- Oct 20, 2013
- 56,047
- 17,887
- 2,250
Interesting questions were asked on Thursday in the House Armed Services Committee Hearing. I must say I found the questions a lot more interesting than the answers (if you could even call them that)
Supplying the answers for the short latter part of the hearing (which is all I saw) were Defense Sect. Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), asked (regarding the proposed $5.6 Billion allocation), what is the approach (AKA "strategy") regarding ISIS ? Frankly, despite a somewhat wordy response from Hagel, it was so wishy-washy that I couldn't really even tell you what he said. Maybe it can be summed up as still being the same as Obama's words a couple of moths ago >("We don't have a strategy.") Dempsey said that we have disrupted ISIS' financial support. I didn't catch any definition there of how much disruption that is, and to what effect it has had. Dempsey also said we have "remarkable coalition."
Bridenstine also mentioned that in the Kosovo war (which was fought entirely from the air), we had an average of 86 airstrikes/day, whereas now against ISIS, we have only 7/day. Dempsey answered that ISIS is not a country and their forces are not as targetable as would be with a country. They move around a lot, and we are concerned with limiting civilian casualties.
The highlight of the hearing for me, came from a question by Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL) who asked about the Status of Force Agreement. Nugent, who has 3 sons who fought to secure the Iraq govt prior to 2011, only to see their efforts be erased with the 2011 withdrawl, asked if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a Status of Force agreement which gives us an ability to stay in Iraq indefinitely. He mentioned how the 2011 withdrawl and its aftermath shows us a reason to have an enduring presence.
Hagel answered this by saying > "What we have now is adequate." I disagree. I'm with Nugent. If we're going to have agreements regarding our forces in Iraq, they need to be able to allow us to prevent future and ongoing invasions by ISIS and whatever Muslim marauders are in style at the time. This has been going on for 1400 years. Don't look for it to be ending any time soon.
Regarding this, I want to say that we need to have a more realistic approach to when and where our military may be. I'm not sure if I am OK with the idea of SFAs at all. All they do is limit out ability to defend ourselves. Hagel mentioned that Iraq is a sovereign country, and we should only be able to enter there at Iraq's invitation. "Invitation" ? What is this ? A wedding ?
EARTH TO CHUCK HAGEL: When the national security of the USA is having to be defended, we must make our own invitations. We must go ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, period. When US military forces entered Tarawa, the Marianas, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, in 1945, were we invited by the Japs ? When Eisenhower's guys entered Italy and France (then under German control), were they invited ?
Another notable speaker was Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) who said that he thought that the bad situation that ISIS has grown into, is at least a partial result of Obama's "indecisiveness". I agree.
Supplying the answers for the short latter part of the hearing (which is all I saw) were Defense Sect. Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), asked (regarding the proposed $5.6 Billion allocation), what is the approach (AKA "strategy") regarding ISIS ? Frankly, despite a somewhat wordy response from Hagel, it was so wishy-washy that I couldn't really even tell you what he said. Maybe it can be summed up as still being the same as Obama's words a couple of moths ago >("We don't have a strategy.") Dempsey said that we have disrupted ISIS' financial support. I didn't catch any definition there of how much disruption that is, and to what effect it has had. Dempsey also said we have "remarkable coalition."
Bridenstine also mentioned that in the Kosovo war (which was fought entirely from the air), we had an average of 86 airstrikes/day, whereas now against ISIS, we have only 7/day. Dempsey answered that ISIS is not a country and their forces are not as targetable as would be with a country. They move around a lot, and we are concerned with limiting civilian casualties.
The highlight of the hearing for me, came from a question by Rep. Rich Nugent (R-FL) who asked about the Status of Force Agreement. Nugent, who has 3 sons who fought to secure the Iraq govt prior to 2011, only to see their efforts be erased with the 2011 withdrawl, asked if it wouldn't be a good idea to have a Status of Force agreement which gives us an ability to stay in Iraq indefinitely. He mentioned how the 2011 withdrawl and its aftermath shows us a reason to have an enduring presence.
Hagel answered this by saying > "What we have now is adequate." I disagree. I'm with Nugent. If we're going to have agreements regarding our forces in Iraq, they need to be able to allow us to prevent future and ongoing invasions by ISIS and whatever Muslim marauders are in style at the time. This has been going on for 1400 years. Don't look for it to be ending any time soon.
Regarding this, I want to say that we need to have a more realistic approach to when and where our military may be. I'm not sure if I am OK with the idea of SFAs at all. All they do is limit out ability to defend ourselves. Hagel mentioned that Iraq is a sovereign country, and we should only be able to enter there at Iraq's invitation. "Invitation" ? What is this ? A wedding ?
EARTH TO CHUCK HAGEL: When the national security of the USA is having to be defended, we must make our own invitations. We must go ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, period. When US military forces entered Tarawa, the Marianas, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, in 1945, were we invited by the Japs ? When Eisenhower's guys entered Italy and France (then under German control), were they invited ?
Another notable speaker was Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) who said that he thought that the bad situation that ISIS has grown into, is at least a partial result of Obama's "indecisiveness". I agree.
