Is The U.S. At War With ISIS Or Just Counterterrorism Operations?

The administration that can’t shoot straight now says it’s a war

(Fox News) The White House and Pentagon acknowledged Friday that the U.S. “is at war” with the Islamic State — contradicting Secretary of State John Kerry and others who a day earlier refused to use that term, prompting criticism from lawmakers that the administration was downplaying the conflict.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby used almost identical language when pressed by reporters Friday whether or not the expanded military operation against the terrorist group is in fact a war.

“In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest said.

Kirby said “this is not the Iraq War” from a decade ago, “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.”

The comments are a sharp turnaround from how Kerry described the military operation on Thursday. In interviews with CNN and CBS News, Kerry described it as a “very significant” and “major counterterrorism operation.” He told CBS News that “war is the wrong terminology.”

His spokeswoman, Marie Harf, also said she would not “refer to our efforts” as part of the “war on terrorism.”

Earnest said Thursday that it wasn’t a war, contradicting himself Friday. Susan Rice, US National Security Advisor, says it’s not a war, but long term counterterrorism operations. Obama never said we were at war during his prime time campaign ISIS speech. Which is it, war or counterterrorism? Good questions. Another one is why is an administration that was truly amazing during the last two presidential campaigns so horrible at messaging while in office? Noah Rothman might have the answer

If you thought the threat posed by the Islamic State was a national security matter, as most of the nation does, you would be incorrect. It is, in fact, a domestic political matter. That is clearly how the White House views it. There is no other way to explain their inane vacillation and incomprehensibly fluid position on what the response to the threat posed by ISIS should be.

At the end of the day, the best thing for the administration will be too competently go after ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups. Let the military and paramilitary forces loose. Don’t micromanage. Americans are concerned about the threat. Lead. Won’t happen.

What time do we get the Tweet about Obama being on the golf course?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Is The U.S. At War With ISIS Or Just Counterterrorism Operations?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Of course it’s about domestic politics. ISIS is much less a threat to the US than the Ebola outbreak. ISIS released two gruesome videotapes of beheadings to goad the US into re-declaring war on Islam. Americans are now terrified. Mission Accomplished! The media and the President went along – Dems trying to retain their seats in November will suddenly be very tough on ISIS.

  2. The problem, Jeff, is that ISIS is a threat, as is Islamic terrorism. All they have to do is get it right once. The American people are rightly concerned. You might be sticking your head in the sand, probably to protect Obama and your leftist notions.

    It would have been great if the threats from Germany (twice), Japan, NY Korea and China (1950’s), the Soviet Union in the 40’s, Iran in the late 1970’s, etc had been paid attention to before they became a threat, right?

  3. Conservative Beaner says:


    Carter ignored the Ayatollah and we got the Iran Hostage Crisis.

    Clinton didn’t think Bin Laden was a threat and it got us 9/11.

    Obama ignores Iran’s desire for a nuclear weapon and gives them more time for negotiations. It gives Iran more time to set up more centrifuges before any of the “harsh” sanctions will set in probably giving time to finish their main objective of producing a couple of nuclear devices.

    Obama declares the war on terror over and we get Benghazi, Boston bombing, young girls kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam, and of course two Americans having their throats slit. There is more but it would be a waste of time trying to open your narrow mind.

  4. Jeffery says:


    I understand that you are afraid and that bombing Syria will make you feel safer for a while. Conservatives are motivated by fear. But it’s very unlikely that ISIS will show up and slit your throat.

    In 1953, President Eisenhower, the CIA and England overthrew Muhammad Mosadegh, the elected Prime Minister of Iran, who had instituted liberal reforms in that nation, but also nationalized their oil industry. After, we propped up the Shah of Iran for decades including Savak, his brutal national police. This is what caused the rise of the Iranian radicals, not President Carter.

    President Reagan armed the Afghan resistance against Russia. One of these resistance groups became the Taliban.

    bin laden and al Qaeda attacked in 2001, long after President Clinton left office. It’s like saying President Bush was remiss for not taking out Abbas in Syria.

    We mistakenly thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat and we invaded Iraq, killed Saddam and installed Maliki which directly led to the formation of ISIS.

    The Iranian nuclear research program was supported heartily by the US in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Said the Shah of Iran in 1974, “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn … We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants.” The US has helped and continues to support the Israeli stockpile of hundreds of nuclear warheads.

    Everything the US does in the middle east is counterproductive. Is Afghanistan better off now? Is Iraq? We meddle in the internal workings of these nations to satisfy our own short term national needs or to support US politicians’ domestic agendas. And to make sure they sell us oil. And by the way, why did God put all our oil under their sand???

  5. Jeffery says:


    Protecting Obama? You’re daft. He is wrong, wrong, wrong. He is being bullied by the media, the voters and the likes of John McCain, and he’s taking the easy way out. ISIS wants us to legitimize them by going to war. As long as we keep meddling in the affairs of others, there will be an endless supply of these horrid extremists.

    By all means, kill every, single member of ISIS. They deserve it. But then what?

    You compare ISIS to Germany, Japan, China and the USSR. Are you being serious? Would you have invaded Germany, Japan, China, N. Korea, Iran and/or the USSR pre-emptively?

  6. John says:

    Only Congress can declare war and if it firs it will also hive the POTUS way more additional powers over the press and the economy

  7. jl says:

    J-“Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked in 2001, long after Clinton left office.” Sorry, Al Qaeda was behind USS Cole attack in 2000 under Clinton.

  8. Conservative Beaner says:


    We should excuse Clinton and Carter because Reagan and Eisenhower screwed up, two wrongs don’t make a right Jeff.

    Clinton as jl points out, did next to nothing when Bin Laden bombed the USS Cole. Also Clinton did nothing when terrorists bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Nigeria, let’s not forget Khobar Towers as well. When you do nothing the terrorists assume they can get away with anything including 9/11 and it wouldn’t matter who was in office.

    What Clinton did give us was the intervention in the Bosnia/Serbia Conflict to protect “Muslims”, what did that get us Jeff.

    You compare ISIS to Germany, Japan, China and the USSR. Are you being serious? Would you have invaded Germany, Japan, China, N. Korea, Iran and/or the USSR pre-emptively?

    Well Nazi Germany killed the Jews and ISIS wants to kill the Jews, Christians and moderate Muslim alike. Yeah I think they are like Nazi Germany and they are converting many Sunnis and radical Muslims to join them everyday. I would rather take them out when are 30,000 strong instead of 3,000,000 strong.

    FDR was siding with Great Britain before we entered the war because he recognized the threat. FDR was already placing sanctions on Japan because of the their invasion of China, that forced them to go to war with the US.
    Should we have placed sanctions Jeff?

    Check your history Jeff, China and North Korea invaded South Korea. Maybe if Truman would have let MacArthur take out the Communists we would not have to worry about Taiwan, Japan, Philippine and Vietnamese sovereignty right now.

    As for the USSR the great racist Democrat Woodrow Wilson sent the American
    Expeditionary Force Siberia (AEF Siberia)to Russia to intervene in the Russian Civil War in Vladivostok and Arkhangelsk (Archangel).

    This lasted for two years after WWI and it is no wonder the Communists had a distrust of the West for decades.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7933 access attempts in the last 7 days.