Boots On The Ground Against ISIS, Or No?

Matthew Continetti-‘Don’t Authorize Obama’s War:’

Perhaps we’re getting to that six-year point when the politics of the nation start becoming all about the next election and the changing-of-the-guard.


‘Far better for us all if the Congress refused the president precisely because he is unserious and untrustworthy with the security of the United States and the world, and spent the remaining two years of his presidency making the case publicly and robustly for the roll back of ISIS and the removal of Assad, an end to the Iranian nuclear program, a military buildup, and a renewal of the alliance system and of American support for Western principles of liberal democracy’

I suspect if the President wanted to fight ISIS the way a new AUMF implies might be necessary, he’d already be doing so.  Rather, I think he wants to cement the idea the U.S. troops will be very limited on the ground and thus, his legacy.  Hence, Continetti’s piece.

So, is a lower probability, higher-risk strategy of withdrawing most American military influence from the region while simultaneously working alongside strategic non-allies working (mostly Iran…the Moscow, Tehran, Damascus alliance…and by proxy Hezbollah and old Revolutionary Guard types)?

Do we have closer relations with our allies as a result?  Have we set up incentives that would lead to the ‘international community’ the President so often invokes while using American military leverage to gain it?

As posted:

Here’s a quote from Anne-Marie Slaughter, on liberal internationalism (addition: which is probably a few ticks center-ward of further Leftward progressive, semi-radical peace and democracy advocates)

‘The central liberal internationalist premise is the value of a rules-based international order that restrains powerful states and thereby reassures their enemies and allies alike and allows weaker states to have sufficient voice in the system that they will not choose to exit’

Related On This SiteMore Syria-From Via Media: ‘Congress on Syria: Going In On A Wing and A Prayer’From Slate: ‘In Aleppo, Syria, Mohamed Atta Thought He Could Build The Ideal Islamic City’

Michael Totten At World Affairs: ‘Syria’s Regime Not Worth Preserving’A Few More Syria Links-’Unmitigated Clusterf**k?’

From Reuters: ‘Analysis: Syrian Kurds Sense Freedom, Power Struggle Awaits’

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘What Did The Arab Spring Really Change?’…Liberal Internationalism is hobbling us, and the safety of even the liberal internationalist doctrine if America doesn’t lead…Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill

Two Monday Links On Syria And Iran

4 thoughts on “Boots On The Ground Against ISIS, Or No?

  1. For a President (and his band of intellectuals in The White House) who pride themselves on reading the sentiment of the country, he is choosing to ignore the overriding fear among a majority of Americans that ISIS will attack the homeland. Unfortunately, it will have to be significant in nature, or his State Department and press minions will attribute it to 1. workplace violence, 2. isolated non-Muslim extremists or simply ‘ignore it.’ A turning point overseas in Iraq will be the slaughter of the 300 Marine advisors who came under attack recently in what was noting more than a ‘probe’ by ISIS to gauge the US reaction. This President will steadfastly stay his course of non-involvement of ground troops, a deceptive analysis and promotion of a non-functioning ‘coalition’ of under trained and under supported military ground forces all in order to escape his Presidency in 2 years with a legacy of nothing more than telling the American public that Global Warning is more important and more threatening than the Muslim Islamist Jihad which is bearing down on the world and America. How is this for irony – the Democrat Party which works tirelessly to erode American freedoms and expand the federal government will meet in Philadelphia in 2016 to name a Presidential candidate – Philadelphia, the birthplace of freedom and independence for our nation!

  2. Bernie,

    There is nothing wrong with the worldview. Al Qaeda is on the run, the dastardly Bush vision has been vanquished, and we’re settling in to a nice international period of international order and spontaneous democratic peace protest and uprising.

    The enemies of progress are the enemies of The People, and those enemies simply don’t have enough faith in the world to come.

    • Chris:
      Have we truly lost the ‘majority’ in this country of those willing to stand up to tyranny, defend the Constitution and fight for individual Liberty? In my opinion, that alone will be the issue which defines the 2016 Presidential Election and I fear my friend that the ‘numbers’ are no longer in favor of electing a President who will truly champion these causes.

      • Bernie,

        I suppose we’ll see. A lot can change President to President. Elections can go many different ways. More broadly, I guess I just don’t know as to your question.

Leave a Reply