U.S. Public Fears Domestic Terrorists More Than Foreign

Republicans still want Americans to believe that the greatest threat of terrorism comes from foreigners (especially muslims). This is probably because most domestic terrorists are right-wingers, and support the Republican Party (as long as those Republican officials support Trump).

But the American public knows better. They know that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security have said the biggest threat today comes from domestic terrorists. This was shown again just a couple of days ago, when a right-wing terrorists threatened to blow up the Library of Congress.

Note in the chart above that all groups (all adults, Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans) have a bigger fear of home-grown domestic terrorists over foreign terrorists.

The charts are from the latest AP-NORC Poll -- done between August 12th and 16th of a nationwide sample of 1,729 adults, with a 3.2 point margin of error.

All four groups also said the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not worth fighting.

Do Americans Care About The Lives Of Innocent Iraqis?

(The image above, from Karim Kadim/AP, is of Nisour Square, where innocent Iraqi citizens were murdered by Blackwater mercenaries.)

The following is part of a thought-provoking article by Sinan Antoon in The Washington Post. Sadly, he points out that Americans don't seem to care about the innocent Iraqi victims of violence -- much of it from American soldiers and mercenaries. 

We know too well by now where President Trump stands when innocent civilians are harmed or slaughtered. He has repeatedly stood firmly on the side of perpetrators — applauding, defending and, if necessary, vindicating them. Whether the perpetrator is a neo-Nazi in Charlottesville, a police officer in Minneapolis, or a Blackwater mercenary in Baghdad.

It was despicable, but not surprising at all, that Trump this week pardonedthe four mercenaries who were convicted of slaughtering 14 Iraqi civilians in Nisour Square in Baghdad in 2007. This is not the first time Trump has pardoned individuals convicted of war crimes in Iraq. A year ago, he pardoned Edward Gallagher, a Navy Seal convicted of committing horrendous war crimes in Mosul. Trump later welcomed Gallagher and his wife to Mar-a-Lago.

In Trump’s world, men of a certain race, in uniform or not, carrying weapons and eager to use lethal force as they see fit to reimpose order on a chaotic world, are merely “doing their jobs.” Those on the other side of the barrel are painted as thugs or barbarians. Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater (now Academi), has called Iraqis “barbarians.” Impunity for pulling the trigger is to be expected. The perpetrators become the victims and the focal point of empathy and understanding.

The massacre at Nisour Square took place in the context of the Iraq War. And it is not an aberration, but one in a long list of massacres of innocent Iraqi civilians. From the massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha in 2005, to the gang rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and the murder of her family in Mahmudiyah in 2006, to killing an estimated 45 people at a wedding party at Mukaradeeb in 2004. These and other massacres were courtesy of uniformed soldiers, not mercenaries. . . .

It is facile to condemn Trump, but do the lives of Iraqi civilians matter as much, or at all, for most of those who will condemn this pardon? Iraqi lives certainly didn’t matter at all for the George W. Bush-era hawks who beat the drums of the war and supported it, and who have since rebranded themselves as part of the resistance in the Trump era. Iraqi lives didn’t matter for all the liberal pundits and scribes who joined the war chorus as they, too, parroted variations on the official narrative before and during the war from their platforms. . . .

Whether visible or invisible, waged under a Republican or a Democratic administration, the war’s civilian casualties remain, for all intents and purposes, invisible. Those that briefly make a rare appearance, every now and then, quickly disappear into the vast landscape of American amnesia — a landscape already crowded with other bodies, indigenous and Black, that rarely seem to matter.

The architects, authors and chief perpetrators of the Iraq wars were pardoned in the public eye years ago. Their public appearances in the Trump era are unencumbered by the memory of their catastrophic decisions and actions, instead stirring liberal nostalgia for more “civil” and “normal” times. . . .

Amid the anger and shock over Trump’s latest pardon of war criminals, let’s not forget that there is already plenty of impunity to go around, as well as generous pardons, not only for those who pulled triggers killing innocent Iraqis, but for those who pulled the discursive triggers, too.

Trump Adm. Killing 450% More Civilians Than Obama Adm.

(The image above is from Waking Times.)

During the Obama administration, an average of 80 innocent civilians were killed each month by U.S. bombing. That's a terrible average, but compared to the Trump administration it seems small. The Trump administration is killing an average of 360 innocent civilians each month -- about 4.5 times the number killed during the term of President Obama.

Trump promised to bomb the s**t out of ISIS and he seems to be keeping that promises (one of the few promises he has kept), but that bombing is indiscriminate (and kills many more innocent civilians). He doesn't seem to realize that the bombing of civilians creates more terrorists than it kills.

ISIS is going to lose the territory it currently holds in Iraq and Syria. It was losing that territory under Obama, and Trump has continued that. But don't be fooled into thinking that will be the end of terrorist acts committed by ISIS, al-Queda, and others. Terrorists have never needed to hold territory to commit their atrocious acts. That will continue -- and the increased bombing of civilians just insures there will be more terrorists to carry out those acts.

Trump Secretly Sent Hundreds More Troops To Iraq/Syria

(This photo of U.S. troops in Syria is from voiceofdetroit.net.)

Did you know that the United States recently sent 400 Marines to fight in Syria, and 300 more soldiers to fight in Iraq. Probably not, because it was done in secret by the Trump administration. Trump sent those troops without telling the press, the American people, or even Congress. We still would not know if a congressman on the House Armed Services Committee had not asked General Joesph Votel a point blank question -- and rather than get in trouble for lying to Congress, Votel told the truth. He also admitted the Trump administration is currently considering sending even more U.S. troops to those two countries.

The Trump administration has taken the position that announcing troop increases violates some kind of military "security". That's patently ridiculous. Announcing the size of the u.S. troop commitment doesn't give any tactical advantage to the enemy. It does however, let the American people know the extent to which the government is sending young Americans into harm's way. And it gives the people of this country the information they need to judge the efficacy of their government.

That means the United States now has at least 5,700 troops in Iraq and Syria -- and that number doesn't count the more than 1,000 "temporary" troops assigned to that war zone (who aren't counted because their mission is supposedly for 6 months or less).

