Americans have repeatedly been reassured that the counterterrorism offensive (or whatever it is that's not a war) against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will not be an American ground war. In the jargon of war planners, there will be no American "boots on the ground."
And yet, 1,600 U.S. "advisors" are engaged in Iraq combat operations.
After having already handed Libya to al-Qaeda-linked jihadists with help from NATO and the United Nations, the Obama administration this week began bombing targets in Syria without congressional or constitutional authority. The plot to bomb Syria is supposedly aimed at battling the self-styled “Islamic State” (also known as ISIS and ISIL) — a terror group that has been among the top beneficiaries of the U.S. government’s controversial machinations in Syria thus far. However, as the bombs were raining down on Syria, top administration officials were openly celebrating their half-baked plan to help overthrow the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad, too.
In a clearly politically calculated move, the House of Representatives has reportedly placed an amendment into the jobs package that will ban War Powers Resolution actions until after the midterm elections.
The sound and fury in Thursday's Senate debate signified grave doubts, but it ended in a lopsided 78-22 vote in favor of President Obama's plan to arm Syrian rebels for the fight against Islamic State terrorists. The House approved the plan by a 273-156 vote on Wednesday, and the measure, part of a trillion-dollar spending plan to keep the federal government operating through the end of the calendar year, is now on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
The supposed “moderate” rebels fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad — self-styled jihadists whom the Obama administration and Congress plan to supply with even more support under the guise of battling the Islamic State (ISIS) — recently signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS (also known as ISIL), according to reports from human-rights groups and French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP). Lawmakers on Capitol Hill pointed to the news as yet another reason why supplying U.S. arms and support to Islamic forces to battle Islamic forces was a dangerous idea. The foreign-policy establishment, however, plans to proceed with arming and training jihadists anyway.
Members of Congress might feel a bit like comic Lou Costello in the famous "Who's on First" skit as they try to determine who to send arms and aid to in Syria to battle the terrorists of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as ISIS.
In a bipartisan display of reluctant cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday voted 273 to 156 to approve President Obama's plan to train and equip allegedly moderate rebels in Syria.
Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 16, the nation’s two top defense officials, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, presented a less-than-optimistic prospect of success for the Obama administration’s new strategy to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The Obama administration has completed its second flip-flop on his Syrian war policy in just over a month with the admission by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in U.S. Senate hearings that Obama would approve ground troops in Iraq and Syria on a “case-by-case basis.”
On September 14, North Korea’s Supreme Court convicted U.S. citizen Matthew Miller of committing “hostile acts” and sentenced him to six years of hard labor.
“[Miller] committed acts hostile to the DPRK while entering the territory of the DPRK under the guise of a tourist last April,” read a statement release by KCNA, the official North Korean news agency.