On Wednesday President Obama delivered another speech about degrading, defeating, and destroying ISIS. But I must ask you, what about that was any different from the speech he gave in August? As a matter of fact, what delineates Obama’s request now from his unilateral actions since last August? And why didn’t Obama pursue congressional authorization for his venture into Libya?
Furthermore, since it was Obama who declared a “red line” over Syria — which was confirmed to be crossed — why not take the same action there as he did in Libya?
Ladies and gents, this forms the basis of my statement that Congress should not approve the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) sent to them by President Obama. It is about as clear as mud and doesn’t lay out a definitive strategy for victory against ISIS – or for that matter, to meet any discernible end state objectives. In actuality, we are just going to continue down the same path for three years.
Now, what astute military commander tells the enemy how long we’re willing to fight?
I believe many of you who agree with my assessment. President Obama cannot be trusted to engage this enemy — and that is the sad reality of his reelection. A reality that the enemy — Islamic terrorists, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and others fully well know.But don’t just take my word for it. As reported by the Washington Times, “Seventy-three percent of American voters say the Obama administration does not have a clear strategy for defeating the Islamic State terrorist group, compared to 19 percent who say it does. That’s actually down from late September, when 26 percent said the administration had a clear strategy and 64 percent said it did not, according to a new Fox News poll.” “The authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to combat the group Mr. Obama sent to Congress Wednesday prohibits “enduring offensive ground combat operations,” but Mr. Obama said the language could allow for the use of U.S. troops in limited circumstances. Sixty percent of respondents in the poll, conducted Sunday to Tuesday, said defeating the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, will require a “significant” number of U.S. ground troops, compared to 23 percent who said defeating the group can be done through airstrikes alone.”
I ask you, did President Obama articulate how we diplomatically isolate ISIS? How we leverage information operations to defeat the militant Islamic fascism? How we bring about sanctions and economic pressures against those providing support to ISIS? How we cordon ISIS and stop the flow of some 18,000 foreign fighters to their cause?
Lastly, I’m not looking for specific details because tactics are not for the White House to decide — but what are the achievable strategic and operational tasks? I must explain that words have meaning to a military planner and degrade, defeat, and destroy all have various meanings. At no time did Obama clarify from a strategic perspective how that will be accomplished — what happens at the end of three years? And oh by the way, he won’t be in office.
Therefore, is a new commander-in-chief bound by the nebulous terminology of the “prohibition of enduring offensive ground operations?” And I hate to ask yet another pertinent question, but how do you destroy an enemy without “offensive ground operations” — and what defines enduring?
This is why I implore our members of Congress, House and Senate, to reject this resolution and send it back to the president — it is nonsensical.
It makes about as much sense as that Buzzfeed video showing President Obama making faces and glamming it up with a selfie stick. The word is that happened after the notification of the death of young Kayla Mueller. Now, think people, is that the image of someone you would trust to develop a strategy to take on Islamic terrorism — oops, I mean violent extremism?
You can imagine what ISIS thinks about that Buzzfeed video — as opposed to the type of videos they put out?
“Two-thirds said the federal government is doing an “only fair” or “poor” job in reducing the threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists. Twenty percent favored trading terrorists in U.S. custody, compared to 76 who were opposed, and 15 percent favored paying ransom, compared to 82 percent who were opposed.”
Are we in America somehow supposed to believe that the person who described ISIS as the “jayvee team” a year ago is serious? The person who said Yemen was the model of America’s counter-terrorism policy? The person whose State Department thought it “kind” to order our US Marines to destroy their weapons, crew served and personal, and evacuate Yemen unarmed and defenseless — on a civilian aircraft from Oman? There is no way Obama wasn’t briefed about the Yemeni Embassy evacuation and that plan.
And if he wasn’t, then who was, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, John Kerry? And if he wasn’t, do you trust him to fight ISIS?
Hate to put it this way, but I’d rather put Prime Minister Netanyahu in charge of defeating ISIS, or Jordanian leader King Abdullah. I say that not as a matter of disrespect, but from truth, because this is way above the skill set of a community organizer.
I wonder if Sir Neville Chamberlain were alive today, would he have a selfie stick?