Add to this 6,700 minimum troop level the 8,400 troops the U.S. still has in Afghanistan, and you realize that the United States still has more than 15,000 troops waging war in the Middle East region -- a war that has been going on for more than 15 years now (since October of 2001).

A reasonable person could conclude that any war that couldn't be won in 15 years probably can't be won at all. But reason is not something that's very popular with our narcissistic leader. He seems to be falling into the same type of fallacious thinking that infected the presidency of Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War -- the thinking that said if you just keep sending more and more troops to the war, you will eventually reach a level that will allow you to win that war. It didn't work in Vietnam, and it has no better chance to work in the Middle East.

Our government has labeled the wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan as a "war on terror". That's just not true. You can't win a war against terrorism by using troops to take and hold territory. The terrosists will just melt away and fight somewhere else in the future. They have already shown they don't need to hold territory to commit terrorist acts. There are better ways to fight terrorism -- by using diplomacy, intelligence, and law enforcement.

We will never defeat terrorism by using our military forces, and are very unlikely to even hold the ground they have taken (unless we are willing to leave troops in those countries in perpetuity). We need to stop this madness now -- before our 15,000 troop commitment to eternal war grows larger and larger trying to fight a war that can't be won.Unfortunately, most of our elected leaders in Washington are not bright enough to realize that.

Putin Withdraws Troops From Middle East - U.S. Should Too

(This photo of Russian troops in Syria is from hanoivoi.com.vn.)

Vladimir Putin shocked the world yesterday. Russian media is reporting that Putin is going to withdraw Russian Troops from Syria -- only a few months after sending them to that war-torn country. It is unclear whether the withdrawal is only for the ground troops, or for all Russian military personnel, including the air forces.

Why is Russia doing this? Some cite the enormous cost of the Russian military presence in that area, but I think the Russians have come to the conclusion that they have gotten themselves into another Afghanistan-like quagmire. They have realized that it would take hundreds of thousands more troops to win the war in Syria -- and even then it is unlikely that would quell the violence (or assure Assad stays in office -- their only ally in the Middle East).

Why can't American politicians realize this? The conflict in Syria/Iraq is not a political battle between supporters of the East or West -- and anyone who thinks that is just wrong. It is a battle between shia and sunni extremists elements -- a religious battle for both land and societal dominance for their particular versions of the muslim region. And neither Russia nor the United States has any real friends in the conflict. The groups fighting may play the U.S. and Russia to get arms and military help, but they are not friends -- and would turn on both in a minute.

Russia and the United States (or Great Britain, France, etc.) cannot win this war. All they can do is create more enemies for themselves. This religious conflict, as stupid as it is, must be settled by those countries in the Middle East. It is time for both Russia and the United States (and their allies) to realize this -- and withdraw all their troops from both Syria and Iraq.

"Mission Creep" Is Alive And Well - More U.S. Troops For Iraq

(This image of ISIS troops is from ndtv.com.)

Poll after poll is asking these days whether the United States should send ground troops to Iraq/Syria. They are asking the wrong question. What they should be asking is how many troops the public is willing to send to that conflict -- because we already have about 3,000 "boots on the ground" in that war, and we will soon have more.

The government just announced that more "special operations" troops are being sent to Iraq. They didn't say how many, but most media sources put it as between 200 and 450 more soldiers. And the military officials said they wouldn't hesitate to ask for more troops "if needed" (and you can bet they'll think they are needed).

I probably sound like a broken record to regular readers, but I am beginning to be reminded of the Vietnam War -- where we started with a few Special Forces soldiers, and thanks to mission creep, wound up with hundreds of thousands of troops in that country. Are we committing that tragic mistake again?

I don't think we should have any American troops at all in Iraq/Syria. This is a religious civil war, and if it must be fought at all, it should be fought by those countries in that region -- the countries most affected by the threat of ISIS. The MOST we should be doing is giving air support and arms to those willing to fight ISIS.

I know our politicians are trying to frame this growing war effort in Iraq/Syria as a war on terrorism. I don't buy it. Even if ISIS is defeated in a land war, that will not stop their terrorist efforts. It will probably increase it. Terrorists can always find a place to hide, train, and plan their terrorist operations -- and thinking a land war in Iraq/Syria will stop ISIS terrorism is just wishful thinking.

But I seem to be in a minority. We are already fighting in that war, and now the question we should probably be asking is how we are going to do that. Robert Reich (on his own blog) has listed five prerequisites for waging this new war. It's a fairly reasonable assessment. He says:

We appear to be moving ever closer toward a world war against the Islamic State. 

No sane person welcomes war. Yet if we do go to war against ISIS we must keep a watchful eye on 5 things:

1. The burden of fighting the war must be widely shared among Americans. 

America’s current “all-volunteer” army is comprised largely of lower-income men and women for whom army pay is the best option. 

“We’re staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden,“ Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project, told the Washington Post. NPP’s study found low- and middle-income families supply far more Army recruits than families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year.

That’s not fair. Moreover, when the vast majority of Americans depend on a small number of people to fight wars for us, the public stops feeling the toll such wars take.

From World War II until the final days of the Vietnam War, in January 1973, nearly every young man in America faced the prospect of being drafted into the Army. 

Sure, many children of the rich found means to stay out of harm’s way. But the draft at least spread responsibility and heightened the public’s sensitivity to the human costs of war. 

If we go into a ground war against ISIS, we should seriously consider reinstating the draft. 

2. We must not sacrifice our civil liberties.  

U.S. spy agencies no longer have authority they had in the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act to collect Americans’ phone and other records. The NSA must now gain court approval for such access. 

But in light of the Paris attacks, the FBI director and other leading U.S. law enforcement officials now say they need access to encrypted information on smartphones, personal and business records of suspected terrorists, and “roving wiretaps” of suspects using multiple disposable cell phones. 

War can also lead to internment of suspects and suspensions of constitutional rights, as we’ve painfully witnessed. 

Donald Trump says he’d require American Muslims to register in a federal data base, and he refuses to rule out requiring all Muslims to carry special religious identification.

"We’re going to have to do things that we never did before….we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” he adds.

We must be vigilant that we maintain the freedoms we are fighting for.

