White House makes it official : US 'at war' with IS

[candelista]

Source: AFP

The White House is characterizing the U.S. mission against Islamic State militants as a war similar to the one waged against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

The administration has been careful to distinguish President Barack Obama's strategy against the Islamic State group from the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry preferred to call the mission a counterterrorism operation.

On Friday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that it was Islamic State that was waging war on the world and that the U.S. was leading a coalition to ultimately destroy it.

He said the United States is at war with the Islamic State militants "in the same way that we are at war with al-Qaida and its al-Qaida affiliates all around the globe."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html

---

They need to get their story straight.

[Psephos]

1. How "Nobel" of them. n/t

[George II]

2. Why is everyone so obsessed with that word, "war"?

It's only a WORD. We lost more Americans in Korea than we did in WWII, and it was never officially considered a "war".

[candelista]

3. Because it carries a lot of freight.

Basically it means you can do anything, and rules of war be damned.

[GP6971]

5. I think you're wrong

The US lost more personnel in the Pacific theatre during WWII than we did during the Korean War.

[George II]

17. Correct....horrible to compare but ~400K in WWII, "only" 35K in Korea, but the point is....

...the Korean "War" has never been declared a war (and in some eyes it's not over yet!) and yet we still lost tens of thousands of Americans.

[GP6971]

35. Agree. n/t

[yeoman6987]

6. What??????

We lost a ton more in World War 2 then Korea. We lost approx 105 thousand in WW2 and 36 grand in Korea.

[George II]

18. I stand (stood?) corrected, 400K in WWII, 35K in Korea, but Korea was never considered a "war"!

[another_liberal]

24. It was, and is, "considered" one by the people who fought it . . .

And by every facet of definition (except a formal declaration) it most certainly was "a war."

[GP6971]

37. Sure it was

not by the US Congress,,but the UN.........yes it was. The term "Police Action" has always pissed me off.

[GP6971]

36. Over a 100,000 in the Pacific theatre alone

Put in Eurpoe and it's closer to 400,000

[Man from Pickens]

58. It has a clear Constitutional meaning

Only Congress has the power to declare war, under the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section 8).

This is why the AUMF was so sketchy as a legal basis for war in Iraq and elsewhere - it's not an actual declaration of war.

But apparently we have evolved to the point where we don't even need that window-dressing.

Do you understand that this is setting a precedent, that the next GOP President will be able to declare war whenever he wants to, on whomever he feels like dropping bombs on, without obtaining the consent of our representatives?

[harun]

72. In the U.S. constitutionally only the U.S. Congress can declare "War"

Which should be defined as using violence to achieve political goals.

Of course the cowards in Congress never want to take responsibility so they vote to authorize the President to just use violence to achieve political goals everywhere.

All of this is due to a lack of reforming the system after the World Wars. Now we are stuck with endless war, too many people making money on it.

[humbled_opinion]

4. The knee jerk war

Obama was goaded into this by neocons and terrorists..... He says no boots on the ground now... LOL ... .Until he is accused of losing his own war....I predict heavy U.S. troop involvement maybe 20k or so by the new year.

[yeoman6987]

7. President Obama should not have to be goaded into anything

Leaders lead. Followers follow. President Obama is a leader. He is perfectly capable of thinking for himself. Do you think he is weak or something?

[candelista]

8. You're right.

President Obama really thinks that US world hegemony is a good thing, because it brings freedom, democracy, modernity and capitalism to people all over the world.

[another_liberal]

14. Then he must have been intentionally misleading us in his election campaigns . . .

I personally heard him promise his administration would never do this.

[George II]

19. Never do "this"? What?

[another_liberal]

21. Carry on a pointless war in Iraq . . .

In fact, he promised to end one.

[George II]

22. And he did end one, but this "war" isn't nearly as pointless as the one he ended....

...remember, he isn't starting this one to redeem his father's name (as bush did), he isn't starting this one to make billions of dollars for the company he worked/s for (as Cheney did), and he isn't starting this one under false pretenses.

[another_liberal]

26. Did he stop the war in Iraq?

When, exactly, do you consider it was stopped?

[former9thward]

27. Yes, he is starting it under false pretenses.

ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. A few days ago it was a "JV" group -- as Obama said -- of 5,000. Now that we want a war the CIA has happily upped the figure to a round 30,000. The only people ISIS threatens are the U.S. stooges in Baghdad.

[oberliner]

41. "The only people ISIS threatens are the U.S. stooges in Baghdad"

What about American reporters who attempt to cover the region?

[CJCRANE]

46. That's the same logic as the 9/11 wars.

Three thousand killed on 9/11, five thousand Americans slain as result of the wars that followed.

Two journalists killed...how many will be slain in the wars that follow?

And all of the information from the original 9/11 investigation is still yet to be released..

