White House: US at War w/ISIS, Kerry: Nope

john-kerry

Either Kerry continues his long gaffe parade or the White House decided it was a war a day after claiming it wasn’t a war.

Whichever of these it may be, the foreign policy of Obama Inc. is a completely dysfunctional mess.

When asked by ABC News on Thursday whether the U.S. is at war, Secretary of State John Kerry said no.

“No. Look, we’re engaged in a counterterrorism operation of a significant order,” Mr. Kerry said. “And counterterrorism operations can take a long time, they go on. I think ‘war’ is the wrong reference term with respect to that, but obviously it involves kinetic military action.”

Against those pesky man-caused disasters.

The administration’s language shifted on Friday. Spokesmen for the White House and Pentagon used nearly the same wording to describe American action in Iraq and Syria.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest:

“I think what you can conclude from this is the United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe.”

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby:

“This is not the Iraq war of 2002. But make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

So it’s a war or it’s like a war or it’s akin to a war and it’s not a war… but it’s a war.

  • Texas Patriot

    I’m glad we got that straightened out!

  • Simba Mizaati

    Considering that Congress alone has the authority to declare war, this shouldn’t be hard to define.

    • Pete

      There are already definitions out there. And they make sense regardless of what Congress has the temerity to do.

      You have fighting at least one government is involved and 1,000 or more people die.

      The Assad government, Iraq and the U.S are all governments. Check!
      We fight (kinetic actions) with ISIS. Check!
      Over 1,000 people have died. Almost true.

      Just the deaths involved between U.S. strikes and ISIS retaliation alone might come to a 1,000 deaths pretty soon.

      We have had some 167 strikes. If we averaged 6 dead per strike, we would meet the definition

      http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2014/09/mapping-us-air-strikes-in-iraq.html

      • Gee

        Israel kills 0.05 people per strike and that is considered disproportional. Interesting how the US can kill so many and the world is silent

        • Pete

          I am assuming checkpoints and vehicles have at least 2 or 3 people apiece.

          They could have more or less. Destroying a check point with 1 person and I have to wonder about the effectiveness of ground troops. Maybe that checkpoint can call up reserves bivouacked relatively closely or the land near it is flat and unforgiving for infiltration.

          It might be hard to figure out how many people are in a vehicle.

          My effort was a guestimate. It wanted to show that we have met “a” definition of war or will soon meet it.

          I just can’t see the U.S. military expending a 500 pound bomb on just 1 guy who is just a regular jihadi. Thus my estimate of multiple deaths per strike.

          Still considering the harm jiahidas do, I bomb per jihadi is steal a good deal.

  • Douglas J. Bender

    This will be the war to end all wars. Once it’s won, or as soon as it starts trending negative in the polls, henceforth all wars will be banned, to be replaced with “military kinetic action”.

  • Sara

    And the year is 1984.

  • Gee

    Herr(i) Kerry is so out of step with his boss that the State Department spokesperson is constantly correcting everything he says

    • Pete

      It is not all Kerry’s fault. Mary Harf and the other spokesperson plus countless other people at the State Department and the Administration are totally clueless.

  • edlancey

    Why didn’t someone ask him “Who tf do you think you are fooling by referring to IS as ISIL ? What does it achieve ?”

  • Ladydonnalands

    I think you just explode a huge bomb in their atmosphere causing an EMP,send in some Ebola patients and save our sons and daughters from being killed by the weapons that we the tax payers were forced to buy for those maniacs!

  • truebearing

    Clearly this is a not war-war. I’ve heard of those before. They can be very painful and last a long time. Thank goodness we have the smartest man who ever lived as our president, plus the man with the prettiest pink girl’s bike as our SOS (acronym pun intended).

  • Ivan

    True. Kerry’s an idiot, but there’s no presidential leadership, they are afraid of the word war but they want the American people to think we are at war, but they want to be able to deny we are at war to their ledt wing supporters, and they are parsing words with strange qualifiers. So Kerry is probably correct here.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    They could revive the term “war on terror” which was largely derided when Bush used the phrase, as it is metaphorical. One doesn’t wage a war on a tactic. I see that the NYT still uses the scare quotes in today’s article: “13 Years After 9/11, the ‘War on Terror’ Has a New Focus.” At least they have to guts to use the “I’ word in the article when they say it is a “fight against the various manifestations of Islamic extremism.” Didn’t they get the memo? It has nothing to do with Islam. Or so Obama says. By the way, how do you fight a manifestation?

    Thus don’t fight against a de facto nation (Islamic State) or a tactic (terrorism) or a movement (Islamist) or the revival of a religion (Islam) but an acronym, ISIL. And we can’t even agree on the acronym. But don’t call this fight a war even in the metaphorical sense. War is an evil word … opps, so is evil.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    WHAT IS OBAMA’S IDEA OF AN ISLAMIC STATE?

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for the mind boggling answer.

  • borzix1

    They do not intend to wage war on IS. The reason is simple. They need enough room for the aggressive Muslim misfits of Europe and America, so they just wait for IS terrorists to reduce the population of Iraq and Syria considerably. Just think. We are about to witness an unprecedented shrinking in the labour market in the 1st world. Online shopping will soon make millions of shop-assistants and shopkeepers redundant. Uber application on smartphones will soon put an end to many taxi drivers’ jobs. Couch surfing and airbnb will significantly cut back the profits of hotels worldwide, and the number of their employees, too. The only part of transportation infrastructure we still do not have is a network of superfast trains (like TGV and shinkanzen). But when those are built, most truck drivers and drivers of long-distance buses can start searching for new jobs. Working (at least 1-3 days a week) from home is a habit spreading among people working in downtown office blocks now. Employers encourage this to save overhead costs. When this becomes the norm, fewer people will use public transport or their own cars on a daily basis, and one car will be enough for families using two cars nowadays. Car manufacturers won’t be happy to see the number of their customers decreasing alongside with the number of their employees. The worst case scenario is that 80-120 million people currently employed in the USA and the EU will become unemployed in 5-10 years. That will cause social unrest and riots. Uneducated ruffians and people with (Muslim) immigrant background filled up with hated towards kaffirs (= infidels, non-Muslims) will be in the forefront when it comes to rioting, robbing, raping and looting, that’s foreseeable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    Considering the big picture, and the implications with respect to the economy of NATO allies if ISIS loses, the USA really is not in a position to go to war against ISIS at this time…at least not until the Russian influence there is extinguished. It’s a complex situation, but the root of the problem is natural gas and its cost to NATO allies. The USA is more likely to end up in a proxy war with Russia instead.

    Remember: ISIS loss—Russia win.