The White House Reveals Its "New Strategy" To Fight ISIS

[Busybody]

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/11/US%20strategy%20fighting%20ISIS_0.jpgRumors that the US is rapidly losing its drone and "military advisor"-based war against ISIS (and expensive oil) may not be greatly exagerated, but it doesn't mean the US is out of ideas. Here is the White House's latest "strategy pivot."

 

[Busybody]

Obama's War Against ISIS Faces Funding Hurdle

Opposition to $5.6 billion war request, 1,500-troop deployment builds, but it's unclear if skeptics can win.






President Barack Obama abandoned his August 2013 request to bomb Syria’s government when a significant number of lawmakers said they would vote "no."

Nearly a year later, Obama ordered airstrikes in Iraq to protect Kurds from the Islamic State group and expanded the strikes to Syria in September after the retaliatory murders of two U.S. journalists (and to stop alleged plotting by a different group). No congressional vote was necessary, he said, and polls showed overwhelming support for the airstrikes.

Now, more than two months after the most recent videotaped beheading of an American by jihadis, Obama is asking Congress for two separate nods of approval for continued intervention against the Islamic State group, also referred to as ISIS.

The requests present a conceivable opportunity for anti-war lawmakers to halt the expansion of U.S. military action, and some House members are stirring for a fight.

The administration wants new authorized use of military force legislation granting permission for what is currently a legally dubious military campaign and $5.6 billion to fund the effort – money that would allow for the deployment of 1,500 U.S. troops to Iraq, bringing the total to more than 3,000, up from nearly none in May.

One of the loudest skeptics of deeper intervention is Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., who has appeared on cable TV programs warning about a “greased slope” toward renewed, long-lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq featuring the death or capture of American troops.

“I will not support the funding request,” he tells U.S. News, without either a declaration of war or a new authorization of force. The funding request is expected to come up for a vote first.

Garamendi objects to the Obama administration's claim the current campaign is justifiable under the 2001 measure authorizing force against those responsible for 9/11, which the Bush and Obama administrations have used to justify military action against a broad range of terrorist groups.



Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., feels similarly, and predicts a close House vote on the funding request.

Welch supports limited counterterrorism operations, but says he probably would vote against the funding request and accompanying troop deployment if it comes up – as expected – before a new authorization of force proposal is debated.

“Why would you pay for a policy without defining the policy?” asks Welch, who says many colleagues agree on that point.

“The collective revulsion at the beheadings was powerful and every one of us was looking for some way to show our outrage,” he says. “But our job is to decide policy based on what is best to protect American citizens. This conflict is a reflection of the ongoing divide between Sunni and Shia and many of us believe that fundamentally has to be resolved by people on the ground [and that] people in Iraq need to decide if they want a civil society or a civil war.”

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., plans to vote against the war funding, a spokesman says, as does Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who energetically campaigned against Obama’s plan to attack the Syrian government last year, alleging the Obama administration had manipulated intelligence on chemical weapons.



"I'm against it,” Grayson says. “There is no reason for the president to send in more U.S. troops when he hasn't even asked our allies whether they would send in troops. The additional troops aren't fighting troops, they're just target practice for ISIS."

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., says it’s important to have a congressional debate that entertains nonmilitary options. Lee sponsored in June unsuccessful amendments to repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations of force – losing 260-157 on repealing the post-9/11 war permission and 250-165 on repealing the Iraq authorization (despite support from the Obama administration).




“Many national security experts have clearly stated that there is no military solution to ISIS,” Lee says. “We must ensure that a robust regionally-led, political, diplomatic and economic strategy is central to any effort to any strategy to degrade and dismantle ISIS.”

The Obama administration anticipates a successful military operation against the Islamic State group would take years to complete. Thus far, Obama has insisted U.S. troops will not resume non-aerial combat missions in Iraq

 

[Busybody]

 

[Busybody]

Joint Chiefs Chair General Martin Dempsey Says They Are Considering Sending Ground Troops To Help Iraqi Army Dislodge ISIS…




Via Guardian:


The top-ranking officer in the American military said on Thursday that the US is actively considering the direct use of troops in the toughest upcoming fights against the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq, less than a week after Barack Obama doubled troop levels there.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting, Dempsey acknowledged.

“I’m not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” he said.

As Dempsey and the US defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, testified, Isis released a new audio message purported to be from its self-proclaimed leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an apparent refutation of suspicions that Baghdadi was killed or critically injured in air strikes over the weekend.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

if the ad doesn't work

maybe they try Craigs List