A Reluctant Warrior
President Barack Obama has always been a reluctant warrior. It is, in fact, one of the big reasons he was elected, since America had turned away from the cowboy swagger of Bush and Cheney by 2008. Tonight, President Obama laid out the case for escalating a war we've already begun, in Iraq and Syria. He presented his plan to the public, and gave his reasons for why America should become more involved in the fight against the Islamic State (or, variously, ISIS or ISIL), and explained what America would and would not be doing in the coming months.
While Obama's address was a short one, clocking in at only 15 minutes or so, it covered a range of topics. He began by describing the enemy in the strongest possible language ("unique in their brutality"... "acts of barbarism") and flatly declared that they were "not Islamic... and not a state." He made the promise that America would "degrade and destroy" them, which is a much further step than Obama has previously committed to.
Obama pointed out the fact (which many Americans are only dimly aware of) that we've already carried out over 150 airstrikes within Iraq over the past month. The shooting has already begun, in other words, but it will now escalate. Obama also pointed out that -- in large part due to American pressure -- Iraq has now formed a new government and gotten rid of Maliki. This was a previously-stated precursor for Obama's speech tonight, since it was his explanation of why he hadn't acted more forcefully against the Islamic State before now. If Iraq is going to remain a single state (instead of fracturing into three), a more-inclusive government was absolutely necessary. Obama rightfully pointed to this as progress already made within Iraq. In doing so, Obama stressed that this "is not our fight alone" and that Iraqis will have to be the ones to fight for their own country on the ground.
Obama then itemized four facets to America's new counterterrorism strategy in Iraq and Syria. The first is airstrikes -- which will undoubtedly now ramp up in scale. Partly, this is due to some serious shortsightedness on the Pentagon's part (under both Bush and Obama) in not assisting the Iraqis in setting up their own air force at the end of our occupation of the country. Because Iraq effectively has no modern air force, America will now step into the role of being the Iraqi air force. Airstrikes were promised both within Iraq and across the border in Syria.
The second item on Obama's counterterrorism strategy was supporting troops on the ground -- but not American troops. He will be sending almost 500 more American soldiers to help the Iraqi ground troops, but Obama repeatedly stated that U.S. forces will not have any combat mission at all, merely support.
Third, Obama committed to stopping future attacks in many ways, by cutting off funding to them and stopping foreign fighters from entering the region. What went unmentioned here is the embarrassing fact that a lot of the money flowing to the Islamic State is coming from sources within some of what are supposed to be our closest allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, most prominently). Perhaps Obama is planning to use some diplomatic leverage to convince the leaders of these countries to police their own finances to cut off this flow of money from within their borders.
The last item on Obama's list was continued assistance to civilians, which is a pretty unobjectionable plan. This is how we rationalized first taking action in Iraq (to save civilians from ethnic or sectarian cleansing), in fact.
The rest of Obama's speech was pretty boilerplate in nature. Obama promised to lead "a broad coalition" of countries, but didn't actually mention any by name who have signed up -- nor specified what they'd be signing up for. Obama did warn that "it will take time," but never really stressed how long a timeline this fight might take. Obama took pains to point out how this war would be different from our previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (mostly, no ground troops), knowing that he was not exactly elected as a pro-war president (quite the opposite, in fact).
The president wove some "American values" into an argument for why he felt we needed to act, which got a bit disjointed when he went off on a few tangents about the greatness of America in general (fighting Ebola, etc.). Obama asked for public support towards the end of his speech, which polls show already exists in large part.
Obama's speech answered many questions tonight, but it also left a number unanswered. Obama danced around the issue of war powers, stating that he felt he already had the authority to do whatever he wanted militarily in both Iraq and Syria, but he also asked for Congress to get involved and show their own bipartisan support. This will likely mean Congress voting some money to support rebel fighters inside Syria, from all accounts.
