California Rep. Tom McClintock is ripping President Obama over reports he will personally oversee the bombing of ISIS targets in Syria and believes the bipartisan vote to arm and train Syrian rebels for the fight is a “big mistake.”
The U.S. has been conducting air strikes against ISIS in Iraq for weeks. However. according to The Wall Street Journal, Obama is planning to be directly involved in plotting air strikes across the border in Syria.
“The U.S. military campaign against Islamist militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Barack Obama to exert a high degree of personal control, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for strikes in Syrian territory,” reported the Journal.
“Defense officials said the strikes in Syria are more likely to look like a targeted counter-terrorism campaign than a classic military campaign, in which a combatant commander picks targets within the parameters set by the commander in chief,” it stated.
Rep. McClintock says our own history proves this is a terrible idea, citing the actions of President Lyndon Johnson a half-century ago.
“That’s exactly what LBJ did in Vietnam and it was disastrous,” said McClintock, who believes that approach will work no better with Obama calling the shots.
“This president apparently feels qualified to make every judgment for the military commanders in the field. That’s not going to end well,” he said.
In contrast, McClintock says Winston Churchill provides the example of how a leader should act in times of war.
“(Churchill) was a brilliant mind. The guy invented the modern tank. He would always argue and throw up ideas to his military commanders. As opinionated and brilliant as he was, never once during World War II did he ever override a judgment of a commander in the field,” said McClintock.
Another key aspect of Obama’s plan to defeat ISIS is to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels. On Wednesday, the GOP-led House of Representatives voted 273-156 to approve the plan. The majority of the bipartisan support came from Republicans, but they didn’t get any help from McClintock.
“I voted no. I think that this is a big mistake. I think it runs a great risk of backfiring on us. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) that the administration plans to arm is a marriage of convenience among a lot of Islamist factions that have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State,” said McClintock.
“In fact, the single purpose of the Free Syrian Army is not to destroy the Islamic State. It’s to destroy the Syrian government that is right now actively fighting against the Islamic State,” he said.
As a result, McClintock fears this plan will only end up putting American weapons in the hands of some of the world’s worst actors.
“The equipment we’re providing to the FSA could easily be turned against the Syrian government, which would weaken regional opposition to the Islamic State or it could end up being turned over to the Islamic State . We just watched that happen,” said McClintock, pointing to ISIS capturing massive amounts of weapons the U.S. gave to Iraqi security forces.
The congressman says history not only discourages presidents from micromanaging air strikes but from forging alliances with disreputable Muslim groups in the Middle East.
“We need to be clear that alliances among Islamist Middle East factions is at best precarious, can shift overnight, and quite often we end up discovering that our allies are our enemies,” said McClintock.
The Obama administration says no American troops will be used in a ground combat role but Secretary of State John Kerry also says no other nation has been asked or volunteered to provide those forces. McClintock says this approach risks disaster because there’s only one way to fight a war.
“The president is unwilling to commit ground troops. I believe the country is unwilling to commit ground troops. That’s probably wise right now. If you’re not prepared to back our troops with the full and complete resources of our country (and) back our troops with the full might and fury of the nation, you shouldn’t go in in the first place,” said McClintock.
The current reality in the region offers no good guys. The radical Sunnis in ISIS are currently fighting to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. They are also hated and opposed by Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism that is also in hot pursuit of nuclear weapons.
So which side poses the greater threat to the U.S.?
“At the moment, the Islamic State is a great threat for two reasons. Contrary to what the president told us, it is Islamic. It is fundamentally Islamic and it has all of the elements of a state. It’s that combination of factors that make it so dangerous. They have declared their intention very clearly to insert a fifth column into the United States and wage jihad against Americans on American soil,” said McClintock, who believes we’re rolling the dice on supposedly moderate rebels while much greater vulnerabilities are ignored.
“Here we are, sitting fat, dumb and happy with a wide open southern border, a barely enforced northern border and unenforced visa laws. If there is a terrorist attack on American soil through our porous southern border, I think this administration is going to have a lot of explaining to do,” he said.
McClintock says there is a right way to take the fight to ISIS. He listed four components, including a serious approach to border security.
“We have got to secure the border. That is where the Islamic State is directly threatening the United States to wage jihad on American soil,” he said.
When it comes to air strikes, McClintock applauds the campaign that’s already underway but believes it needs to be ramped up to send ISIS a clear message.
“I think it’s appropriate to order immediate and significant and focused retaliatory strikes against the Islamic State in response to specific acts that it commits against American interests. That’s basically what Ronald Reagan did in Libya and it worked,” said McClintock, who says Washington also needs to take serious action on two fiscal issues.
The world is rapidly becoming much more dangerous and unstable and our military budget’s got to be adjusted to meet that growing danger. And we’ve got to recognize that the precarious fiscal condition of our government has now become a matter of vital national security. Before you can provide for the common defense, you’ve got to be able to pay for it,” he said.
Finally, the congressman says the U.S. must foster a much closer relationship with the one partner in the region we can rely upon in all seasons.
“We do have one reliable, time-tested and true ally in the Middle East. It’s Israel. We should make sure they have all the equipment and supplies and assistance that they need and that they have the unqualified support of the United States government when they have to take action for their own security, as they recently did in Gaza,” said McClintock.