Battle lines emerge in U.S. Congress over Obama's Islamic State war plan

"I never saw a war I did not like," said the Nobel Peace Prize Winner...

Guerrilla warfare hasn't "fronts" and exists in a variable sequence of attack and counter-attack.

Without a multi-national assurance of isolation and strangulation of ISIS leaders there's no need for "boots on the ground".

Fifteen years of being 'greeted as liberators' must be wearing thin and a Five Trillion tax bill for BushWars could have bought Americans a bridge and a school or two at home.

ISIS is a regional specific gangster operation. Fifteen years ago the Taliban was estimated at 20,000, recent reports put ISIS at an unknown. That's a mockery of a dozen nations total capability in risk and threat assessment.

Before Americans commit to another ground war 12,000 miles away, maybe the religiously based societies of the Middle East need to take the lead on eliminating ISIS command and control.

If they don't care, let ISIS bury some more women and children alive, that's the Islam, that's the Middle East they want? Some festering subterranean sewage pump of religiously justified hatred bursting forth every decade? Very civilized.

It's definitely a difficult question and should be debated rationally, however the massive divisions in the US congress gets me worried on how competent they would be in responding to a major catastrophe or political incident

" We want you to WIN against ISIS; you just cant use any GUNS "...said the Democrats.

What! No guns! I guess we can negotiate with them for peace.

ISIS is a regional specific gangster operation.

So now we are calling and referring to them as local hoodlum gangsters???!

Of course Bass! They call it workplace violence lately when a U.S. jihadist strikes. You know that.

The Democrats in Washington have had an interesting history of controlling Military Operations during War - right from The Oval Office.

The Generals and Admirals hate it, but it has proven successful at times.

Take for example "The Battle for Khe Sanh" during The Vietnam War; President Johnson set up a Situation Room in The Oval Office. He had current and up to date battle maps and he was controlling all of the Air Strikes right from The Oval Office. The battle between The U.S. Marines & The Vuet Cong raged for weeks and eth the help from the Air Strikes, it eventually was a success for The United States and along with The Marines, President Johnson was credited for winning that battle.

If The White House plans to repeat what is known to some as "The Johnson Strategy", then The White House should think about Liberating Raqqa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq from ISIS.

It would require intensive Air Strikes, Attack Helicopters, U.S. Special Forces, and 3 Battlions of U.S. Marines to go in a Liberate these towns from ISIS.

Liberation is the only way to draw a clear battlefront in this campaign.

The Democrats in Washington have had an interesting history of controlling Military Operations during War - right from The Oval Office.

That goes for both parties.

Take for example "The Battle for Khe Sanh" during The Vietnam War;

This war is very, very different from Vietnam.

If The White House plans to repeat what is known to some as "The Johnson Strategy", then The White House should think about Liberating Raqqa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq from ISIS.

1) What worked in Vietnam will not necessarily work in Iraq or Syria, different times, landscapes, people, religion, ideology and presidents, time, money etc. many, many things to factor in.

It would require intensive Air Strikes, Attack Helicopters, U.S. Special Forces, and 3 Battlions of U.S. Marines to go in a Liberate these towns from ISIS.

I agree!

2) Obama needs to listen and take his generals advice and stop procrastinating and stop acting as if he has an ounce of military experience. Not only is it ignorant, but insulting to listen to a community organizer trying to lecture a person with 30 years or more of military background and also, if Obama wants to fight this war, he needs to call the Islamists for what they are! Enough with the BS!

Take for example "The Battle for Khe Sanh" during The Vietnam War;

This war is very, very different from Vietnam.

Are you sure? There are a lot of parallels. The combatants appear to be able to blend in with the residents as needed like the Viet Cong could and the residents would be almost as hostile to an American presence as the South Vietnamese were to the Americans in Vietnam.

Are you sure? There are a lot of parallels. The combatants appear to be able to blend in with the residents as needed like the Viet Cong could and the residents would be almost as hostile to an American presence as the South Vietnamese were to the Americans in Vietnam.

There might be a few parallels, but overall our troops are better trained, far more than those days, better weaponry. The problem is, we don't have a president with a clear strategy plan, nor the willingness to define and call the enemy out for what it is, and doesn't have the will to or desire to fight the Islamic radicals. Stopping them and slowing them down is very different from wanting to destroy them.