The two biggest omissions from the speech were any costs involved (which could be unknown at this point, to be fair) and any mention of who will join the coalition. Obama has dispatched John Kerry to drum up support both in the region and beyond, so we will likely hear more about this in the coming days and weeks. Obama promised he's going to the United Nations soon, so perhaps that will be when coalition partners are announced. What will be key is which countries are on that list, and what they're going to be willing to do. Will they merely offer diplomatic support? Will they join in the military portion -- either in the air or on the ground? Will they be supporting the mission with cash?
Of particular note will be what Turkey (a NATO ally) will do, as well as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and the entire Arab League. Will they provide any soldiers for the mission? This problem is in their own backyards, after all, and many states in the region have accepted a whole lot of American military support over the years.
Also left unspoken was the fact that we're going to have some pretty strange bedfellows in this fight. By taking on the Islamic State within Syria, we will be helping Assad retain power -- this is unavoidable even if we simultaneously are supporting the "good" Syrian rebels. The situation in Syria isn't an "this side versus that side" civil war, it has multiple actors and multiple sides -- one reason America (and Obama) has stayed out of the mess so far. By attacking one side in this chaos, Assad will be able to concentrate his own military elsewhere. The other "enemy of my enemy" situation already exists, because by bombing the Islamic State fighters we are in essence providing air cover for militias from Iran who are also fighting the Islamic State. The Middle East is never uncomplicated, which can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.
President Obama has now committed the country to fighting another limited war. He has promised that America will not put combat troops on the ground in this conflict, which is indeed a big change from the last time we went to war in Iraq. He mentioned his airpower-only strategy has been working in two other countries, Yemen and Somalia, but he pointedly did not mention what is probably the closest parallel which can be drawn to his war plan -- what the United States did in Libya. We are going to bomb the Islamic State fighters from the skies to support troops on the ground who will capitalize on their air cover to retake land the Islamic State now holds. This may work to seriously disrupt their supply lines and their hold on small villages and towns, but it may be of limited use in retaking the large cities now controlled by the Islamic State.
Obama is trying to walk a very fine line between doing nothing and all-out war. He will be counting on others to do the ground fighting, which may depend on how much support America gets from regional allies. The end game of this limited warfare is going to be hard to see, however. Even if the coalition manages to push the Islamic State fighters out of Iraq, if they retreat to Syria it is going to be a lot harder to defeat them on the ground in the midst of a chaotic civil war. So while we may see some success in the short and medium terms, Obama may have just committed the country to a much longer campaign to not only "degrade" but truly "destroy" the Islamic State. President Obama did a decent job of laying out the overall goals in his speech tonight, but there are a lot of details that still need filling in. Hopefully, in the debates in Congress and the presentation to the United Nations, most of these details will be fully revealed.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
For a speech he was forced to make, I think President Obama did a surprisingly adequate job in outlining the basics of a strategy for "degrading and ultimately defeating" IS.
I see no need, however, to have any more details revealed through a debate in Congress or a presentation to the United Nations. What I'll be looking for over the course of the next months and, indeed, rest of the Obama administration, is a demonstration that what the president spoke of last evening is all being effectively accomplished.
The time for flowery speeches and waxing lyrical on this subject, at home or abroad, is over. What we see in terms of action and progress will be enough for us to judge whether or not the Obama administration's strategy is the right or wrong course.
President Obama has now committed the country to fighting another limited war. He has promised that America will not put combat troops on the ground in this conflict, which is indeed a big change from the last time we went to war in Iraq.
A promise he will find IMPOSSIBLE to keep... You simply cannot defeat an enemy with air power alone..
Obama's bonehead move in Libya proved that beyond any doubt..
Here is something you can take to the bank. Before this is over, American troops will be back in Iraq, fighting for the exact same ground they fought for before..
I found it interesting how Obama cited the same reasons that HW Bush and GW Bush cited for going into Iraq.. Also all 3 cited that they were going in with a coalition of the willing..
The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? :D
So, once again, America is going to war...
Let's stick our microphones outside and listen to the hysterical roar of disapproval from the anti-war Left....