[oberliner]

47. Not a call for war, just a statement of fact

The group clearly poses a threat to any American journalists who attempt to cover the region.

[humbled_opinion]

54. Then maybe it should be covered by arab journalists, no?

Save thousands of lives hire an Arab journalist....

[former9thward]

59. Sorry, they have been told NOT to go there by our State Department.

So now we should start a war over people being where they are NOT supposed to be, playing "neutral" war reporter? No thanks.

[oberliner]

60. You think Foley did something wrong in 2012 by attempting to report from Syria?

That seems to be the implication of your post.

[former9thward]

64. The State Department said Americans should not go to Syria.

There was not an exception for reporters. He ignored that. Yes he did something wrong by foolishly being in that country and thinking if he played "neutral" and did the "I just want to tell your story" no one would bother him.

[oberliner]

67. When did they say that?

Are you sure it was prior to 2013?

[former9thward]

68. I looked on the State Department site but can't find

when they issued the original warning. The ones they have on the site are dated 2014 and 2013 are are labeled warnings that supersede other warnings. So I don't know when the original one went up. The civil war started in March 2011 and has escalated from there.

[oberliner]

69. Yeah - that's what I found when I checked the site as well

I saw references to warnings in 2013 and 2014 but nothing prior to that.

[humbled_opinion]

53. You nailed it....n/t

[humbled_opinion]

52. LOL

So justifying war as not nearly as pointless is the new meme? Wake me when the President regains his mind because at the moment it is lost and people that cheer him on over this are just as bad and just as guilty for the coming atrocities.

[George II]

55. In that case, I suppose you feel that rampant barbarism and genocide should not be stopped?

[humbled_opinion]

56. Well with that view than we should be bombing

hundreds of countries why pick this one?

[Joe Turner]

38. Do you think he is weak or something?

When it comes to resisting the status quo military machine that has huge influence in our government, yes I do.

[another_liberal]

15. I think thirty thousand is more likely . . .

That's a round number the Pentagon seems to like for escalations lately.

[Cha]

29. Hell no, he wasn't goaded into this by anyone. He's doing what he thinks is the right thing to

to and Senator Bernie Sanders stands with him.. on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

Senators Warren and Sanders are on board with the President.. thank goodness for those who know and understand the whole picture.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

[freshwest]

65. Thanks, Cha. And Obama is clearly not playing to any crowd, but looking to do the right thing.

[coldbeer]

9. I just turned Rachel Maddow off!

She did real good describing the change from counterterrorism
to War. Then she says wait for my interview with Chuck Todd!

Goodbye Rachel! my last hope on Friday nite.

[George II]

25. Damn! I missed Maddow interviewing Todd?

My loss..............

[coldbeer]

70. mine too!

I should have watched he rinterview.
I need a sense of humor (like yours)!

I could have watched Rachel and Todd
on her show.

I am so tired of these repetitive stations.

[BootinUp]

10. Developing...Film at 11.

[roamer65]

11. I don't recollect Congress passing a declaration of war. N/t

[George II]

20. AUMF

[former9thward]

28. The AUMF which Obama wanted revoked just last year.

How times change. The AUMF does not apply to Syria.

[amandabeech]

31. Relying on the AUMF for this is extremely controversial.

The nation would be best served if the President would ask Congress for a declaration of war for this operation separately, even if the vote isn't taken until the lame duck session. I'm quite sure that the President and his legal advisers know just how thin a cover AUMF is for this operation. Even the President's reliance on the emergency powers in the War Powers Act is very, very thin because under that act, action is not permitted unless there is an imminent threat to the US. ISIL/ISIS is a nasty business, but there have not been any admissions that those individuals are now hatching a plot to attack the US. There is a considerable speculation that a radicalized American or a radicalized citizen of a nation whose citizens may visit here at will with no visa, like your lovely Canada, may at some time hatch such a plot, but that is speculation only.

In this case the AUMF is a sled whizzing down a very slippery slope.

[TwilightGardener]

61. I believe the imminent threat was to US personnel and facilities in Iraq--I think the

assumption that ISIS would attack the Green Zone embassy/Erbil consulate or whatever else we have going on there was the justification used for the War Powers Act. What needs to happen from this point forward, since we're now going on OFFENSIVE, is a new AUMF specifically for this war.

[amandabeech]

62. I would like to see the brief that was prepared for this.

The traditional response to a possible attack on an embassy or consulate located in a nation at war is to burn everything and evacuate personnel.

We have seldom been able to anything right in this part of the world. We are lucky to have Mr. Obama as President instead of McCain or Romney right now, but there's a big flashing sign in my mind that is blinking *****QUAGMIRE***** *****QUAGMIRE**** ******QUAGMIRE****. It's a visceral reaction that I don't have with respect to other areas of US interest right now.

