Should We Go Or Should We Stay?

I can hear the tune by the Clash playing in my head…love Combat rock!  But in this case I am referring to our return to action in Iraq…….there are lots of opinions on the Hill….some pro, some con…..

There is a growing cause that we should let the prez handle this in his way……Congress is waiting and watching….

The bipartisan consensus emerging among leadership on the Hill is that the President has leeway to act in Iraq as long as the mission remains narrowly defined.

It’s a hands-off approach that has afforded the White House a bit more flexibility when it comes to making strategic decisions. On Monday, the administration announced that it would be sending an additional 200 troops to Baghdad to protect the airport and American Embassy there. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told The Huffington Post that the administration continued to believe that it did not need a new congressional authorization even in light of that new troop movement.

That a little piece was reported in the HufPo.  But is it up to the prez to make that decision?  Well, if the truth be known….it is NOT up to him to make that decision…….

As the US debates its future in Iraq, all eyes are on President Obama—but where we should be looking is Capitol Hill. Yes, congressional leaders recently said Obama needed no new authorization for further military action in Iraq. “But they’re wrong,” writes Rachel Maddow in the Washington Post. The Founding Fathers gave “the responsibility for war and peace to the clamorous Congress.” The War Powers Act puts power in Obama’s hands for 60 days; after that, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to authorize additional troops.

The Constitution puts Congress in charge “so that decisions about war and peace would be made not on one person’s say-so but only after vigorous national debate,” and we need that debate on Iraq. There is a precedent here: A year and a half after the US departure from Vietnam, North Vietnam planned a new offensive, and President Ford sought $700 million “to stabilize the military situation.” Lawmakers’ views on the matter were clear: “Congress knew that it was in its power to say no, and it said no. There would be no second coming of America’s war in Vietnam.” Click for Maddow’s full piece.

So which is it?  Keep in mind that an election is only months away and the biggie in 2016….so of course the Congress wants someone else to make that decision so they cannot be held responsible when the next election rolls around……

As I have said before…..my opinion is watch but stay out……the region will sort this out without our interference….we may not like it but it is their region to control….any action by the US will only make more enemies…..something this country does NOT need.

With that said….I may be a dreamer…..in the end the US may have no other choice but to act.  It is going to be a balancing act something the US has NEVER been any good at doing.

Iraq: Obama Creeps Into Action

Everyone has been yelling that Obama needs to make up his mind on what action he will deploy for the Iraq situation……..some want massive military action…..while others want as limited interference as possible…..and then there are people like me that want Iraq to handle their problem…..

Who got their way in yesterday’s presser on the situation in Iraq?

President Obama said today he’s sending 300 US “military advisers” to Iraq as Islamic extremists threaten to overtake Baghdad, reports the AP. Obama reiterated that he will not send regular ground troops and dismissed a concern about “mission creep” in response to a question: “American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again,” he insisted. But, he added, the US “will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if we conclude the situation on the ground requires it,” reports the New York Times.

The new US team also could provide intelligence and guide future airstrikes should the US decide to unleash them. Obama again pressured President Nouri al-Maliki to work toward a political solution—one that includes Sunnis and Kurds—amid reports that the US would like to see him go. “It is in our national security interest not to see an all-out civil war in Iraq,” said Obama; his remarks followed a meeting with his national security team.

300 advisers to Iraq to handle training and intel (no doubt)………does that settle exactly what the US will do in the recent Iraqi situation?  NOT for me, sports fans!  Why?  It is an all too familiar scenario…..does anyone recall a little disturbance a few years back?  I am talking about Vietnam….our first troops in that country were advisers to the army and it escalated into a full fledged involvement……

My next problem with the comments in the presser is…..”It is a situation that the Iraqis must solve for themselves”……..to quote the prez…..

Now let me ask……what if the solution does not meet with US approval?  What then? Will an Iraqi solution need American approval?

Is Obama A Wimp?

since Obama was elected president those on the Right, the more mental midgets, have been calling him a wimp when it comes to foreign aid and policy…….he was a wimp because of Benghazi…and then Syria…and then Libya….and then Ukraine….and soon it will be wherever an armed conflict pops up……

Of course most critics would not know what international relations meant…their  puny little minds see this country as the sole player in a global hegemony…….sorry but it does not work that way, only in the mindless dribble of an idiot…….

