DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Hillary Clinton: U.S. Should Sue For Peace With ISIS

by JASmius

Isn't that what declining to support a declaration of war essentially means?  Not that such a declaration is constitutionally necessary for America to wage war - the president as commander-in-chief can wage war all he wants, wherever he wants, for as long as he wants....until he starts running out of military resources.  Which, constitutionally speaking, is where Congress re-enters the picture, and why it is therefore usually a good idea for POTUS's to get congressional approval before going to war in the first place.  Also, and far more importantly as a practical matter, to have political cover (i.e. directions in which his finger can be pointed) at the first unpopular reverses and when the body bags start flowing home.

Barack Obama claims that his phony "war" with ISIS falls under the auspices of the 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2003 (Iraq) AUMFs (Authorization for the Use of Military Force), which, compositely, is not too much of a stretch, though it's one no GOP president would ever get away with nor ever try.  If that was the context in which Mrs. Clinton was offering this dhimmi/peacenik stance, it would at least be arguable.  But given that the actual context of it is her ongoing frantic attempt to remake herself into the white Angela Davis, it comes across like even a phony war against Islamic Fundamentalism is too "Islamophobic" for her:

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she was not ready to support a formal declaration of war against Islamic State militants, although she said the United States needs to improve its efforts to fight the group.

Whatever that means.

To have a declaration of war, she said, requires understanding the resources available and the goals involved.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how many resources are really necessary for even an ex-superpower to squash a terrorist group if the will to do so is there.  Indeed, isn't that will the first resource you need, without which all the others are more or less pointless?  And don't the Empress's comments clearly indicate that she doesn't have that will?  And wouldn't electing her POTUS after a decade of Barack Obama redundantly underscore why we're an ex-superpower?

"If you have a declaration of war, you'd better have a budget that backs it up," said [Mrs.] Clinton, who was campaigning in New Hampshire.

Whatever that means.  Although what she appears to be doing is building up ISIS to be, essentially, too big and powerful for the United States to fight, which as an excuse for surrendering to the Global Jihad at least has the virtue of novelty going for it.

"I do think that we have to do a better job of understanding the threat that is posed by Islamic jihadist groups," added [Mrs.] Clinton, who is seeking the Democrat nomination for the November 2016 presidential election.

It's not all that difficult, your highness.  It's all right there in the Qu'ran: conquer the world for Allah.  Force the "infidels" to convert or die.  Wage permanent war against the "Crusader" West.  The Islamic State exemplifies all these teachings and is carrying them out in an ever-widening gyre of blood, gore, and destruction.  No need to try and make it more complicated than it really is, if such a thing is even possible.

Because [the] Islamic State, or ISIS, is so diffuse across the Middle East, she said, a declaration of war might not be the right way to fight such a group, calling ISIS "the first Internet terrorist network."

What does one have to do with the other?  War is war; it takes many forms.  The battlefield; intelligence-gathering; espionage; partisan/guerrilla attacks behind the lines; economic/financial "logic bombs"; these days, cyberattacks are another facet.  That doesn't make an AUMF for ISIS unnecessary or ill-advised.

It would put more emphasis on the battlefield, though.  And ISIS victories on the battlefield make fighting them in all the other areas correspondingly more difficult.

And Mrs. Clinton clearly doesn't want to fight ISIS on the battlefield.

And therefore, no place else, either.

Exit question: Will Herself campaign in Mosul before her longshot presidential bid is done?  I can't wait to see the photo-op with Caliph al-Baghdadi.

No comments: