WSJ: Obama will require military to get his personal approval for U.S. strikes in Syria

[LibCampFireClub 635]

The self-professed Jack of All Trades is once again shown to be master of NONE.

WSJ: Obama will require military to get his personal approval for U.S. strikes in Syria

A man who’s a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, a better political director than his political directors, and who knows more about policy than his policy advisors must surely also be a better general than his generals, no?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes in Syrian territory, officials said.

The requirements for strikes in Syria against the extremist group Islamic State will be far more stringent than those targeting it in Iraq, at least at first. U.S. officials say it is an attempt to limit the threat the U.S. could be dragged more deeply into the Syrian civil war…

Throughout President Obama’s time in office, the White House has kept close control of counterterrorism targeting, reserving the right to sign off on strikes against al Qaeda and other militant targets in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Defense officials said that the strikes in Syria are more likely to look like a targeted counterterrorism campaign than a classic military campaign, in which a combatant commander picks targets within the parameters set by the commander in chief.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/18/wsj-obama-will-personally-approve-u-s-strikes-in-syria/

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Not shocked that hotair.com is your go-to source for another bait thread.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not shocked that hotair.com is your go-to source for another bait thread.

But it was posted by Allahpundit, that's gotta count for something.

"Maybe this is how O reassures himself..."

Quality journalism, isn't it?

[UncleBeer 244]

Not shocked that hotair.com is your go-to source for another bait thread.

Original source was the Wall Street Journal. I know it's no Huffington Post, but . . .

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Original source was the Wall Street Journal. I know it's no Huffington Post, but . . .

He said, adding nothing to the point I made.

The OP took a small point in a WSJ story, embellished it with 85% RWNJ pontification, and indeed was cut and pasted from hotair.com where our illustrious poster unsurprisingly found it.

Edited September 19, 2014 by ready4ONE

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Not shocked that hotair.com is your go-to source for another bait thread.

He said, adding nothing to the point I made.

The OP took a small point in a WSJ story, embellished it with 85% RWNJ pontification, and indeed was cut and pasted from hotair.com where our illustrious poster unsurprisingly found it.

You take a couple of moments to pooh pooh a source and yet haven't provided anything to wrap your droppings with. There's a lot of that going on in this forum so it's not unexpected. You appear to be a prog so I'll say it slowly: What is the source of your empirical knowledge that refutes the content of the article? Does your stuff come from the top of your head to your tippy toes, or did you find an old newspaper somewhere?

[Rob L 3,811]

You take a couple of moments to pooh pooh a source and yet haven't provided anything to wrap your droppings with. There's a lot of that going on in this forum so it's not unexpected. You appear to be a prog so I'll say it slowly: What is the source of your empirical knowledge that refutes the content of the article? Does your stuff come from the top of your head to your tippy toes, or did you find an old newspaper somewhere?

Most of us do not have a WSJ subscription so we have to depend on the context quoted in the HOTAIR.COM opinion piece. Not much empricial to agree with or refute. It is commentary on un verified reports that "Defense officials said....."

I find nothing to alarm me in the WSJ piece:

Throughout President Obama’s time in office, the White House has kept close control of counterterrorism targeting, reserving the right to sign off on strikes against al Qaeda and other militant targets in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere, for example providing specific sign off on killing Osama-Bin-Laden.

Oops added part on the end...

[UncleBeer 244]

He said, adding nothing to the point I made.

The OP took a small point in a WSJ story, embellished it with 85% RWNJ pontification, and indeed was cut and pasted from hotair.com where our illustrious poster unsurprisingly found it.

Hey, if you can't substantially address the original story, attack the poster. Is that how this works?

[Rob L 3,811]

Hey, if you can't substantially address the original story, attack the poster. Is that how this works?

No substance to address

[LibCampFireClub 635]

For the click challenged, here's the rest of the story. Caution: story has a lot of words that progs may find difficult understand...

So we’re back to the ol’ war/counterterrorism distinction. In “war,” the military has great discretion in deciding whom to target; in counterterrorism, the president has a “kill list” and personally gives thumbs up or thumbs down. Maybe this is how O reassures himself that we’re not joining the war in Syria: If we’re following counterterrorism protocols, then this must be a counterterror operation, right? Or maybe, given the kaleidoscope of groups on the ground right now in Syria — ISIS, the Al Qaeda-allied Nusra Front, various other Sunni Islamists, Assad’s troops, the IRGC, Hezbollah, and of course the “moderates” — Obama wants to take extra precautions to make sure we don’t end up bombing someone who’s supposed to be nominally on our side. Pretty much no one on the Hill, Democrats included, thinks we’re going to find and vet 5,000 reliable Sunni partners in the midst of all this. If we can’t tell who the good guys and bad guys are from the ground, imagine how hard it is from the air.

There’s a third possibility: Maybe Obama just doesn’t trust his generals to fight the war by half-measures, as he himself prefers for political reasons. Martin Dempsey blew America’s mind a few days ago by suggesting that some number of U.S. ground troops may need to enter the fray sooner or later; Iraq skeptic Anthony Zinni has been calling for ground troops for the past several weeks. A poll of “security insiders” by National Journal reveals 63 percent think Obama’s ISIS strategy will fail, with many saying that it simply doesn’t go far enough to counter the threat. And a national poll of the public by Pew found that as many Americans fear that O’s strategy will do too little to stop ISIS than that it’ll too much to drag the U.S. into another long conflict.

All of which is to say that a lot of people, experts and non-experts alike, worry that Obama’s planning to half-### operations in Iraq and Syria to spare Democrats from accusations that they’re getting sucked into another “quagmire.” Could be that O fears that if he gives his generals a wide berth, they’ll seize the opportunity to hit Syria more broadly than he’d like and suddenly he’ll be getting pummeled with the quagmire narrative anyway. Hard to see how that would happen with an air campaign, but any sort of mission creep (e.g., if the Pentagon starts targeting non-ISIS jihadis or even some Assad anti-aircraft units) might invite it.

Or, I suppose, there’s a fourth possibility — that’s there’s so much western covert action happening inside Syria right now by U.S. and UK forces that O wants to take special care that the Pentagon’s air ops don’t end up inadvertently hitting any of them. A man can dream, can’t he?

Edited September 20, 2014 by ExExpat

[Rob L 3,811]

For the click challenged, here's the rest of the story. Caution: story has a lot of words that progs may find difficult understand...

Thank you. You have clearly outlined where those of us who don't necessarily have your gift at ctrl-c ctrl-v have gone wrong with all of our wretched lives. If only we had stayed in school, gotten jobs, learned to feed and dress ourselves we would not be mired in our limited thinking patterns.

[UncleBeer 244]

No substance to address

If you keep your eyes closed reaaaaal tight, you can't see anything!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Thank you. You have clearly outlined where those of us who don't necessarily have your gift at ctrl-c ctrl-v have gone wrong with all of our wretched lives. If only we had stayed in school, gotten jobs, learned to feed and dress ourselves we would not be mired in our limited thinking patterns.

Wow cool! All that without breaking a sweat!

[Rob L 3,811]

For the click challenged, here's the rest of the story. Caution: story has a lot of words that progs may find difficult understand...

For those of us who are WSJ challenged can you post the original text from the journal? It is paywalled and like most progs I am penniless.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Obama Plans to Tightly Control Strikes on Syria

Requirements Will Be More Stringent Than Those for Attacks on Islamic State in Iraq

By JULIAN E. BARNES and CAROL E. LEE

WASHINGTON—The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential signoff for strikes in Syrian territory, officials said.

The requirements for strikes in Syria against the extremist group Islamic State will be far more stringent than those targeting it in Iraq, at least at first. U.S. officials say it is an attempt to limit the threat the U.S. could be dragged more deeply into the Syrian civil war.

Mr. Obama met with his top military advisers in Tampa Wednesday to get an update on the campaign against Islamic State. Officials said no decisions were made at the briefing, and Mr. Obama didn't give the green light yet for an attack on Syria.

Mr. Obama insisted anew that U.S. ground forces won't engage in combat in Iraq or Syria, despite suggestions by top military commanders that conditions could one day warrant recommendations that U.S. advisers and other military units play a limited front-line role.

Mr. Obama has expanded U.S. military air operations in Iraq, where the military has conducted 174 strikes. The U.S. is preparing for likely air attacks inside of Syria to target Islamic State militants.

The administration has been assembling an international coalition of countries to take part in strikes, help train Iraqi troops and Syrian rebels, fund the campaign and provide other forms of support.

