When I listen to Republicans talk tough about ISIS, I’m reminded of a old Steve Martin joke:
“You can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! Yes, you can be a millionaire and never pay taxes! And you say, ‘Steve, how can I become a millionaire and never pay taxes?’ OK, first? You get a million dollars.”
On ISIS, Republicans are basically saying, “Unlike Obama, we have a brilliant idea for how to wage this war. Our idea is, we’re gonna beat those terrorists. How? By beating them.”
All the Republican presidential candidates predictably dissed the president’s Sunday night Oval Office address, but when you look beyond their bluster and parse the purported substance of their positions, it’s clear that A.) they’d mostly do what Obama is already doing, and/or B.) they’re mostly clueless about what to do differently.
They mask their weaknesses by amping up the rhetoric. Jeb Bush says, “We need a wartime commander-in-chief who is ready to lead this country and the free world to victory.” Ted Cruz vows that if he becomes president, he will simply “direct the Defense Department to destroy ISIS.” Lindsey Graham says, “I would kill every one of these bastards.”
But how about some substantive policy details? How, specifically, would the Republicans kill and destroy and lead the free world to victory?
Donald Trump declares that if he becomes president, “I would bomb the s–t out of them.” Cipher candidate Rick Santorum says, “Let’s load up our bombers and bomb them back to the 7th century.” Ted Cruz, not to be outdone, says that if he’s president, “we will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out.”
Truth is, the Obama administration is already bombing intensely — roughly 2,200 bombs a month — “taking out (ISIS) leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure,” as the president said Sunday.
Republicans want to put more special-ops troops into the region. But the Obama administration is already putting more special-ops troops into the region — “to take out (ISIS) leadership, to capture (ISIS) leadership, to rescue hostages, to capture intelligence,” as Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said earlier this month.
Most Republicans are calling for a coalition of Middle East countries. But, as Obama said Sunday night, 65 countries have already “joined an American-led coalition.” Marco Rubio says that this isn’t good enough, that “America should use its position of leadership” to compel Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to assemble a coalition army — but those countries have already told Washington that they have no interest in doing so. Would they suddenly heed a President Rubio?
Lindsey Graham, a longtime hawk, wants to dispatch American ground troops to the region. Bush talks vaguely about that, but won’t offer any numbers. And virtually all the other Republicans agree with Obama that it’d be nuts to dispatch American ground troops to the region — because that’s precisely what ISIS wants, to harass us as an alien occupying force.
So the Republicans have no magic plan, nothing substantive. What they basically offer is a tougher “attitude” (as Ben Carson calls it), and bolder wordplay (they juxtapose the words “Islamic” and “terrorism”). But virtually no candidates have publicly called on the Republican Congress to share the responsibility by formally authorizing the use of military force.
Obama said on Sunday night, “For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of air strikes against (ISIS) targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.” But Republicans refuse to signal that commitment; they’d rather carp from the sidelines, because it’s easier to talk tough than offer substance.
How nice it would be, in a time of war, if the opposition party agreed to work in tandem with the White House for the common good, to narrow their scant differences on ISIS strategy, to seek unity against a common enemy, to usher in a new bipartisan era.
Or as Steve Martin, playing a medieval doctor, famously mused: “I could lead the way to a new age, an age of rebirth …. Nahhhh!”
——-
Copyright 2015 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
Fairly simple answer to a non question, only a partisan remark. The GOP leaders would fight a WAR, not an appeasement exercise. No shooting around corners, no ‘rules of engagement’, but real, honest to goodness, WAR. People get killed in wartime, many people, it’s a horrible event, but in this case, necessary. You cannot ‘don’t bomb near the buildings, they may hold innocents’, you must bomb anywhere the enemy may be. You cannot fail to destroy the enemies source of income, the oil fields and tankers, because ‘innocents’ may be driving the trucks’ or that, as the WH has said, ‘we can’t harm the environment, because this war won’t last forever’, you must fight a war to win, and that’s exactly what Any member the of GOP’s candidates would do, WIN the war against terrorism.
Where is the question of how DNC will beat ISIS (ISIL) ? I don’t see a plan, let alone stratgety from this President, his cabinet, or what he is allowing the Generals and Admirals to state? Claims of containment, are wearing a bit thin after all the claims in past of containing the other named terrorists organizations. And a final thought: It really makes no difference what the name of gang-group-terrorists is, when they kill you, now does it?
AND WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE, ANGER, OF OUR COUNTRY BEING ATTACKED AGAIN ON CLINTON-OBMAMA- WATCH. IT WAS BILL CLINTON IN 1993. HE IMPRISONED THE BLIND INMAN, WHO PLOTTED THE DESTRUCTION OF WTC IN 2001, AFTER 1993 ATTACK. HILLARY WAS PART OF THAT, AND WAS SEC. OF STATE FOR BENGHAZI, AND STILL PITCHING DURING ATTACK IN CALIFORNIA.
——
ALL OF THESE WAS ATTACK AGANIST OUR COUNTRY, UNDER SHARIAH PART OF THE KORAN (QUARN sp?), SO WHEN WILL OUR CANDIDATES, POLITICIANS, AND CITIZENS RISE UP AND SAY, NO MORE. USA already has database somewhere on every citizen in the USA, so where is the same maintained on all non-citizens, tourists, VISA waiver people, or anyone else within our borders? I don’t care what religion, color, race, beliefs, or outrageous activities they profess. Why else develop such computer and storage capacity, and use it for security?
——
If individuals are out in public, they are not entitled to privacy. England uses cameras on most streets and highways, to monitor traffic, analyze accidents, and know who commits crimes, and how they are being transported. Even when knives are the killing -injuring medium used..
When folks came across the Berlin Wall, we had trained intelligence personnel there, familiar with European city and areas, to debrief them, and determine any useful information they knew. Those integrating to worm into our side to spy on us, or our allies could be determined. Those eligible for US citizenship recognized. Where do we have such vetting in Europe now, or anywhere in the pipeline? If not, why not? Life is much more dangerous now, than in 1940s.
The way to defeat Daesh is to have a strong domestic program. End homelessness and help people acquire new skills to meet the workforce needs. Stop H1 Visas until the complete accounting of tech jobs and who can meet the need. Too many older near retirement Tech workers are fired to hire cheaper foreign labor. Those un and under employed to have a way to get back into climbing the economic ladder. Housing costs are a real problem as well as not wanting to construct low income projects that get redlined and socially identifiable.
A strong stable economy is the greatest threat to Daesh. Plus being very careful with immigration.