that time has already arrived! I recently read that for the first time, our debt is now greater than our GDP, and growing! Small wonder that so many countries don't trust our dollar any more, and are making plans to replace it. So much for hoping our crumbling infrastructure gets fixed, because bandaids only last so long! It's more important to meddle in the ME, I guess, than handling problems here - like maybe thinking of a way to provide jobs for the unemployed to get them off the welfare wagon? :thumbdown:

Shush. Don't panic everybody. I agree. Obama's not even ready for the pitch yet, and the ball is already in the catcher's glove.

 

[eohrnberger]

Parsing and playing with language doesn't change a thing. If I don't call a flower a flower is it not still a flower?
This administration is stupid enough to believe that the public at large can't see this idiocy for what it is. They arrogantly believe they can call a goat a cat and nobody will notice.

This is exactly the behavior of the mealy mouthed politicians that I hate the most. I see it as a play to maintain popularity with their ardent anti-war base.

For Christ's sake. Call it for what it is already, and get over it. Better to spend the time convincing the ardent anti-war that this is a war being forced on the US instead.

 

[humbolt]

This is exactly the behavior of the mealy mouthed politicians that I hate the most. I see it as a play to maintain popularity with their ardent anti-war base.

For Christ's sake. Call it for what it is already, and get over it. Better to spend the time convincing the ardent anti-war that this is a war being forced on the US instead.

Yep. It speaks of half-assed measures with half-assed results.

 

[shrubnose]

Kerry and BO just do not get it.....They are at War with us. They have declared War on us. They have shown their intentions and have gone after US Interests. How can he say we are not at War with them and then Defend the Bush policy of going after AQ with the War on Terror? Does this sound like an Administration that wants to get rid of the problem? What say ye?


U.S.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS

, telling CNN in an interview that the administration's strategy includes "many different things that one doesn't think of normally in context of war." "What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation," Kerry told CNN's Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. "It's going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it's a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts."

"ISIL is an animal unto itself," he said. "And it is significantly such a threat because of the foreign fighters that are attracted to it -- which you don't see in Somalia or ... Yemen." Most importantly, Kerry said, ISIL has attracted a "significant coalition" that is determined to go and destroy it. Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration's insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. "This group is and has been al Qaeda," Kerry said. "By trying to change its name, it doesn't change who it is, what it does.".....snip~

Kerry: U.S. not at war with ISIS - CNN.com

Who's winning the wars on drugs and poverty?

Any ideas on that?

 

[Hard Truth]

....They are at War with us. They have declared War on us. They have shown their intentions and have gone after US Interests......

Proof? Is most of the world "US Interests? or just the middle east?

 

[Hard Truth]

I agree - when we start having military missions/campaigns that are not "wars", like we have done (are doing?) in Somalia and Yemen and falsely declaring "victory", while everyone knows that we did not win, we are letting our enemies know that time is on their side. We seem to have learned nothing from our experience in Vietnam - you can win every battle and yet still lose the war.

The lesson of WWII and our subsequent wars is that the only way to have a complete and final victory is to kill and destroy your enemy to the level that we did to Germany and Japan and then occupy them for over a decade. I suspect most of us aren't willing to do that to people who have not attacked our territory.

 

[polgara]

This is exactly the behavior of the mealy mouthed politicians that I hate the most. I see it as a play to maintain popularity with their ardent anti-war base.

For Christ's sake. Call it for what it is already, and get over it. Better to spend the time convincing the ardent anti-war that this is a war being forced on the US instead.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: :thumbs: And we could play the song "With a little help from my friends" by the Beatles, too. But I do have to wonder who the mastermind is behind all this, and why? To bankrupt us faster?

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Just like Vietnam was a counter-insurgency operation. Now don't get me wrong, if the president does what he said the other night I support him on it. I say if as he has given many a good speech and then failed to follow through with the action he stated he would do. But playing around with words is asinine. Any sustained bombing campaign that we have been conducting is war. It may not be a declared war or one even authorized by congress, but a war nonetheless. I just hope we go whole hog and not just a pin prick here and a pin prick there. The longer one draws out things like this the more causalities will occur in the long run. Better to hit the opposition, enemy hard to begin with and geterdone.

Now I can understand taking it easy for awhile while the Iraqi army reconstitutes itself. But when the time comes, hit hard, hit fast and then hit harder and faster.

No more nation-building, no more weapons giving.

We go in, we destroy the enemy, everything related to the enemy, destroy their weapons, technologies, etc. and leave.

We need to have a clear objective, follow through that objective, take preventative measures for the future, and be done with this ****ing mess.