{{chiiirrrrppp}} {{chirrrrrrpppppp}}
The silence is deafening...
Michale
Liz,
I see no need, however, to have any more details revealed through a debate in Congress or a presentation to the United Nations. What I'll be looking for over the course of the next months and, indeed, rest of the Obama administration, is a demonstration that what the president spoke of last evening is all being effectively accomplished
And that's what it's all about...
Obama has NEVER had a problem making great and flowery speeches....
His problem has always been living up to the speeches he makes...
Remember his "red line" in Syria???
You are dead on ballz accurate.. It's not the speech that is important..
What is important is will Obama actually DO what he says he will do...
To date, he has failed miserably..
Michale
Obama is sending more troops into Iraq...
OBAMA TO SEND 475 ADDITIONAL TROOPS TO IRAQ
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_IRAQ_TROOPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-10-21-03-18
Michale
I'm curious: When did Dick Cheney come back as anyone we should listen to?
Suddenly, he's everywhere in the news. You'd think all his 'effups would have hurt his credibility. Apparently not.
-David
Suddenly, he's everywhere in the news. You'd think all his 'effups would have hurt his credibility. Apparently not.
Most Americans are no longer buying the hysterical Anti-War propaganda that spewed from the Left at every opportunity..
Probably because it's obvious that it was simply Partisan BS and nothing to do with war itself..
Michale
In other words, the Left isn't really against war.. As long as it's their guy who is leading the charge...
Or, in Obama's case, cowering from behind...
Michale
Dick Cheney ... before he dicks you!
Ah, it felt good to dust that one off. Heheh.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/175727/republicans-expand-edge-better-party-against-terrorism.aspx
I'm just sayin'..... :D
Michale
The North Koreans are pretty nasty and depraved and they have WMD. I'm sure that they will have better production values when they start producing snuff films to get our attention.
Chris:
If Iraq is going to remain a single state (instead of fracturing into three)
Why can't Iraq become three states? Wasn't Iraq a "construct" post WWI anyway?
BHO says that ISIL is "not Islamic", so let's call it what it is - Saudi Arabian Wahhabi Insanity in Syria and Iraq. SAWISI
Why can't Iraq become three states? Wasn't Iraq a "construct" post WWI anyway?
I would think that that should be up to the Iraqi people, no??
Unless you have suddenly become an advocate of Nation Building X3....
Michale
Why can't Iraq become three states? Wasn't Iraq a "construct" post WWI anyway?
The Joe Biden plan! Heheh. Liz would be proud.
The North Koreans are pretty nasty and depraved and they have WMD. I'm sure that they will have better production values when they start producing snuff films to get our attention.
They're really going to have to step up their game to keep up with ISIS. ISIL is a much better name btw. Everyone under 30 thinks ISIS is the secret agency Archer works for and everyone over 45 thinks Isis fought with Shazam.
Everyone under 30 thinks ISIS is the secret agency Archer works for and everyone over 45 thinks Isis fought with Shazam.
That is just too funny!!! :D
Michale
Obama inevitably will need to use U.S. ground troops to defeat Islamic State, experts warn
President’s plan to rely on airstrikes, Iraqi troops to combat terrorists doomed to fail
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/11/us-ground-troops-needed-to-defeat-islamic-state-in/
Sometimes it's tough being right all the time.. :D
Michale
The Presidents speech was received with respect in most circles, which is unusual and if experience is any guide, temporary.
The first five paragraphs were strong, especially the:
ISIS/ISIL is not Islamic - is not a state - is not recognized by other states - bit. Branding is important, and the administration should have been hammering this for months. If you have doubts, read up on term Bolshevik. How about adopting the acronym OPRIL for Opportunists and Psychopaths Rampaging In the Levant?
The Strategic Objectives were clearly defined:
"degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy."
Four enumerated means to implement the strategy, plus one 900 lb gorilla:
1) US/other (who?, where based?) air strikes to leverage friendly combat units. Not mentioned, but also useful in savaging unfriendly lines of communications, including cash flow, to the outside world.
