GOP Lawmakers Support Iraq Airstrikes, Seek Long-Term Strategy

by JASmius

Or, in other words, they're attempting to call Red Barry's dog-wagging bluff:

Congressional Republicans supported U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State targets in northern Iraq on Friday, but warned that President Barack Obama needed to develop a broader plan for the Middle East that would halt the development and expansion of such militant groups.

Get ready to be disappointed, then.

"The president’s authorization of airstrikes is appropriate, but like many Americans, I am dismayed by the ongoing absence of a strategy for countering the grave threat ISIS poses to the region," House Speaker John Boehner said. "Vital national interests are at stake, yet the White House has remained disengaged despite warnings from Iraqi leaders, Congress, and even members of its own administration.

O did have a strategy, Mr. Speaker.  "RETREEEEEEEEAT!!!!!"



Since the end of 2011 that strategy became "STAY OOOOOOOOUT!!!!!"  Which gave rise to the Islamic State, turned a once-liberated Iraq into a battleground between it and Iran, and created images of butchery so apocalyptic that his infernal majesty's media poodles and lapdogs have been unable to embargo them.  That is the one and only reason that he is consenting to token airstrikes against ISIS now.  Just make those horrific photographic and video images go away, at least through November 4th, and he goes back to the back nine.

That's the king's strategy, Mr. Speaker.

But Boehner and other Republicans know this.  They're just calling him out in order to make it more difficult for him to put the public back to sleep:

Speaking on Newsmax TV on Friday, Representative Peter King supported the air strikes, but said the U.S. should arm the Kurds and launch a more aggressive air campaign against ISIS.

"We should be attacking convoys of ISIS, we should be going after their command control centers and we should be doing much [sic] more air attacks against ISIS,'' King, a New York Republican, told "The Steve Malzberg Show."

Congressman King is right, as far as he goes.  Yes, we should bomb the poachies out of ISIS, in Syrian and Iraqi territory; yes, we should arm the Kurds.  But, ultimately, neither of those options is going to crush the Islamic State.  The only thing that will accomplish that is tens of thousands of American soldiers back on the ground in Iraq.  Or, in other words, roll back O's retreat to the status quo ante on January 20th, 2009, that President Bush had achieved with the "Surge".

And that is evidently too much reality for even GOP bluff-callers to stomach:

"Putting U.S. troops back on the ground in Iraq is not an option — but there is a clear humanitarian crisis, with ISIS committing mass murder against Christians, Kurds, and other religious minorities," said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce of California. "It is tragic that the president did not act earlier, when I suggested he use armed drones to prevent many of these atrocities.

"Now it’s a tougher challenge, with limited options such as air strikes, to prevent the slaughter of these innocent people," he said.

Which can only really, permanently be prevented by....U.S. troops back on the ground in Iraq.  Heck, you could even say that these pinpricks are O's attempt to call Republicans' bluff-calling bluff.  And that's the "strategy" that is most likely to succeed, as you can just see next week's "Republicans want to re-invade Iraq" taunts warming up on the 'prompter.

And again, remember who ultimately benefits from airborne attrition of ISIS assets - and it isn't the Iraqi government.