3. We must minimize the deaths of innocent civilians abroad. 

The bombing raids have already claimed a terrible civilian toll, contributing to a mass exodus of refugees. 

Last month the independent monitoring group Airwars said at least 459 civilians have died from coalition airstrikes in Syria over the past year. Other monitoring groups, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, also claim significant civilian deaths.

Some civilian casualties are unavoidable. But we must ensure they are minimized – and not just out of humanitarian concern. Every civilian death creates more enemies. 

And we must do our part to take in a fair portion of Syrian refugees. 

4. We must not tolerate anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States. 

Already, leading Republican candidates are fanning the flames. 

Ben Carson says no Muslim should be president. 

Trump says “thousands” of Arab-Americans cheered when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11 – a boldface lie. 

Ted Cruz wants to accept Christians refugees from Syrian but not Muslims.

Jeb Bush says American assistance for refugees should focus on Christians.

Marco Rubio wants to close down “any place where radicals are being inspired,” including American mosques.

It’s outrageous that leading Republican candidates for president of the United States are fueling such hate. 

Such bigotry is not only morally odious. It also plays into the hands of ISIS.

5. The war must be paid for with higher taxes on the rich. 

A week before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Senate passed a $607 billion defense spending bill, with 91 senators in favor and 3 opposed (including Bernie Sanders). The House has already passed it, 370 to 58. Obama has said he’ll sign it. 

That defense appropriation is larded with pork for military contractors – including Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history.

Now Republicans are pushing for even more military spending. 

We cannot let them use the war as a pretext to cut Social Security and Medicare, or programs for the poor. 

The war should be paid for the way we used to pay for wars – with higher taxes, especially on the wealthy. 

As we move toward war against ISIS, we must be vigilant – to fairly allocate the burdens of who’s called on to fight the war, to protect civil liberties, to protect innocent civilians abroad, to avoid hate and bigotry, and to fairly distribute the cost of paying for war. 

These aren’t just worthy aims. They are also the foundations of our nation’s strength. 

The U.S. Is Marching Steadily Toward Another War

This chart is from the Gallup Poll. The latest poll was done on November 22nd and 23rd of a random national sample of 1,017 adults, and has a margin of error of 4 points.

The chart shows a troubling trend. This nation is moving toward another full-out ground war in the Middle East. I'm sure the Paris tragedy (and the Republican claims that terrorism can only be prevented by another ground war). Currently, nearly half (47%) of the public is ready to accept that new ground war.

They are mistaken if they really think defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria will prevent terrorism. It won't. Terrorists have never needed to control a country to commit terroristic acts, and they won't in the future. If anything, defeating ISIS in the Middle East will only increase their desire to commit terrorist acts.

Republicans, and too many Democrats, like to pose the conflict in Iraq and Syria as a fight against terrorism. It is not. It is really a religious war -- fought by different sects of islam. It is a battle to see which religious beliefs are going to be dominant in that area -- and that is a battle the United States (or Russia and the Western nations) should not be engaged in. This is a war that shouldn't be fought at all -- and if it must be fought, should be fought by the islamic nations of that area.

Americans have a basic misunderstanding. They view this as a fight against terrorism and for freedom. They seem to think we are there to protect the liberty of Middle East nations. But there is very little liberty or freedom to protect there. And most muslims in that area see our involvement very differently. Many, if not most, of them see this as another christian invasion of the muslim world -- a modern version of the crusades.

We have no business fighting this war -- and neither does Russia, or the Western European nations. We do need to fight terrorism, but you can't do that will military troops. That can most effectively be done through good intelligence gathering, law enforcement action, and a cooperative diplomatic effort.

Americans Are Still Confused About War And Terrorism

This chart represents the view of the U.S. public about the "war on terror". It is from a series of surveys done by the Rasmussen Poll (the latest being done on October 4th and 5th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error).

It shows that nearly half (46%) of the public now believes we are losing the war against terrorism. I think they are wrong, but I understand why they might think that. It is because they are treating the war on terrorism and the conflicts in the Middle East as being one and the same. They are not.

The conflicts in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan) are religious civil wars. They are being fought by Sunnis, Shiites, and radical factions of both. And while we are in the middle of these conflicts, we really have no friends there. Regardless of who wins, it is highly unlikely they will position themselves as an ally of the United States.

We shouldn't even be involved in these conflicts. Most muslims see our involvement as the U.S. trying to impose its will on them -- and many of them see it as another christian invasion of the muslim world. And perhaps the craziest thing about these conflicts is that even if the factions we are backing were to win those conflicts, it would do nothing to stop terrorism -- in the United States or other Western countries.

Terrorists have never needed to control a country to either fund or train or plan their nefarious actions. And they will always be able to find a place to do those things as long as they exist (even if ISIS, al-Queda, and others lose their fight to control areas of Syria and Iraq, and the Taliban fails to retake Afghanistan).

Terrorism is not done by a country, but organizations -- and because of that, they will never be defeated by military power. They can be defeated only by the combined efforts of law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and diplomatic efforts -- and currently, those efforts are succeeding very well in controlling terrorism.

Why is the public so confused on the issues of war and terrorism? Our political leaders and our mainstream media are to blame. The political leaders (of both political parties) are either being disingenuous about these issues, or are confused themselves -- and unfortunately, the media is just parroting what those politicians have to say (rather than making the effort to do some real journalism).

Many Embarrassed By Their Support Of Iraq War In 2003

I found this new YouGov Poll very interesting. It was done between May 16th and 18th of a random national survey of 1,000 adults, and has a margin of error of about 4 points. The poll asked respondents whether they supported sending troops to Iraq in 2003, and then compared those numbers to a 2003 poll done by Gallup. There were some marked differences.

While 63% of the public supported the war back in 2003, in 2015 only 38% are willing to admit they supported that war. The difference is most among Democrats -- while 52% supported the war in 2003, only 19% will admit that today. The difference is smaller among Republicans, but even some of them are now loathe to admit their support -- with support dropping from 84% in 2003 to only 65% now admitting that support.

