Counterterrorism

White House Extremism Summit More Symbolism Than Substance, Experts Say By Susan Crabtree February 20, 2015 | Washington Examiner President Obama’s closing remarks at the Countering Violent Extremism Summit Thursday perfectly captured his awkward balancing act when it comes to talking about Islamic terrorist groups and his policies aimed at stopping their deadly goals. While Obama studiously avoided words like “Islamic” and “Muslim,” he made no bones about the need to confront the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, mentioning the terrorist group nine times. In the end, the summit was more symbolism than substance, say foreign policy experts across the political spectrum. “The Obama administration is demonstrating some much-needed international initiative by hosting this summit,” said John Dana Stuster, a policy analyst for the National… Read More ›

Talking through Obama’s AUMF Proposal Tobias T. Gibson February 20, 2015 | The Hill Last week, the Obama administration sent Congress a draft proposal for a new Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) specifically targeted at the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Predictably, the reaction was swift. Equally predictably, the feelings toward the proposal were largely divided along partisan lines. There is one commonality, however — feelings that the draft AUMF is not perfect. Responses were swift by those outside of government, as well. My colleagues at National Security Network (NSN) offered ”the good, the bad and the ugly” of the proposed AUMF. Among the “good,” seconding Pelosi, is the end to the 2002 Iraq AUMF. There are more two contested “good” outcomes stemming from the… Read More ›

Jeb Bush Lays out Limited Foreign Policy Vision February 20, 2015 On Wednesday, Jeb Bush laid out the foreign policy framework for his anticipated presidential campaign in a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Bush’s remarks covered a broad range of subjects, and while he identified many of the pressing international challenges facing the United States, his remarks lacked clarity or solutions. As the presidential race moves forward, the national security debate will require more depth of understanding on issues including resolving Iran’s nuclear program, addressing the threat from the Islamic State, the fighting in Ukraine, normalizing relations with Cuba, and ongoing Pentagon spending debates, and we will look for candidates that back up emerging positions with effective policies. Bush doesn’t seem to… Read More ›

NSN report details new strategy to fight ISIL Philip Ewing February 18, 2015 | Politico Pro (subscription based) The Obama administration should scale back its ambitions to train Syrian fighters to take on the Islamic State, a new report urges, and instead focus on containing the terrorists. The left-leaning National Security Network says President Barack Obama’s strategy has shown it can “halt and degrade” the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but “is unlikely to achieve its stated goal of defeating the organization.” “For defeat of the Islamic State to be realistically achievable, credible partner ground forces must exist that can retake significant territory and govern the reclaimed areas,” says the report, by researchers Dana Stuster and Bill French. “At present, these conditions do not exist,… Read More ›

6 Key Takeaways on Confronting the Islamic State February 18, 2015 Today, the Obama Administration is convening a summit on countering violent extremism. Representatives from more than 60 countries are meeting to discuss ways to prevent radicalization and terrorism. The summit illustrates that fighting terrorist groups like the Islamic State is about more than military strategy in Iraq and Syria. As Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.) notes in NSN’s new report, Confronting the Islamic State: An Assessment of U.S. Strategic Options, “the choices facing policymakers are characterized by problems far more complex than fine-tuning a military strategy and the question of boots or no boots on the ground. Counter-ideology, diplomacy, economics, and politics at home and abroad all play a role.”  Nonetheless, most current strategic… Read More ›

Constitution Check: Is the President actually giving up some of his war powers? By Lyle Denniston February 17, 2015 | Yahoo News President Obama has won significant praise, from scholars, pundits and some politicians, for his action last week in recommending limits on a new move to wage military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He proposed a three-year time limit on that authority, and a lack of permission for extensive use of U.S. ground troops against ISIL. He also asked Congress explicitly to repeal a 2002 resolution that had authorized the U.S. military invasion of Iraq. As the President conceded, however, he explicitly declined to ask for repeal of the 9/11 authorization – the warmaking power that Congress had authorized against the… Read More ›

Confronting the Islamic State: An Assessment of U.S. Strategic Options Policy Report by J. Dana Stuster and Bill French Foreword by Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.) February 2015 The National Security Network (NSN) is pleased to release a new policy report,Confronting the Islamic State: An Assessment of U.S. Strategic Options. The report, which features a foreword by NSN Senior Advisor Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), reframes the debate on U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria. NSN Policy Analysts Dana Stuster and Bill French analyze the full field of strategies to counter the Islamic State proposed by experts and outline a new approach to combat it. To read the full report, click here. Confronting the Islamic State categorizes the various strategic proposals into four camps: those… Read More ›

Okaying an AUMF against ISIL may prove impossible, but that won’t stop U.S. military action By Meteor Blades February 13, 2015 | Daily Kos As worded, President Obama’s proposed authorization to use military force against the murderous extremists of ISIL would guarantee more years of perpetual war. It would permit attacks against a wide range of targets. It would set no effective curb over the use of combat troops. It would not repeal the broad 2001 “war on terror” AUMF that has been used to take military action pretty much anywhere the Bush and Obama administrations have chosen. Congress ought to reject the ISIL AUMF in its current form and repeal not just the 2002 Iraq AUMF as Obama’s proposal would do, but the 2001 AUMF… Read More ›

February 12, 2015 | POTUS, The Morning Briefing with Tim Farley   To see the original posting, click here. Read More ›

Obama’s ISIL AUMF: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly This morning, the White House sent Congress the text of its proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State. The proposed legislation includes strengths and weaknesses that deserve careful analysis and debate. Overall, the proposal would set important, if imperfect, limits on the war against the Islamic State, including: a three-year sunset clause, a careful definition of associated forces, and the repeal of the 2002 AUMF. But the proposal also includes a number of significant problems, including: a faux prohibition on large-scale ground combat operations that is effectively meaningless because of extremely poor wording, a lack of geographic limits, the potential application to ill-defined future “successors” of the Islamic State, and… Read More ›