"Boots On The Ground"? Obama To Seek Authorization For Military Force Against ISIS

[KoKo]

Probably just "Conspiracy Theory" ....but there are a few sources given at the article link that sound legit.

------------------------

"Boots On The Ground"? Obama To Seek Authorization For Military Force Against ISIS

By Tyler Durden

January 13, 2015 "ICH" - "Zero Hedge" - Having unveiled his non-boots-on-the-ground strategy in September, President Obama's "promise" was quickly proved fragile when 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. It seems another promise is about to be broken as Bloomberg reports Senator John Cornyn said President Obama told congressional leaders during meeting today at White House he would seek authorization for military force on Islamic State. Boehner’s office, in separate statement after meeting, said Republicans would work with him to build support.

As Bloomberg reports, Obama to Seek Authorization for Military Force

President Obama told congressional leaders during meeting today at White House he would seek authorization for actions on Islamic State, Republican Sen. John Cornyn tells reporters.

No details on timing or substance

Cornyn, fellow Republican Sen. John Thune say Obama’s intention is good development, may help smooth way for confirmation of Ashton Carter as next defense secretary

House Speaker John Boehner, other Republicans have been pressing Obama to seek authorization

Boehner’s office, in separate statement after meeting, said he encouraged Obama to send Congress the authorization and said Republicans would work with him to build support


More with snips from other sources like "Guardian," "Bloomberg" at:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-13/boots-ground-obama-seek-authorization-military-force-against-isis

[atreides1]

1. Here we go again!!!

How much collateral damage will be acceptable this time around...how many Iraqi/Syrian civilians will die?

How many more Americans will lose their lives?

[randome]

3. How many civilians are dying now?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[leftynyc]

6. I'm guessing less than

isis is currently killing in Syria right now.

[OKNancy]

2. consider the source

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

[SidDithers]

9. Yup...nt

Sid

[Blanks]

19. It has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions. LOL.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. An op-ed piece by an anonymous blogger

using the handle of a character from "Fight Club", quoting Republicans John Cornyn, John Thune, and John Boehner. No actual quotes from Obama, but a quote from a joint chief who recommends going against what Obama wants to do.

Nothing about this sounds legit.

And if the comments on that article are indicative of the site, it's a vile right-wing rag.

[SidDithers]

10. That's what passes for good sourcing at DU these days...

any port in a storm for the fringe left posters here.

Sid

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. Reuters is also saying this.

(Reuters) - The White House is expected to ask the U.S. Congress soon for a formal authorization to use military force against Islamic State, a top Republican senator said on Thursday.

Bob Corker, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he has been talking to officials from President Barack Obama's administration and was optimistic they might soon spell out to Congress what they would like to see in an authorization.

"I had a conversation yesterday evening with them about it," Corker told reporters at the U.S. Capitol.

"They need to let us know the type of authorization they are seeking, and I think that that may happen in the near future, the very near future," the Tennessee Republican said, declining to give a more specific time frame.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-mideast-crisis-congress-idUSKBN0KH1ZQ20150108

[Dr Hobbitstein]

23. No where does Reuters say "Boots on the ground".

AUMF =/= ground troops.

Also, almost every statement is qualified with "I think" or "may happen".

Keeping in mind, this is a Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has been speaking to "members of the Obama administration".

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. My point was to the argument that there was only a right wing source for the topic.

Boots on the ground being a separate topic, which bears watching.

[Autumn]

5. Okay who didn't know this was coming?

[JoePhilly]

7. This time its definitely going to happen!!!!!

[Autumn]

11. Yes it will happen. Pretty sure you didn't read the article and obviously you don't pay attention.

Just read the replies and decide who is attacking your principled president. Denial and attack is sooo much better.

[JoePhilly]

13. How soon til we have 100k troops

In an active battle ?

When does the full-scale invasion begin?

[Autumn]

14. Boots on the ground. Active battles and full-scale invasion are your

diversion from boots on the ground. Boots. On. The. Ground. The republicans in charge will ,along with the pentagon push this.

[JoePhilly]

17. So, "soon".

Ok

[JonLP24]

8. Just what ISIS was hoping for

[flamingdem]

12. zerohedge is a right wing site

fyi

[amandabeech]

15. It often seems like it has its own wing all to itself.

I read the articles sometimes, but usually for entertainment value. The comment section is unmoderated and virtually unreadable.

[brooklynite]

16. "Military Force" does not equate to "Boots on the Ground"

[pinboy3niner]

18. Exactly. This is about a new AUMF to support continuation of ongoing actions against ISIS

The NYT story on this is based on actual facts and has no mention of "boots on the ground":

“The president welcomes bipartisan interest from members on a new, ISIL-targeted A.U.M.F. from Congress that provides a clear signal of support for our ongoing military operations against the group,” a White House official said Tuesday, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the private meeting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/us/politics/obama-and-republicans-state-cases-on-isis-effort.html

[bigtree]

20. a bill to restrict boots on the ground was rejected in Dec. by the administration

In mid-December, the Foreign Relations Committee, then chaired by New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, approved an AUMF for the Islamic State fight.

That process included a lengthy hearing, during which Secretary of State John Kerry said the White House opposed provisions supported by his former Democratic colleagues, and which were included in the Menendez bill, that would have restricted actions by US ground troops in Iraq and Syria. Essentially, that version would have prohibited them from offensive combat operations.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/congress/2015/01/13/isis-aumf-obama-mcconnell-islamic/21707985/


Stars and Stripes, Dec. 9 2014:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that the Senate should not “bind the hands” of the president with a new war authorization that bars ground troops.

Kerry delivered the message to lawmakers as part of the Obama administration’s first detailed request for legislation setting the scope of military force used against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He also asked that lawmakers allow targeting groups “associated” with the extremists and not limit operations geographically to those two countries.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is weighing a war authorization after months of U.S. airstrikes, and amid growing concerns that lawmakers are obligated to take a stronger stand on the future of operations. The committee will on Thursday debate a bill that limits the war to three years and bars the use of ground forces.

Kerry told the committee that President Barack Obama is open to language in an authorization that clarifies how combat forces may be used and still does not plan to deploy ground troops.

“It does not mean we should pre-emptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief or our commanders in the field in responding to scenarios and contingencies that are impossible to foresee,” Kerry said.

http://www.stripes.com/news/kerry-obama-administration-wants-option-for-ground-troops-in-iraq-1.318270


I see where he says the President 'has no plans' to order the use of ground forces, but that's a weak thread for those of us who oppose the use of ground troops in offensive actions in Iraq or Syria. I think the trust-based' approach to military policy in Iraq is an invitation for the President to employ ground forces.

Moreover, considering that this president is still using Bush's AUMF as 'authorization' for present military activity in Iraq, any new AUMF leaves the door open for a future president to advantage their own military ambitions and commit ground troops citing a new AUMF as justification.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. thank you for those detaila.

I am not convinced there is a firm line against ground troops.