It was easy to support that war back in 2003 -- with the leaders of both political parties supporting it, and the media beating the drums of war incessantly. But now we know the truth. We know that Bush and Cheney lied to us to get us into that war -- a war they wanted even before 9/11 happened. We also know now that nothing was actually accomplished by that invasion -- except to destroy the nation of Iraq, kill thousands of American soldiers and innocent civilians, and start a religious conflict that is still raging today (taking more lives every day).

As the chart below shows (from that same YouGov Poll), most Americans now believe invading Iraq in 2003 was a serious mistake. Only one group says it wasn't a mistake -- Republicans. That's the same group now wanting us to send more troops to Iraq today to fight.

But sending more troops to Iraq now would be another serious mistake -- and one that the public does not support. A new Rasmussen Poll shows that support for sending more troops to Iraq is dwindling fast. While that support was around 52% in early February, it had dropped to 40% in March -- and now it rests at only 35% (barely more than a third of the public). Americans are tired of fighting wars we cannot win -- especially religious conflicts where neither side is truly our friend.

10 Reasons Why Military Force Shouldn't Be Authorized

President Obama has asked Congress for the authizoration to wage war in the Middle East. He specifically wants to use that authorization in Iraq, including if necessary, the authorization to send in ground combat troops (some of which are already there).

I have stated on this blog that I think such an authorization would be a mistake. None of those involved in that conflict (including ISIS and al-Queda) pose any military danger to this country -- and any terrorist danger can best be dealt with by law enforcement.

This is a religious conflict that should be dealt with by the countries most threatened -- those in the Middle East. All the U.S. can do by becoming more involved is to create new enemies in that part of the world.

I am not alone in that view. Former Representative Dennis Kucinich (caricatured above by DonkeyHotey) also believes it would be a mistake for Congress to pass the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- and in an article for Fox News, he lists 10 reasons why Congress should not pass the AUMF. Here are the reasons he gives:

Here are 10 reasons why Congress should not grant the president authority to use military force against the Islamic State, based on fact, consequences and the U.S. Constitution:

1.  ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland.

Writing in The American Conservative, Senior Editor Daniel Larison points out that the U.S. is taking on an unnecessary risk:

“… the U.S. mistakenly volunteers to address a regional security problem that poses no real threat to America, [while] its regional partners do as little as they can get away with, and in some cases stop doing even that in order to get the U.S. to take additional risks on their behalf.”

If the U.S. enters the fray, of course, regional partners will let us do the fighting.

There is no credible information available that indicates ISIS is a direct threat to the U.S. According to a Wall Street Journal article, “Lawmakers Told Islamic State Isn’t Terror Threat on U.S. Soil,” Congress has already been advised by U.S. counterterrorism officials that ISIS is not a threat to the U.S. homeland. Additionally, no new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has been produced alleging ISIS is a direct threat to America. However, an all-out U.S. war against ISIS could expose America to unnecessary threats, without any national security benefits.

2. The AUMF disingenuously calls for a “limited” war, while it is written to guarantee a permanent war, thus nullifying the power of the people’s representatives in Congress.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were vitally concerned with the separation of powers, especially when it came to war. The power to declare war is vested in the Congress, in Article I, Section 8. The AUMF is written to enable the administration to conduct war, unilaterally, against any group, anywhere, at any time, over a period of three years, which opposing combatants will ignore.

If the administration succeeds in gaining approval for this particular AUMF, it will not have to return to Congress for approval as it takes its war from nation to nation. This is clearly contrary to the intent of the founders. It weakens Congress’ constitutional power (checks and balances) and undermines the Constitution.

3. The AUMF is a blank check and a fiscal black hole.

Since the AUMF sets the stage for a worldwide conflict, the cost of action will run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, particularly if ground troops are involved in a war with religious overtones that go back 14 centuries. This war will inevitably require an emergency wartime supplemental appropriation and massive borrowing, adding to the $16 trillion U.S. deficit and weakening the U.S. economy internally while providing great wealth to war profiteers who are already draining America’s wealth.

4. Regional armies appear to be rising to their own defense; U.S. presence will escalate war.

At this very moment ISIS is finally under pressure from Iraqi forces and pro-government militias, without U.S. boots on the ground. Additionally, ISIS is said to be experiencing internal pressures and conflicts. The Washington Post points out: “The Islamic State is battling major offensives waged on at least three fronts — by Kurds in northern Syria, Kurds in northern Iraq and the combined force of Iraqi army and Shiite militia fighters advancing on the central Iraqi city of Tikrit.”

“…the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An [U.S.] invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide … they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims.” — Graeme Wood in the Atlantic Magazine, March 2015.

ISIS desperately needs to draw the U.S. in, to provide a rallying cry “against the foreign invader.” Why should America put our troops in harm’s way to provide this terrorist organization with new life, especially since armies in the region are stepping up to take the fight to ISIS?

In the AUMF, the president wants language that provides for U.S. ground forces to have “flexibility.” Read: “Boots on the ground!” If Congress passes the AUMF, it will have no say in the conduct of this war, except for appropriations.

5. The U.S. could get drawn into a worldwide religious war.

President Obama says, “We are not at war against Islam.” Congressional approval of the president’s request for the AUMF against the Islamic State will change that quickly. The AUMF will become a powerful recruiting tool for ISIS. How else will it be interpreted abroad, other than America at war with Islam? The U.S. could blunder into a complex, multidimensional conflict with explicit religious overtones, no matter what the president says.

ISIS wants to draw the U.S. into a religious war, to secure its role as the self-proclaimed defender of Islam against crusading foreign invaders.

Jihadis, anticipating a great war for Islam, have streamed into the region from all over the world to join ISIS ranks. An estimated 20,000 fighters from 90 nations have converged to fight alongside ISIS.

“This is a fight the Islamic State should be denied. And yet we should have learned that it is a bad idea to get into a ground war with people whose idea of victory is martyrdom.” — Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, Feb. 23, 2015.

6. ISIS and Al Qaeda are divided. US re-entry into war could unite them.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are in a deep rift. ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri differ on strategy, tactics, methods, religious interpretations and on Baghdadi’s establishment of a caliphate.

An all-out U.S. military attack against ISIS will force Al Qaeda into an alliance it does not want, to join ISIS in a “fight against Western invaders,” creating a united front much stronger and more deadly to America and her allies.

7. A Solution: Follow ISIS’ money, and shut it down.

Where is ISIS getting its money? Up to 100,000 ISIS fighters are funded by Gulf State donors, identified in the past as being from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Fully equipping and providing for one modern combat-ready soldier can cost $850,000 to $1,000,000 a year. ISIS’ army could be gaining $85 billion to $100 billion a year from various sources. We can either commit the U.S. military to another war, and the U.S. to further risk of impending attacks through the genesis of a new crusade, or we can fight this threat with intelligent power and high technology.

The administration must identify the specific sources of ISIS’ money, the individuals, the nations and the means of transfer, and shut them all down. It must sanction countries and individuals, tie up their bank accounts and commercial activities, freeze their assets and cancel their credit cards. Send platoons of accountants from the Treasury Department and the IRS into the fray, not platoons of U.S. soldiers. The U.S. must track oil sales, sales of antiquities and other valuables. Anyone involved in any transactions of any kind with ISIS must be identified and sanctioned. 

8. Solution: Cyber response. 

The U.S. has the ability to identify and disrupt terror networks using digital technology. The CIA, in a major reorganization, has just created a fifth directorate, the Directorate of Digital Innovation, in recognition that intelligent power means using the most technologically advanced tools available. For its part, the NSA, which has admitted gaps, is also strengthening its information collecting. If, as Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” in the 21st century we  have other means to avoid a “boots on the ground” shooting war.

9. Endless wars enable Washington to ignore a domestic agenda.

It has been said that others attack us in order to destroy the way we live. Since 9/11, our own government has been responsible for shredding the Constitution through wars of choice and the imposition of a national security state with a permanent state of emergency.

The U.S. now spends about $1 trillion a year to “defend” America using lethal means. Yet the more money we spend, the greater the peril. Why? Meanwhile, at home, America’s middle class is falling apart, wages and benefits have dropped, retirement savings have vanished and Wall Street and war profiteers clean up. Americans, punished through unwarranted, massive surveillance, have forfeited constitutional rights and civil liberties. The right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, has been destroyed in the name of security.

10. The time has come for the U.S. to review the effects of interventionism.

ISIS grew out of U.S. interventions. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria have disintegrated into chaos and violence. The price tag has been extraordinary in loss of human life and the cost of trillions of dollars. Bad judgments, misinformation and even lies have caused our nation to intervene, inspiring radical elements, stoking the fires of nationalism and engendering religious conflict. A great price has been paid and continues to be paid by our troops and their families.

This is the time for Congress and the administration to rethink the failed national security strategy, the failed doctrine of intervention, the failed “right to protect” doctrine and the abominable intrusion into the private lives of Americans.

Congress must refuse to give up its constitutional power under Article I, Section 8 and hold the executive branch in check on matters of war. It should defeat the AUMF and stop the administration from spreading war around the world. 

Congress has a new opportunity to get control of runaway spending and keep America strong without wasting resources. In my early years in Congress, I was shocked to learn, from the inspector general to the Department of Defense, that DOD had over $1 trillion in accounts that could not be reconciled. According to the GAO, the Army “lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch units.” The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, requires an accounting. With the national security budget at $1 trillion annually, and trillions spent for wars of choice, and a trillion unaccounted for, and countless billions in cost overruns, the question is who is defending the taxpayers?

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force provides a new opportunity for a much-needed debate over the direction of America, our priorities and the best way to protect our nation from harm. Thank you for considering my views.

Respectfully,

Dennis Kucinich

Americans Once Again See Russia As Their Primary Enemy

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the American public has had a much more benign view of Russia. Note in the above chart that as late as 2011 and 2012 very few people saw Russia as the greatest enemy anymore (only 2%-3%).

But that was before the invasions of Georgia and the Ukraine. Those invasions have made Americans think twice about Russia -- and the view of them as our greatest enemy has grown -- to 9% in 2014 and to 18% in 2015. That 18% is higher than any other country (including China, North Korea, and Iran -- the countries that have topped the list in previous years).

The chart was made from a Gallup Poll -- done between February 8th and 11th of a random national sample of 837 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points.

Slightly Over Half Of Public Supports The War Authorization

The charts above were made from a new NBC News / Marist Poll -- done on February 11th and 12th of a random national sample of 603 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

The president has asked Congress to pass a war authorization to give him the authority to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. President Obama says he wouldn't use it to start another big ground war using U.S. combat troops -- but the authorization would allow him to send in special forces troops and even other combat troops "on a limited basis". Of course, the authorization doesn't define those limits, or say what would follow if any of those troops are killed.

I think this is a bad idea. The president is asking for the authorization to fight a war that should be fought by the countries in that region, and that war could easily last many years (like the war in Afghanistan).

But it seems that a small majority of Americans disagree with my assessment. About 54% of the American public thinks their congressman should vote for the authorization. That's a bit puzzling, since only 45% say they have any confidence in the president's strategy to defeat ISIS. Why would they support widening the war when they don't have confidence in the strategy?

Obama Wants To Increase U.S. Participation In Iraq/Syria

I don't know about you, but I find this very troubling. President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to formally authorize the use of American military power in the war against ISIS (which is holding territory in both Iraq and Syria). He did try to allay fears by saying:

"I am convinced that the U.S. should not get back into another ground war in the Middle East -- it's not in our national security interest and not necessary for us to defeat ISIL."

But as much as I like and admire President Obama, that sounds like doublespeak to me. The authorization would include the right to send in special forces troops of the United States to take action against ISIS leaders, and to use "ground combat operations in limited circumstances". This brings up questions.

What are limited circumstances? Aren't special forces troops combat troops on the ground? How long could those special forces or other combat troops stay? What would happen if they met fierce resistance, or some of them are killed? Would more troops be sent?

Frankly, this sounds to me to be an opening gambit designed to increase the participation of this country in the religious war going on in Iraq and Syria -- a move that is destined to have this country fully involved in another war in the Mideast. And that would be a serious mistake.

That war has nothing to do with the national defense of this country. We are engaged in this conflict to help protect other countries in that area -- and many of them are not even our friends (including both Iraq and Syria). This is a conflict that must be fought by the nations in that region. I can understand providing them with the necessary weapons, and maybe even giving them air support -- but we are already do both of those things.

