Look, dammit. I consider myself anti-war. Not in absolutist terms but pretty anti-war.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I'm having a hard time holding that stance where ISIS but at the present moment that's not my main point.

What has me exercised is the President saying there will be no boots on the ground in Iraq (though Special Forces are probably calling in airstrikes) only to deploy Marines the next day. He had to know they were going in. Why would he lie to us?

I think it's safe to say where ISIS is concerned nobody credible is going to challenge him. Lying serves no purpose except to undermine what is otherwise a significant opportunity to be a leader.

[Eleanors38]

1. I share the same perplexity; calling them "advisors"

rings of a bad joke I heard several decades ago about another twilight generation-long war.

[morningfog]

2. Yep. No credibility when they lie to us.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Why lie when the truth would be greeted with applause?

That's the part I can't wrap my head around.

[unblock]

4. is there perhaps some distinction made based on law? war powers act?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. I'm not going to pretend to know the finer points of the law but I doubt any law

requires lying.

Even the security of the troops going in can't be used as an excuse because the DoD announced the mission.

[bigtree]

5. administration statement: Yazidis in better condition than we believed . . .

. . . they mean, better condition than they TOLD us.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025380866

[TwilightGardener]

7. "Boots on the ground" means combat troops, not advisers and Marines who do

evacuations. Yes, they have weapons, that doesn't mean they're there for the purpose of engaging the enemy and taking territory, which is what combat troops do. I'm not sure why this confuses people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. I honestly don't buy that argument.

"boots on the ground" is not a legal term, it's a euphemism for ground based military assets.

We couldn't send "advisors" and Marines in to a country under any other circumstances without it being considered an act of war by whomever is being opposed.

Maybe the mission isn't to directly engage in combat but they're still boots and they're still on the ground and if something goes wrong there will be hell to pay with the American people.

[TwilightGardener]

9. There's a big difference between a limited mission of getting civilians off a mountain

and orders to capture Mosul or Baghdad. There's no way to do what we're doing without some ground personnel, so if you're saying we should do nothing, that's fine. I don't agree.

[msanthrope]

10. We have USAID on the ground. Someone's gotta protect them. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. The President can do what he needs to do.

I was vehemently opposed to action in Syria. I would not support hostilities against ISIS but neither would I protest or complain.

Just be forthright with us. No BS euphemisms. Just simple honesty. I don't think that is an unreasonable request and it would be a healthy precedent.