Over at The Dish, Andrew Sullivan notes the difference in opinion between the elites and the general public on foreign policy. Elites in New York and Washington, DC are upset that Obama hasn’t been forceful enough, whereas the public, as I noted yesterday, in greater numbers than ever want a less interventionist foreign policy of restraint.

Sullivan, however, thinks Obama has hit the right balance, while ultimately siding with the public on this one.

My view is that Obama has done about as good a job as possible in managing the core task of his presidency: letting self-defeating global hegemony go. That required a balancing act – of intervention where absolutely necessary and caution elsewhere. He prevented the world economy tipping into a second Great Depression, has maintained overwhelming military superiority and shored up Asian alliances even as he concedes, as we should, that China will be the dominant power in the region in the 21st Century.

The argument that Obama’s reluctance to bomb Syria illegally or put troops in western Ukraine denotes “letting self-defeating global hegemony go,” is unpersuasive. For Sullivan to be right, he would have to explain how the Libya intervention was “absolutely necessary” or how disregarding international law and national sovereignty by implementing a limitless and secret drone bombing campaign indicates caution.

I really hate (that would be a lie….I relish it) to tell these mental giants (sarcasm) the days of “gunboat diplomacy’ are over…….this is a global community and as such all situations, international that is, needs to be handled by that same community…..unfortunately Obama is still a pawn of special interests and they will get what they want…..every time!

Obama may not be the sharpest tack in the pack…..but he is a damn sight better at foreign policy than people give him credit….I believe that the world would be a lot worse off if a certain war hawk had been elected instead of Obama……..

What say you?

Watchdog: Obama should abandon OFA | TheHill

We all know just how much the Right, all the Right, hates president Obama….now we can surmise that it is a wealth of reason…….only they know the real reason of such hatred……but today he is a socialist…..tomorrow he will be a Nazi……last week he was a secret Muslim and next week we will be back to the birther bullsh*t.  Last month he was a dictator and next month he will be a wimp that wears Mommy pants………..

There are some many reason to criticize Obama and there are some legitimate reasons for suspicion…..and that leads m into this piece……

Watchdog: Obama should abandon OFA | TheHill.

Just do not know why the Right cannot latch onto real issues and stop lying their asses off just because they hate….

What Good Are Principles Anyway?

Our politicians when running for office are just oozing over with principles especially principles that appeal to the voter………and in recent elections illustrate that these people have NO principles or what few they have are for sale.

Let’s look at the recent elections, the ones that brought Obama to the seat of power, in the beginning I liked him for his high principles, I especially liked his stand on the environment and green technology.  Sadly, since he was elected those principles have taken a backseat….I cannot blame him alone….the Congress has a lot to do with the loss of principles….but his rhetoric lead me to believe that he would fight harder than he did…….I felt disappointment and a sense of betrayal.  My disappointment deepened when the issue of the Keystone Pipeline came to the forefront.

The lowest point was when, and that has just recently, the pipeline passed its first obstacle.  With that news and the Prez reaction I knew then that principles be damn….it is a slam dunk.  And then I read this piece that made me think about writing this post…..

President Obama’s environmental record is a “tremendous improvement” from the Bush-Cheney days, but he’s on the verge of destroying it with the Keystone XL oil pipeline, writes Democratic congressman Raul Grijalva in the New York Times. The proposed pipeline is a perfect example of how such projects came to be in the bad old days, when politicians trotted out phrases like “streamlining” and the industry could “game the system” with huge infusions of money, writes the Arizona lawmaker. Take the obvious conflict of interest with the contractor that concluded the pipeline posed no environmental risks—Environmental Resources Management previously worked for pipeline parent TransCanada. The recent report by the State Department’s inspector general on ERM’s selection should not be interpreted as an exoneration but as an “important example of the problem,” argues Grijalva. This is about more than a proposed pipeline, he writes. If ERM’s decision stands, “it will re-establish the Bush-era habit of tipping the scales in favor of corporations that want special treatment.” And it will ruin Obama’s environmental legacy. Click for his full column.

It is all too sad for words….even though I did find a few of them lying around……I hope that I live long enough to see a return to principles in our politicians….but I far I am waiting for nothing…..money is the new principle and all flows from there.

Is a principle nothing but a political prop?