Home / Great Default / Americans Want War With ISIS — As Long as We Are Not Inconvenienced
Print Friendly and PDF

Americans Want War With ISIS — As Long as We Are Not Inconvenienced

Written by Gary North on September 10, 2014

Americans overwhelmingly are in favor of a re-escalation of the war in Iraq. This is part of their view of Constitutional government, which can be summarized as follows. “Bomb them wogs!”

A Washington Post-ABC News poll this week showed that Americans overwhelmingly view the Islamic State as a serious threat to vital U.S. interests and, in a significant shift, widely support airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Seventy-one percent of all Americans say they support airstrikes in Iraq, and 65 percent support strikes in Syria. That is more than double the level of support a year ago for launching airstrikes to punish the Syrian regime.

Will Congress challenge this?  No.

Several prominent Republicans, including Sen. Robert Portman (Ohio), said they believe that Obama can launch airstrikes to combat the militants in both Iraq and Syria without seeking a congressional vote.

“The president has authorization to act now,” Portman said in a phone interview Tuesday, adding that he remained “a little confused” about an administration strategy that has been slow to develop.

“We are ‘leading from behind,’ to use the president’s words,” he said. “By not leading, we are making it more difficult and more costly.”

Making what more difficult and more costly?

Bombing wogs.

Once again, the voters, who had never heard of ISIS (aka ISIL) two months ago, are ready to bomb them into the stone age . . . or at least into 2003.

Shock and awe. This did not work in 2003. Maybe it will work now. Hope springs eternal.

We need another public opinion poll. “Where did ISIS come from?” Don’t ask.  “Who is funding them?” Does it matter? “What do they believe?” Who cares? “What is their connection to Syria?” What’s Syria? “What should be done about them?” Shock and awe!

All it takes are some headlines about the threat to America, and the voters are ready to drop bombs.

Bombs will be dropped. Obama is not saying when or on whom. He is only saying this: he does not need the formal approval of Congress.

President Obama is prepared to use U.S. military airstrikes in Syria as part of an expanded campaign to defeat the Islamic State and does not believe he needs formal congressional approval to take that action, according to people who have spoken with the president in recent days.

President Obama is now discussing matters with members of the Council on Foreign Relations, always referred to as “bipartisan foreign policy experts.”

Obama discussed his plans at a dinner with a bipartisan group of foreign policy experts this week at the White House and made clear his belief that he has the authority to attack the militant Islamist group on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border to protect U.S national security, multiple people who participated in the discussion said. The move to attack in Syria would represent a remarkable escalation in strategy for Obama, who has sought during his presidency to reduce the U.S. military engagement in the Middle East.

Why now? Because the White House is losing influence. This is a serious threat to a lame-duck President. It’s turning into lame duck dynasty.

Obama’s dinner with the foreign policy experts — a gathering that included former high-ranking officials in Republican administrations, including Richard Haass and Stephen Hadley — was part of an intensive White House effort in recent months to expand its sphere of influence. Although the president has on a semi-regular basis invited in outside experts for conversations, the White House has shifted its tone amid a series of high-profile foreign policy crises, including Russia’s intervention in eastern Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza and the advance of the Islamic State deep into Iraq.

In private conversations, senior White House national security aides have expressed greater willingness to hear new ideas and solicit input in hopes of doing a better job of developing strategy and communicating it to the public, said several influential foreign policy experts who have talked with Obama advisers in recent months.

This is year six of the Obama Administration. Now he is willing to listen to the CFR? What is the evidence that he (0r any other President since FDR) ever stopped listening? I am unaware of such evidence.

What of the 12 U.S. military bases in Iraq? Remember them? (1) Why are they there?  (2) Why haven’t they been attacked by ISIS? No one ever mentions this. Here is a shattered former nation — shattered by U.S. troops — in which the U.S. government has permanent — read “forever” — commitments. If there is a threat to the homeland United States from ISIS, why has ISIS avoided attacking these bases?

How will these bases be defended against ISIS, assuming that ISIS ever bothers with them?

But if ISIS couldn’t care less about 12 military bases in Iraq, then why should it care about the U.S. homeland? What can it do about the U.S. homeland?

But if the U.S. homeland is not at risk, why do most Americans want Obama to bomb ISIS?

What do the bipartisan experts think? It’s all a bit vague — it always is — but this is clear: they think we are there for the long haul, i.e., forever. “The job has just begun.” Keep this phrase in mind. Pass it down to your children. They can pass it down to their children.

Jon B. Alterman, who directs the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the real challenge Obama faces is not articulating his approach but executing it and brokering the political deals that will underpin any military strike.

“The problem is policy follow-through,” Alterman said, adding that the danger of leading with “a military operation is you start thinking the job is done, when the job has just begun. What the U.S. strategy is trying to do is deny haven to [the Islamic State], and doing it in Iraq with a government that is chaotic at best will take some time. Doing it in Syria is going to be even harder.”

Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, who served as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser and attended Monday’s dinner, said Obama “has his arms around this” and is prepared to “lay out a comprehensive strategy to deal with ISIS long-term.”