This new authorization requested by the president is unnecessary, and nothing good can come from it. Congress will probably approve it, but they shouldn't. It will just lead us further down the road to a new ground war.

42% Of Public Thinks WMDs Were Found In Iraq

These charts were made from information contained in a Fairleigh Dickinson University Survey -- conducted between December 8th and 15th of a random national sample of 964 adults (with a 3 point margin of error).

I personally find the results of this survey rather shocking. It seems that 42% of the American public (more than four out of every ten people) believe that weapons of mass destruction were either definitely or probably found in Iraq (thus justifying Bush's decision to invade that country). How can any rational person believe that today -- more than 11 years after the war was started and over four years after U.S. troops were withdrawn?

Anyone who makes just a cursory examination of the facts should know that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. A few decaying remnants of a past program were discovered -- but no proof of an ongoing program or any usable weapons were found. This shows me that some people believe what they want to believe, and the facts be damned (especially if those people don't want to be embarrassed because they believed the Bush/Cheney lies and supported the invasion).

Republicans and the least educated were the most likely to believe those WMDs were found, but sadly, a portion of all groups still believe that (even Democrats and college grads, who should know better).

But just wanting to believe it isn't the whole story. The media have to accept some blame. Some of them did a poor job of reporting the story, and at least one (Fox News) had no compunction about lying to protect the Bush administration. The chart below shows the percentages of those believing WMDs were found, and where they get their news. Note that Fox News was the only news source that has a majority of viewers believing those weapons were found. The sources with the fewest believers were MSNBC and The Daily Show (a comedy show).

Americans Still Say NO To Ground Troops In Iraq/Syria

The charts above reflect the numbers contained in a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on December 7th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.

President Obama has authorized bombing in Iraq and Syria to stymie the efforts of ISIS to take over those countries, and turn them into theocratic dictatorships -- and about 65% of all Americans support that action by the president. But that is not all the president has done. After saying he would not put American troops "boots on the ground" in those countries, he has broken his own promise by sending more than 3,000 soldiers to Iraq. And that is a move Americans are loathe to support.

As these charts show, only 22% of the American public thinks the president should put ground troops in Iraq or Syria with congressional approval -- and only 36% would be in favor of Congress declaring war on ISIS (as suggested by Senator Rand Paul). Declaring war would authorize the president to send as many troops as he wants, but that is not what the people want. They want our involvement to be a limited one -- limited only to the bombing campaign, and involving no American ground troops.

Obama Will Raise Troop Level In Iraq To 3,000

(This image of U.S. soldiers patrolling near the Baghdad airport is from LJWorld.com.)

"Mission creep" continues to grow in Iraq. When things got hot again in Iraq (with the Sunni vs. Shiite religious civil war growing), President Obama promised Americans that he would not put American "boots on the ground" in that country. He almost immediately violated his promise by sending 300 soldiers to Iraq (saying they were just to advise the Iraqi troops). Then he upped the total, saying that troops were needed to guard the embassy and the Baghdad airport. Now there are around 1400 to 1500 American soldiers in Iraq.

Now the president seems to be completely abandoning his promise. He has authorized the sending of another 1500 troops to Iraq, which will double the number of U.S. soldiers in that country (and be 10 times the number he originally sent). It is now just a sick joke to say there won't be "troops on the ground" -- and the only question left is how many more troops will be sent there (5,000?, 10,000?, 50,000?, more?).

The truth is that we shouldn't have any American soldiers in Iraq. Both parties in Congress, and the president, are trying to paint the Sunni insurgents as posing a threat to the United States. That is a fallacy. They pose no military threat to this country -- and if there is a terrorist threat, this is the wrong way to handle it. Terrorism is a law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic problem -- not a military problem.

The situation in Iraq is a religious civil war -- fought by Sunnis and Shiites, both of whom want to control that country, and neither of which is an ally of the United States. Sending American troops to take sides in that religious war may seem smart to U.S. politicians, but it just looks like another christian "crusade" against muslims to those who live in the Middle East -- and it just creates more enemies for this country (and embroils our soldiers in a conflict they cannot win).

Re-engaging in Iraq is an insane policy. We should be bringing the troops there back home -- not doubling their number.

Soldiers Oppose A Military Re-Engagement In Iraq

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a survey by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. That survey showed that, if necessary, about 45% of the American public said they would support sending ground troops to fight ISIS if our military leaders said it was necessary -- and a whopping 72% thought a substantial number of combat ground troops would eventually be sent back to Iraq.

But our own soldiers are not as amenable to the idea of sending troops back into Iraq as the general public seems to be. The chart above was made from information contained in a survey done by Military Times magazine. They surveyed 2,200 active-duty troops in a reader survey during August. That survey showed that over 70% of the soldiers opposed sending ground combat troops back into Iraq, while less than 30% supported it. These are the guys who would be doing the fighting, and they think it would be a mistake.

I agree with them. The conflict in that area is a religious civil war, and it must be settled by those who live in that region. The United States cannot settle this conflict for the Iraqis and Syrians, and cannot win militarily. All our involvement will do is to get U.S. soldiers killed, and create more enemies through the killing of more innocent civilians. We need to stop this insanity now.

The survey also asked the soldiers if the war in Iraq had been a success. When they asked that in previous years, a majority of the soldiers said yes -- but that is no longer true. Now about 59.6% of our active-duty soldiers say it was not. The truth about what we failed to accomplish in Iraq is now becoming very apparent to them.

Public Believes U.S. Ground Troops Will Be Sent To Iraq

The chart above was made from information in a new NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Annenberg Poll that was done between September 19th and 25th of a random national sample of 1,283 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.15 points.

President Obama has promised Americans that the United States will not have "boots on the ground" in Iraq or Syria to fight ISIS. That is not true, of course -- since we already have around 1,000 troops (and maybe a little more) that are already stationed in Iraq. The president avoids admitting these troops have their "boots on the ground" by labeling them as advisors, trainers, or protectors (of our embassy and the Baghdad airport) instead of combat troops. But they are there, they are armed, and they are in harm's way.

