by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 14, 2015
All Rights Reserved.

                Asking the Republican-controlled Congress for an authorization to use force to deal with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] Feb. 11, 53-year-old President Barack Obama runs into the same credibility gap that caused Capital Hill to ignore his request to strike Syria Aug. 31, 2013.  Starting a bombing campaign in Iraq Aug. 4 and then in Syria Sept. 8, Barack finds himself unable define a clear mission in Iraq and Syria, other than promising to destroy ISIS.  With ISIS scrambling to imbed itself in the civilian populations in Iraq and Syria’s biggest cities, the White House bombing campaign has run out of steam.  While there’s some evidence that ISIS has gone on the defensive, there’s no evidence that the current White House strategy can defeat the Islamic terrorist group.  When Obama announced his air campaign Aug. 4, he vowed to destroy Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Islamic gang.

             When ISIS torched 26-year-old captured Jordanian F-16 fighter pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeh alive Feb. 3, King Hussein ordered the Jordanian air force to decimate ISIS targets, prompting Obama to take things more seriously.  Obama’s recent authorization request has not changed U.S. strategy, prompting Secretary of State John Kerry to insist there’s been no change in U.S. policy regarding putting boots-on-the-ground to fight al-Baghdadi’s 40,000-strong terrorist cult.  “But our coalition is on the offensive.  ISIL [the name the White House uses] is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose,” Obama said at the White House, announcing no change in strategy or tactics.  Obama’s request to Congress states ISIL “has committed despicable acts of violence and mass execution,” stating nothing new, offering no changes to the current aerial bombing campaign that’s losing its effectiveness.   

             Beheading American aid worker 26-year-old Kayla J. Mueller Feb. 10, Obama’s been shamed into taking more decisive action against ISIS.  Neither the White House nor the mainstream media emphasize the background of ISIS’s military.  While using self-appointed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the front-man, ISIS is actually run by 69-year-old former Saddam Hussein Gen. Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, whose blitzkrieg in 2014 captured some 30% of Iraq and Syria.  Rushing to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the Iraq War Dec. 15, 2011, Obama didn’t consider dealing with Saddams’ renegade military that tossed off their uniforms and jumped into the Tigress River when the U.S. toppled Baghdad April 10, 2003.  Now running amok in Iraq and Syria, Obama decided its time to jump back in with an antiseptic bombing campaign Aug. 4 but hasn’t recalculated his strategy.

             Conservatives on Capitol Hill, led Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), want Obama to use U.S. ground forces to help the battered Iraqi military and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters eliminate ISIS.  Sending his plan to Congress, Obama knows that McCain & Co. will modify current Pentagon strategy and tactics.  Few military experts believe the current bombing campaign can get rid of ISIS.  McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other conservative believe the Pentagon will have to use some ground troops to clear ISIS from some of Iraq and Syria’s biggest towns and cities.  “I’m not sure the strategy that his been outlined will accomplish the mission the president says he wants to accomplish,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), expecting the Congress to modify Obama’s strategy and tactics before it approves a use of force authorization.

             Obama’s use of force authorization does not approve “long-term, large-scale combat operations,” something McCain and other Capitol Hill hawks see as needed to succeed against ISIS.  Democrats don’t want a repeat of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, where the U.S. committed ground forces to an unending war strategy wrought with ambiguous goals.  “The language . . . is very broad, very ambiguous,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).  “None of use really know what ‘enduring offensive combat operations’ mean,” said Schiff, reluctant to back any plan that doesn’t specify specific goals and an exit strategy.  Giving Obama an authorization that would fall on the next president makes no sense.  If Congress approves the project, it should require the White House to meet certain objectives and dates.  Continuing to bomb ISIS won’t get back the land lost in Iraq and Syria.

             Today’s mess in Iraq and Syria directly relates to the Bush’s administration failure to have contingency plans in place after launching the Iraq War March 20, 2003.  Toppling Baghdad April 10, 2003 and disbanding the Iraq military gave Saddam’s former generals like al-Douri plenty of time to regroup.  Now fighting for ISIS, al-Douri gives al-Baghdadi the military means to continue seizing more sovereign territory under the perfect excuse of Islamic revolution.  Saddam’s former Baathist Republican Guards seek to live to see another day, using figureheads like al-Baghadi to recruit wayward youth and disenfranchised Arab’s into a mercenary army.  With Obama leading a motivated coalition after recent atrocities, it’s time to get tae AUMF right or face more frustration down the road.  Letting Congress rework current strategies, tactics and dates should help the White House compete its objective.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.