Harman described the dinner Monday as “focused and thoughtful.” Over a dinner of D’Anjou pear salad and Chilean sea bass, Obama, Vice President Biden and the outside experts engaged in a deep discussion of the options to combat the Islamic State, those who participated said.

They are not shocked. They are not awed. This means that taxpayers are in this for the long haul.

Republicans in Congress plan to lead from behind.

Don’t be shocked. Don’t be awed. Just get out your checkbooks. This is forever . . . or until the U.S. government defaults.

Continue Reading on www.washingtonpost.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

14 thoughts on “Americans Want War With ISIS — As Long as We Are Not Inconvenienced

  1. The so-called 'beheadings' were psyc-ops. Video fakes designed to get the sheeple to approve yet another war. ISIS is a CIA and Pentagon invention. WE created ISIS by 'arming the Syrian rebels'. Don't you see, this is just another reason for the industrialized military complex to use its toys to bomb more people into the stone age. It's EVIL to the core, and the destroyer, Satan is behind it. Satan has 'deceived the whole world', and before it's over everybody who is left alive after the beast bombs everybody else to death will bow down and worship saying, "WHO can make war with the BEAST" – the USA.

  2. The first part of what you say is probably mostly true, however, lets not blame the problem on witches and demons.
    We must be objective about this. You have to stand back and look at both history and the big picture. The groups who profit most from war are unchanged, and are behind the creation of the latest boogeyman.
    The banksters know the economy is trying to contract and rebalance itself, and the best way to force an increase in economic activity is by scaring people with death and destruction.
    I think their motto is: "The wars will continue until morale improves"

  3. It doesn't matter what they call themselves, it doesn't matter where they stole their arms, what matters is they committed murder. It wasn't the CIA, it wasn't a red bogeyman with a pointy tail, it wasn't your silly little Illuminati shapeshifting reptilian freemason insider blah blah blah <blows raspberry> – it was a nut, backed by nuts.

    When termites get into the foundation of your house, you exterminate them. These killers are termites.

  4. If we going to bomb them, do it fast and swift with no hold bar, destroy them all soon as possible.

  5. **"When termites get into the foundation of your house, you exterminate them. These killers are termites."**

    Typical "USA! USA! USA!" moron sloganeering. The government created ISIS/ISIL/IS. Attempts to exterminate them will multiply them. Quit creating them, training them, funding them, arming them. It will take a while but they will eventually go away.

  6. I should like to see the folks there protected from these savage creatures. That's not out of a desire to bomb people; the US government has before stopped and can stop suffering of those being swept over by conquering hordes. It is defense of others – a just act. And better done before the piles of skulls get too high. Suggest that should be done by volunteers using equipment and materials donated by people, instead of by a force operated by the USG using in part my confiscated and to be confiscated wealth, but I don't mind the USG operating to defend others justly. I'm not sure Obama has any principles, but if so his head must be exploding given his past statements of position on such actions in the ME. Of course he pretty eagerly went about attacking the Libyan government and was apparently quite ready to attack the Syrian government. Does he now support the Syrian government by vowing to attack its enemies?

  7. Bush had bad poll numbers just prior to Shock and Awe, but immediately afterward his numbers shot up to over an 80% popularity rating, the highest recorded for a sitting President.

    Maybe we'll see intense bombing of something or other just prior to the November election.

  8. The US helped, but so did Israeli and British Intelligence factions, as well as Saudi Arabia. The best "enemy" is one you own so they can be controlled. Funny how ISIS will always be found where the NWO cartel needs to go (they've gotta take out Assad, and that's why they won't be asking permission to chase these "animals" into Syria).

  9. I'm sure you mean well, but you've been listening to the alphabet media propaganda machine, which includes the fake conservative websites.

  10. Obama's task is to be a good NWO cartel puppet. The next head they're gunning for in the Middle East is Assad's, and Obama will find a way to serve it up, even if it means pretending to be going after their own boogeyman, ISIS.

  11. It is perfectly acceptable to shoot any and all wogs in order to suit our interests. Firing by rank is a traditionally effective method:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RaGcWX5mrU

  12. 1baronrichsnot1 says:

    Yeah! So do the Shieks, Saudis, quwaitees, they want us to protect them from ISIS, thats what this is about, Our young men dieing for the shieks, saudis, and oil mongers! Lets not do it!~ We can protect our borders! We are not in danger, all we have to do is get rid of our current administration and the misfits in congress, close our borders! We should take the oil in Iraq if we fight for them. It is too easy for these non productive, muslm azzholes to give away their land and holdings and run, desert, like rats on a sinking ship!

  13. Spot on as usual, Mr. North. The proponents of taking on the US's own straw dog ISIS see this as a win-win for their agenda: keeping the docile and uninformed populace nervous and on-side, and providing the rationale for destroying the Assad regime by supporting the laughable Free Syrian Army puppet or "Oops, those missiles accidently hitting government installations (and civil infrastructure) were really meant to take out ISIS".

  14. Last time we bombed for termites though, what we ended up with was– more termites.