And as the chart shows, nearly three out of four Americans (72%) believe the United States will eventually send ground combat troops to fight ISIS in that region (even though only 45% would support that, even if the military said it was necessary). I think they are right. We are already witnessing "mission creep" in that area.

The president started by sending 300 American troops to Iraq, and that has now grown to around 1,000 or more. Then he started using American forces to bomb ISIS in Iraq, and has now expanded that to include targets in Syria. And finally, he has the approval of Congress to arm and train "moderate" Syrian rebels (in spite of the fact that we don't know who these moderate rebels might be). The logical next would be for the pentagon to request ground combat troops, and for the president (along with Congress) to grant that request.

Our government, including too many members of both political parties, seems to believe that the military arm of ISIS poses a danger to the United States, and that we must protect our "ally" (the Iraqi government). Neither of those things is true. ISIS troops pose no danger to this country. While ISIS could pose a terrorist danger, defeating their troops in Iraq and Syria would not lessen that danger -- it would only increase it. And although our government wants to think Iraq is an American ally, that is just wishful thinking. Iraq's closest ally is Iran (a sworn enemy of the United States).

We are steadily marching toward a new, unnecessary, endless, and undeclared war in the Middle East -- a war we cannot win and cannot afford. We must stop this insanity now.

A Green Party Comment On Our Newest Unnecessary War

The following response to the U.S. starting a new (and unnecessary) war with the bombings in both Iraq and Syria was written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Steve Breyman (pictured) on September 25th. In it he gives some peaceful solutions to the new crisis, and tells us why the Obama administration feels like they had no choice but to go back to war. It's interesting reading.

Every national peace group (large and small, new and old, religious and secular) opposes Barack Obama's war against ISIS in Iraq, and its recent extension to Syria. Their opposition extends to Obama's Congress-sanctioned arming of "moderate" Syrian rebels (for which legislators found half a billion dollars).

The anti-war movement's antagonism is sturdy and reasoned. It's based on irrefutable historical, political, economic and cultural analysis focused on the past thirteen years of bloody, wasteful, failed war on Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen, Libya and Somalia. Find some here, here, and here.

The groups don't merely oppose more war. They also advance positive agendas of alternatives to bombing. United for Peace and Justice (an umbrella coalition under which many U.S. peace groups cohere) recommends five "better choices": (1) make diplomacy and humanitarian assistance the priority; (2) seek improved relations with Iran to end the fighting in the region; (3) work through the United Nations to halt the flow of financing and weapons to ISIS; (4) re-start UN-directed negotiations to end the civil war in Syria; (5) mobilize to solve the real problems in the region—poverty, hunger, drought, joblessness.

David Swanson of World Beyond War (and Secretary of Peace in the Green Shadow Cabinet) has these suggestions as to what "What to Do About ISIS": (1) stop bombing; (2) stop shipping arms; (3) be skeptical of humanitarian claims; (4) apologize to ISIS leader al-Baghdadi for brutalizing him in Abu Ghraib; (5) make restitution for damages inflicted on Iraq; (6) apologize for advancing war in Syria; (7) begin withdrawing U.S. forces from overseas; (8) work through the United Nations; (9) have the U.S. join the International Criminal Court, etc.

Sound as this advice is, policymakers are unable to take it. For Obama, Congress and the Pentagon, there is no alternative to airstrikes on the Islamic State, and to arming Syrian rebel moderates. Add the structure of U.S. national security policy—its institutions, practices and tools—to alliances with authoritarian regimes, past mistakes and 'policy momentum,' corporate power, the ideologies and worldviews of officials, and the lack of genuine American democracy. The sum of these addends restricts decision-makers' options to war, and more war.

Consider the five-point program—"How to Combat ISIS Without Bombs"—put forward by Win Without War (WWW; another coalition that includes Global Exchange, Pax Christi, Tikkun, Peace Action, Greenpeace, NOW, and numerous other groups):

•  Hit ISIS economically

• Crack down on ISIS's weapons supply

• Address political grievances of local populations

• Lead a multinational international response

• Provide humanitarian aid.

Like the recommendations above, policies predicated on these alternatives are vastly superior to blind plunging ahead with airstrikes and weapons deliveries. Each, however, runs up against deep-grained U.S. foreign policy standard operating procedures and non-military options foreclosed by past mistakes.

ISIS's Finances

To "hit ISIS economically" requires cracking down on those who finance the organization and the banks that store the loot. The War on Terror spawned several new offices to restrict the funding of designated terrorist organizations and individuals across DC in the Departments of Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Treasury. This effort (unlike that aimed at Mexican drug cartels) made some inroads (it's hard to independently know how significant), but not without bogus "material support for terrorism" charges being leveled against several charitable organizations and generous individuals. In the face of strong paper regulations forbidding banks to service terrorists and other organized criminals, Wall Street averages about a major scandal a year since 9/11.

Two factors complicate the mission of squeezing terrorist finances: (1) considerable funding for jihadi groups comes from individual citizens of erstwhile U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf (a problem dating from the proxy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan), although there's little or no evidence that ISIS is dependent on foreign donors; and (2) ISIS is to a large extent self-financing.

U.S. efforts to get Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil sheikdoms to shut down the money funnel have run into obstacles at the very highest levels of government; presidents and secretaries of state are unwilling to jeopardize relations with the hydrocarbon kingdoms over the matter. ISIS's wealth (some estimates have it as high as $500 million) is the result of kidnappings for ransom, robberies, protection rackets, and illicit sales of Syrian and Iraqi oil. The group is said to demand 10-20% of receipts from businesses in the towns and cities it controls.

Win Without War suggests targeting the "Turkish, Iraqi, and other oil dealers who are purchasing the oil on the black market"—a sensible course of action—but Turkish authority (let alone U.S.) does not extend far along its 750 mile border with Syria and Iraq where smuggling of all sorts has been a way of life for decades (Turkey's war against its Kurds made licit livings difficult to make). And the estimates of $1-2 million per day for ISIS coffers from oil sales appear wildly overblown.