[TwilightGardener]

63. Iraq is one country we won't leave. I don't think we could honestly bear the

humiliation, after so many of our troops died there, of leaving our embassy like we did in Vietnam. We did skedaddle out of Libya, but I just don't see us doing anything but digging in in Iraq. Just too much American business and interests there, and we are at least a little responsible for their security failures.

[TheNutcracker]

43. Exactly! Who's appropriating our money???????? Damn them all.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. oh, how nice. Another war not recognized by Congress.

[another_liberal]

13. I think our bombs killing scores and hundreds of their people made it "official" . . .

If anyone was still in doubt, it certainly was not the Islamic State.

[Gore1FL]

16. I prefer calling police actions, police actions, myself.

We haven't been at war since the Japanese surrendered.

[rug]

23. This is foreign policy by comic book.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that it was Islamic State that was waging war on the world and that the U.S. was leading a coalition to ultimately destroy it.

[Cha]

30. What do you think it is?.. A gawd damn tea party? Just because putin's too cowardly to admit

he's at war doesn't mean the White House would be.

And, Senator Bernie Sanders stands with President Obama.. they know what the shite is going on .. not playing Gotcha games like some on the internetz..

Bernie Sanders.. on this "Enormously complicated issue".. as he calls it. He disagrees with staying out of ISIS like some around are clamoring on about.

As he stated it's an "International effort" and guess what.. "they have to put money in it too."

Hartman and he talked about one republiCon saying.. they'll "blast him if it doesn't work and ask why he didn't do it sooner if it does." Sounds like a familiar whine.

Senators Warren and Sanders are on board with the President.. thank goodness for those who know and understand the whole picture.

FrodosPet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5527989

[Joe Turner]

40. thank goodness for those who know and understand the whole picture.

What's that picture? Running for president? Got to bow before the war machine and then pretend that you are running for change? CUT!

[Cha]

44. Senator Bernie Sanders is exponentially smarter than the internet websters who know how to

do nothing but type out cheap pot shots.

[Joe Turner]

45. I like Sanders a lot

And will vote for him. Still, I find it amazing what today's candidates have to do when they want to be "perceived" as a serious candidate. After several thousand US soldiers lives lost, a MILLLION Iraqi lives lost and a few trillion flushed down the drain in Iraq it seems like the latest strategy is doubling down on a bad misadventure started by Bush Jr. Mind you, we are still nation building in Afghanistan and have military bases spread throughout the world. I don't see anything good coming out of this. And I'll put my opinion over and above any "public" servant...especially when they are running for high office.

[candelista]

48. It's the propaganda climate.

The government and the media have done a much better job of creating this than they did a year ago when President Obama wanted to bomb Syria. They have everyone salivating this time, and the politicians feel they have to pander to public sentiment.

[Maedhros]

32. The White House CANNOT make a war 'official.'

Only Congress can do that.

[TwilightGardener]

34. I don't think it's an attempt to DECLARE war, as Congress would do.

I think it's meant to characterize the nature of the conflict.

[sadoldgirl]

33. We certainly will make more friends

in Iraq and get more peace by bombing the Sunnis, who are in the same area as IS!

[Brigid]

39. And how do we pay for it?

We don't have endless resources.

[candelista]

49. We can borrow the money from China, and print some up.

What could go wrong?

[quadrature]

42. second-terms, are always difficult

the easy times are behind us

[jakeXT]

50. “We’re not going to see an end to this in our lifetime,” retired Air Force general Charles F Wald

While the existence of the Forever War has been evident for years to anyone who has been paying attention, it is only in the last few days that it became overt US policy. Now, even generals are openly agreeing with Thompson’s sentiments. “We’re not going to see an end to this in our lifetime,” retired Air Force general Charles F Wald told the Washington Post. “There isn’t going to be any time where we all of a sudden can declare victory. This is what the world is going to be like for us for a long time.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/13/obamas-legally-dubious-isis-campaign-perpetual-war

[candelista]

57. The crusades lasted a long time, too. Centuries.

[Brigid]

66. I'm afraid that wherther we like it or not . . .

Gen. Walden is right.

[Amonester]

71. Just wait until they declare "war" on the freelance polluters who don't give a crap...

Oh... Wait!

Like "a clean world" surely doesn't enter in the "National Interests" category...

Only "tons of undeclared ca$h" does...

[liberalmuse]

51. Send all of the warmongers first.

Chicken hawks can man the front lines. Let's give them parachutes, put them on a plane and drop them smack dab into the middle of the mess they've created. When every last saber-rattling POS is gone maybe we'll be able to stop their endless wars. They don't get to use our kids and grand kids as political cannon fodder or to line their pockets any longer. How about that? I vote to sent McCain, Palin, the Cheney's, Coulter, Cruz and all sh$theads of their ilk first.