France and the U.K. are already flying missions over Iraq, Mr. Obama said, and Saudi Arabia has agreed to participate in training activities.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a measure to train and arm Syrian rebels in the first broad test of congressional sentiment about President Obama's plans to expand U.S. military engagement in the Middle East.

Like Mr. Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated that U.S. troops in Iraq "do not and won't have a combat mission" there, and said the unfolding mission would be vastly different from U.S.-led campaigns in Iraq that began in 1991 and 2003.

The new requirements for U.S. action in Syria are contained in a classified "execute order" signed in recent days by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to put the expanded U.S. military campaign into effect, the U.S. officials said.

Mr. Obama had made exiting the prolonged Iraq and Afghan wars a cornerstone of his presidency.

Through tight control over airstrikes in Syria and limits on U.S. action in Iraq, Mr. Obama is closely managing the new war in the Middle East in a way he hasn't done with previous conflicts, such as the troop surge in Afghanistan announced in 2009 or the last years of the Iraq war before the 2011 U.S. pullout.

In Iraq, Mr. Obama had delegated day-to-day management to Vice President Joe Biden.

By demanding the Pentagon gets his signoff on any strikes in Syria, Mr. Obama can better ensure the operation remain focused on his main goal for that part of the campaign: weakening the militants' hold on territory in neighboring Iraq.

Officials also said Mr. Obama wants to make sure the military actions in Syria are more like the counterterrorism operations in Somalia or Yemen.

Speaking at U.S. Central Command headquarters, Mr. Obama responded to comments a day earlier by the Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who left the door open for limited use of U.S. ground troops in Iraq.

"I want to be clear: The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and won't have a combat mission," Mr. Obama said. "As your commander in chief, I won't commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq."

The public exchange between the president and the general who by law is his top military adviser garnered widespread attention, but reflected a more subtle difference in military strategy.

U.S. military leaders haven't advocated the reintroduction of large formations of U.S. ground troops, defense officials have said.

But underlying the public comments, some officers say that U.S. special operations trainers—who currently are confined to operations centers and Iraqi security force headquarters—should go on the front lines for some missions, working side by side with the Iraqi troops they are trying to help.

Officers holding that view include Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of the military's U.S. Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Mideast and is in charge of executing the Iraq and Syria campaigns.

On Wednesday, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff and a former top commander in Iraq, reiterated the military's view that U.S. airstrikes alone wouldn't be enough to combat Islamic State militants in Iraq, and that competent Iraqi ground forces would be needed.

"You've got to have ground forces that are capable of going after them and rooting them out," said the U.S. Army chief of staff, in a reference to Iraqi ground forces, which have up to now been ineffective.

He also backed Gen. Dempsey's comments that limited use of U.S. ground forces could be necessary in the future.

The White House said Wednesday that placing U.S. advisers alongside front-line Iraq troops isn't the equivalent of sending in ground troops. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Gen. Dempsey would bring any request for such deployments of U.S. advisers to the president, should he consider that necessary.

"The president said that he would consider it on a case-by-case basis," Mr. Earnest said. "But what he would consider isn't a combat role for our troops."

U.S. officials said Mr. Obama's decision to control the deployment of the advisers in Iraq was another key example of his desire to maintain tight control over how the war is prosecuted.

Throughout President Obama's time in office, the White House has kept close control of counterterrorism targeting, reserving the right to sign off on strikes against al Qaeda and other militant targets in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.

Defense officials said that the strikes in Syria are more likely to look like a targeted counterterrorism campaign than a classic military campaign, in which a combatant commander picks targets within the parameters set by the commander in chief.

In Syria, officials said the administration wants to ensure that any strikes didn't resemble the "shock-and-awe" campaign that kicked off the 2003 Iraq war and instead be kept more like the low-intensity, occasional strikes conducted in Somalia or Yemen.

The U.S. has expanded airstrikes in Iraq this week, hitting seven more Islamic State targets on Tuesday and Wednesday, the U.S. Central Command said. And officials said there is more they can do to weaken militants in Iraq before a full-bore campaign in Syria is needed.

Mr. Kerry, appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, fielded challenges from senators about the Obama administration's legal authority for the Iraq and Syria campaigns. Leading senators, including Democrats, said they would press Mr. Obama to seek a new congressional authority to replace the 13-year-old Authorization for Use of Military Force approved by lawmakers after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

—Jeffrey Sparshott, Jay Solomon and Natalia Drozdiak.