2) Local and regional ground troops (who?, uh we'll get back to you on that)
3) US advisors, training, "intel" and equipment. Traditional.
4) Humanitarian aid. Also traditional.
900 pound Gorilla) No ISIS refuge in Syria or anywhere else, aid to "moderate" Syrian resistance, airstrikes in Syria? Is Bashar-al Assad to ISIS as Stalin to Germany?
Not mentioned, patience and time. Public and pols both have little patience. The potential for escalation is very high = Iraq 3.0.
Iraq and Iraqi were used a lot in the speech. What does the President mean when he uses these terms? The formally recognized boundaries, containing Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish enclaves, or the Shiite rump controlled by the new "Iraqi" government. Obama distinguishes between Kurdish and Iraqi military forces in some portions of the speech. That's basically de facto recognition of Kurdish autonomy.
There is some serious cognitive dissonance when I here the President say "we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves." Iraqis doing for themselves is a big part of the problem.
The Strategic Objectives were clearly defined:
Except for "How To Tell When Our Strategic Objectives Are Acheived"
Iraqis doing for themselves is a big part of the problem.
Or, more accurately, what Iraqis are incapable of doing for themselves..
I was amazed at how much Obama sounded like Bush.. If one closed their eyes and mentally modified the voice, it was as if Bush were speaking of Iraq and why we need to go to war...
It was amazing..
The fact that no one on the Left will concede the similarities??
Not so amazing.. :D
Michale
M- (18)
"I was amazed at how much Obama sounded like Bush.."
"The fact that no one on the Left will concede the similarities??"
Oh, it's been conceded, just Google Obama Sounds Like Bush. Or channel surf.
All Presidents eventually hew pretty close to the military establishment line. Too many briefings.
(2) "You simply cannot defeat an enemy with air power alone..
Obama's bonehead move in Libya proved that beyond any doubt."
You kind of wrapped yourself around a Red Herring.
Kadhafi's military was defeated by a combination of indigenous (often squabbling) ground forces and NATO air power. It follows that Libya doesn't offer any insights about defeating an enemy with air power alone.
Libya does show that the aftermath of a military victory can be pretty disappointing.
Oh, it's been conceded, just Google Obama Sounds Like Bush. Or channel surf.
It hasn't been conceded by anyone in Weigantia...
Well, until now..
Thank you... Common ground is a wonderful thing.. :D
Kadhafi's military was defeated by a combination of indigenous (often squabbling) ground forces and NATO air power. It follows that Libya doesn't offer any insights about defeating an enemy with air power alone.
Libya does show that the aftermath of a military victory can be pretty disappointing.
That's because there was no military victory..
We simply traded one enemy for a different enemy..
It is simply impossible to win a war by air power alone..
Because to win, land must be taken and held..
It simply cannot be done by air power..
These are the facts...
Michale
Libya does show that the aftermath of a military victory can be pretty disappointing.
I think it's true more often than not in just about every military engagement since WW2. There might me more but the only ones I can think of that worked out well are Panama and Grenada...
I hate to say it, but I think the only person who really knew what they doing as far as Iraq is concerned was H. W. Bush: Yes, Saddam sucks, but so does everyone else in the region. Lets not mess with it too much...
TS,
Or channel surf.
I haven't had the capability (nor the desire) to "channel surf" since 2003... :D
Michale
I hate to say it, but I think the only person who really knew what they doing as far as Iraq is concerned was H. W. Bush
I was researching Bush the Elder recently and was a bit surprised at how well he holds up. He went into Kuwait only after it was invaded. He stopped after taking Kuwait. He also recognized that Reagan's tax cuts were too extreme and restored some of the lost revenue.
Of course, many conservatives hated him for all of this and he was crucified in the next election.
*sigh* I guess it doesn't pay to be sane and Republican. :)
-David
Of course, many conservatives hated him for all of this and he was crucified in the next election.
Let's be accurate here...
The Left crucified him in the next election for his Read My Lips blunder...
Michale