We'll finish up today with a little more talk about Mr. Obama and his lovely little war.
US officials are openly talking about a plan for an attack by Iraqi military forces to take back the city of Mosul from Daesh. The attack, supposedly to involve as 20,000 Iraqi military and Kurdish forces, could come as soon as April. Mosul is Iraq's second-largest city and the biggest get by Daesh.
Daesh is another name for ISIS, based on an acronym from its Arabic name. Daesh also sounds similar to the Arabic words "daes" - which means someone who crushes something underfoot - and also "dahes" - which is someone who sows discord. I understand ISIS hates the name Daesh, which for me is more than enough reason to use it.
The attack on Mosul would be backed by US airstrikes and possibly American ground troops, according to those same officials. Those ground forces would, obviously, be involved with O's approval, but would - we're told - be for special operations and forward air controllers but of course not for "enduring offensive operations."
Because we won't use ground troops in combat, oh no perish the thought! We just engage in special operations, forward air control, intelligence sharing, and rescue operations - none of which, somehow, don't involve shooting at anything or getting shot at or anything else that would define "combat."
Oh wait, I'm sorry, it's not supposed to be an "enduring operation" so all that shooting doesn't count.
Now, let's not forget that we've been told again and again that grounds troops may be "necessary." We were told that as far back as September, when Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress exactly that.
But don't worry. This won't be that start of us getting dragged into another "enduring" ground war, even if, I fear, we may discover that "enduring" turns out to mean
"longer than we've been doing it, however long that has been." Because, after all, remember that our president won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Meanwhile, it's worthy of note that his request for a new Authorization to Use Military Force is meeting notable opposition in Congress. Several members of the House and 12 Senators, 10 Democrats and two independents, have expressed concerns or opposition.
Last for this week: What do I think should be done about the new AUMF? I think it should be defeated. And the 2002 AUMF, which was the basis for the Iraq war, should be repealed. And the 2001 AUMF, passed in the stampede following 9/11, which Obama has been using to date as his authorization for his war, should be repealed.
But wait - wouldn't that leave Obama without any authority to continue his war?
Which is precisely the intention. Because there are better ways to deal with Daesh. Better ways than war. And I promise to talk more about that next week.
Sources cited in links: