In a primetime address Wednesday evening, President Obama will announce that he will authorize U.S. airstrikes in Syria as part of his larger strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS. This represents a marked escalation of U.S. action against the notorious group that now controls large swathes of northern Iraq and Syria. According to the New York Times, the president’s strategy will be “a long-term campaign far more complex than the targeted strikes the United States has used against Al Qaeda in Yemen, Pakistan and elsewhere.”
In advance of his speech, I have written a piece for Reason in which I urge the president to listen to the American people.
A majority of Americans support a military response – though not U.S. troops on the ground. Very few are content with allowing ISIS to spread its influence with impunity, especially after the brutal killing of the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. The group has effectively declared itself an enemy of the United States, and there is growing support for action against the group before it even attempts an attack on the U.S. homeland (something that it appears only to be aspiring to, as opposed to actively planning for).
In the article, I also warn against mission creep, the possibility of which is all too real.
The hawks on both the left and right believe that a large U.S. ground presence is required because they don’t want to limit the mission to merely hitting ISIS – they want to restore stability and order in Iraq, exclude Iranian influence from Iraqi politics, and topple Bashar Assad in Syria. In other words, they want us back in the nation-building business, but now in two countries racked by civil war and sectarian hatreds, instead of just one.
To avoid being drawn into such a scenario, the president needs to clearly answer two particularly relevant questions: how large a response is justified; and what end state is acceptable? The president should resist sending in a large number of ground troops and be content to degrade ISIS to the point that it can be contained by the many enemies that directly surround it.
Read the whole thing here.
Yesterday Bill Clinton and George W. Bush reportedly gushed “about each other’s leadership and acute decision-making skills.” The two former presidents were launching a “joint program to train young leaders.”
According to the New York Times story, the audience was “packed with Bush and Clinton White House alumni.” Oh, that explains all the laughter and backslapping. The former presidents were confident that no one would ask them serious questions about their actions in office. Here are a few questions that young leaders might consider asking the gentlemen before applying for their program:
Apparently Washington believes its allies to be wimps and weaklings. Why else would NATO officials promise to defend Turkey from the Islamic State? Surely this well-armed U.S. ally can hold off a few thousand Islamic irregulars, some of whom Ankara allowed to enter Syria next door.
The rise of the Islamic State has led to much nonsense from Washington officials who speak as if the group was capable of conquering America. ISIL is made up of dangerous fanatics, but in the form of the Islamic State they are largely powerless to harm the U.S.
Their conventional capabilities are minimal compared to those of the U.S. Moreover, so long as the Islamists are attempting to conquer territory they cannot afford to launch terrorist attacks on America, which would bring down the full wrath of the U.S. military on the return address they had so thoughtfully provided.
Among the states really threatened by ISIL is Turkey. This led NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to promise to defend Ankara: “If any of our allies, and in this case of course particularly Turkey, were to be threatened from any source of threat, we won’t hesitate to take all steps necessary to ensure effective defense of Turkey or any other ally.”
However, Ankara is partly to blame for ISIL’s rise. The Erdogan government decided to support the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and allowed opposition fighters from all sides, including ISIL, easy access to the battlefield.
While the Senate votes on a constitutional amendment to carve out an exception to the First Amendment by limiting spending on political campaigns, members of Congress have no compunctions about spending tax dollars on their own re-elections. WAMU radio in Washington reports on some of the expenditures by D.C., Maryland, and Virginia members:
“I think franked mail is a tool that can be used to communicate with your constituents,” [Rep. Gerry] Connolly [R-Va.] says.
Last year Connolly spent more than $94,000 of your tax dollar on mostly glossy, color pamphlets with pictures of him at his office declaring his support for federal workers, while D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton spent just over $3,000 touting her record. Maryland Democrat John Delaney spent more than $50,000, which his press secretary says is to introduce his freshman boss to voters, which watchdogs say gives him a leg up over his challenger, Republican Dan Bongino. Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va. 4) spent about $30,000 on Facebook ads, railing against “Obamacare,” questioning “Free taxpayer funded cell phones” and on dozens of electronic polls, which he defends.
It’s not that members of Congress object to people spending money on elections. They just want the people’s money sent to Washington, and spent by Congress, on their own re-election efforts. So much less messy and divisive that way.
The Obama administration has no idea how many people are currently enrolled [in exchanges] but they keep cutting checks for hundreds of millions of dollars a month for insurance subsidies for people who may or may not have paid their premium, continued their insurance, or are even legal residents.
And if you think they’re doing those “enrollees” a favor, remember that if it turns out a recipient wasn’t eligible for the subsidy, he or she has to pay the money back.
Surprised? Don’t be. This is part of a deliberate, consistent strategy by the Obama administration to throw money at individual voters and key health care industry groups—lawfully or not—to buy support for this consistently unpopular law.
My reaction to the D.C. Circuit’s decision to grant en banc review of Halbig v. Burwell in a nutshell:
If you want to go outside the nutshell, where I unpack all this with more words and facts and links, go here.
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.