White House: Expect few details in Obama speech on cost, length of ISIS campaign

[morningfog]

Obama will unveil a broad explanation of the "next phase" of U.S. efforts, but not provide other concrete details such as whether the president wants Congress to vote to endorse it, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday.

"In the context of the speech that the president is preparing for tomorrow, I wouldn't expect something that's quite that detailed," Earnest said as he was peppered with questions about how any expansion of military force would be paid for.

The press secretary also said the White House did not have "a specific deadline" for congressional action, but that Obama "would certainly welcome support from members of Congress however they choose to show it."

And Earnest deferred from putting a timetable on how long an expanded military operation against ISIS fighters could take, or outlining concrete military objectives.

* * *

Additionally, the White House spokesman said that "dozens" of members of both parties had received classified briefings from administration officials in the past week, and that every member of Congress would be welcomed to classified briefings on Thursday.

"That is an indication and just gives you a little snapshot of this administration’s commitment to robust consultation with Congress," Earnest said.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that the administration was weighing a major acceleration of airstrikes against the terror group in Iraq, which would target logistics hubs and supply lines utilized by ISIS. The strikes would also assist forces loyal to the central government in Baghdad to retake territory lost to the terror group.

Obama is also considering whether to expand those airstrikes into Syria, where ISIS is headquartered. The administration is thought to be more cautious of such a move because the U.S. intelligence has less of a foothold there, strikes could benefit the Assad regime and doing so could raise prickly new questions about congressional authorization.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/217135-white-house-expect-few-details-from-obama-speech

No timetable, no explanation of costs, a major acceleration of bombings in Iraq, and considering strikes in Syria. What's there not to lova about this new military action?

I am sure that Obama has his best attorneys working on how to "legalize" an air war that will last three years or more. This is the Bush-Lite doctrine: Preemption, but focusing on air war, even though there are more than 1,000 soldiers currently in Iraq (and no doubt more to follow).

Has everyone watched how this progressed? It started with stopping genocide of a people on a mountain in Northern Iraq. And now we are looking at a 3-year air war, at a minimum.

[Autumn]

1. Cost is irrelevant. By damn there is war to be had!

And there are programs that benefit the American people in need that can be cut if the GOP insists on it and I'm sure just enough Democrats will agree.


I think

[morningfog]

2. Kick.

[J_J_]

3. I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks,or 5 months

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.


Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.