Restrict ISIS's Weapons Supply

Win Without War wisely recommends that President Obama pressure Turkey to restrict the flow of weapons and foreign fighters across its border with Syria. Obama recently talked with the new Turkish president about doing just that. And he convinced the UN Security Council to criminalize participation in armed jihad. But as with crude oil smuggling—and the trafficking of contraband over the U.S.-Mexico border—attempts to interdict the flow of militants and weaponry across long, rugged international boundaries against the efforts of determined professional smugglers leads to hugely expensive, frequently brutal, only partially effective, metastasized and militarized border control-industrial complexes. Consider too that weapons (and oil) smuggling is highly lucrative and leads to official corruption and the obstacles become clear.

That considerable heavy U.S. weaponry—including tanks, armored personnel carriers, and artillery—already fell into Islamic State's hands following the Iraqi Army's humiliating defeat in Mosul (and more recent defeats in Anbar) at the hands of what were once lightly armed extremists did not deter Obama or his bipartisan supporters on Capitol Hill from deciding to send more lethal assistance, and to train handpicked Syrian rebels in its use. They were not deterred either by the knowledge that some unknown but nontrivial number of formerly "moderate" Syrian insurgents now fight for ISIS and other non-preferred networks.

Cruise missile attacks and bombing sorties (including by the boondoggle F-22, it's first use "in combat") appear to politicians and bureaucrats the superior option; they supply deep gratification for those who see them as legitimate tools, that sense of satisfaction anti-smuggling efforts experience rarely.

Local Political Grievances

Win Without War would have Obama attempt to heal the wounds inflicted on Syrian and Iraqi Sunnis by their Alawite and Shi'a dominated governments so as to deprive ISIS of local support. They point to the "Anbar Awakening"—where the U.S. Army used suitcases of $100 bills to sway tribal militia leaders from their support of al Qaeda in Iraq—as a model.

The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, de-Baathification, and bungled reconstruction paved the way for Shi'a dominance of Iraqi politics. Washington appears to understand the need for the Iraqi political system to fairly include Sunnis. This is why John Kerry engineered the replacement of Nouri al Maliki by Haidar al Abbadi. But years of support for the sectarian al-Maliki whose policies deeply alienated Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds will not be easy to undo. And the prospects for resolution of the Syrian civil war, called for by WWW, seem lower at present than they did earlier this year at the failed peace talks in Montreux.

Washington can't even sort out its own "local political grievances;" fixing the mess it made of Iraqi politics is inconceivable. It's far easier just to bomb the bastards.

Multilateral International Response

WWW suggests building a coalition that would reduce the recruitment of Westerners to ISIS rather than one that supports U.S. airstrikes against the militants. The peace activists understand ISIS thrives because of conflicts in Syria and Iraq "fueled by foreign interests," and thus urge Obama to involve "all the parties including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others."

The War on Terror-Industrial Complex prefers to spy on "radical" imams and mosques to reforming its foreign policy or engaging with communities from which potential Western jihadis come. U.S. foreign policy has worked to isolate Tehran since 1979, ratcheting up the pressure of sanctions periodically as during the last few years over Iran's nuclear research program. John Kerry can't make up his mind whether to include Iran in the anti-ISIS coalition; he shut Iran out of the Paris conference he organized but then backtracked within a day or two muttering about a possible role for Iran against the Wahabis.

Humanitarian Aid

WWW recognizes that the Obama administration has provided more assistance to Syrian refugees than any other government. But U.S. aid has been no where close to what's needed to meet the needs of the millions—1.4 million in tiny Lebanon alone—short of food, clothing, shelter, medicine and schools. Elected national Americans leaders are always able to find enough money to wage war, but never able to find enough to alleviate misery.

The U.S. did next to nothing on its own to aid the starving Palestinians in the Yarmouk refugee camp outside Damascus. And the U.S. has failed to support the democratic Self-Administration Zones in northern Syria, even though as Michael Beer of Nonviolence International reports, these "autonomous governments are secular, have a 40 percent quota for women in leadership positions, and are committed to a united Syria and a pluralist Syria."

At the same time, U.S. humanitarian aid is considerably greater than that provided by its Gulf Arab coalition partners. Rather than solicit support for its bombing campaign, the U.S. ought to cobble together sufficient donors to meet the needs of the innocents displaced by war in Iraq and Syria.

Conclusion 

Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress just made the same mistake in regard to Islamic State that George Bush and the U.S. Congress made regarding al Qaeda following 9/11: they 'declared war' on a smallish bunch of brutal criminals thereby elevating their status and opening the flood gates of recruitment after being attacked by the Great Satan. They stepped right into the trap set for them by al Baghdadi: the beheading videos were designed to elicit a violent response from Washington. It worked: ISIS is now the organization of choice for aspiring jihadis.

Obama and Congress are unable to choose diplomacy and humanitarian aid over war with ISIS for several interrelated reasons. First, most of those who make and implement U.S. national security policy have distorted and fantastical worldviews. They believe the U.S. can act as both world policeman and benign hegemon. They justify most any level of violence and collateral damage in service to policy ends—"destroy ISIS"—impossible to achieve. They see U.S. bombs as problem solvers, and disregard all contradictory evidence.

Second, today's policy has implications—some very long lasting—for tomorrow's, as yesterday's has for today's. Policies gather momentum and lose malleability over time. Policies enroll supporters, generate enormous sums for contractors, and shunt aside dissenters. Decisions made, weapons bought, money spent, bureaucracies shaped during the War on Terror echo into the future. U.S. policy has become little more than a New Enemy Creation Process. Even if Obama (and it's clear he does not) or the next president wanted to make a clean break, to finally bring an end to the War on Terror, it would, and will be, a very difficult undertaking.

Third, the failure of Congress and the American people to rein in presidential war making powers, to challenge even the serial illegal actions of successive presidents, reduces the prospects for the stem to stern overhaul of U.S. policy necessary to follow the sane advice of peace groups. Fourth, the interests vested in the War on Terror-Industrial-Complex represent some of the most powerful political-economic actors in the country; their hold over policy cannot be underestimated.

Surprise as to the lopsided authorization for Obama's direct war against ISIS and indirect war against al Assad evaporates in light of this analysis. Reasonable observers may have thought that thirteen years of experience, pain, shame and waste would be sufficient to at least teach officials what to avoid this time. Yet here they go again complete with deployment of "boots on the ground" regardless of the president's claims to the contrary.