Column: Does The War Machine Have Brakes?

WASHINGTON — Checks and balances. Remember those? We’re all taught from an early age that the federal government is built on the principle that its three branches will keep the others in check. It’s like an automobile. A luxury speedster will become mere twisted metal without top-quality brakes. Whether the American war machine is a high-end speedster or a Hemi-powered pickup truck is another debate for another column. But watching the march to a renewed war in a familiar front (Iraq), and the beginning of a new war in a new front (Syria), it’s easy to wonder whether Uncle Sam’s war machine has faulty brakes or simply was built without any. Throughout the summer, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama was merely cruising around in the red, white and blue machine. He used tough-but-measured rhetoric when describing the Islamic State — and what he wanted Iraqi leaders to do before he would help them defeat the violent Sunni group militarily. Obama wasn’t driving very fast. No brakes required. Then the Islamic State beheaded two American journalists, and Obama’s Pentagon chiefs used terms such as “apocalyptic” in describing the Islamic State’s worldview and goals. Suddenly, Obama was behind the wheel of the world’s most powerful war machine doing 90 mph in the fast lane — downhill. More airstrikes. More US troops to Iraq to “train and advise” local forces. It was a dizzying few weeks. Analysts and pundits — too numerous to list here — called on Congress to apply the brakes, to at least pull off at the next rest stop and have a debate about formally authorizing the new conflict. But politics intervened. Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers resisted applying the brakes, opting against making their up-for-re-election members cast a vote that might hurt them at the polls on Nov. 4. Congress left town for seven weeks. The brake went unapplied. Just before House and Senate members left, many congressional Republicans shifted from subtle to overt calls for US ground forces in Iraq. This shift happened over the course of a few days — and followed poll after poll showing the American people were open to doing more than bombing Islamic State targets from the sky. Republicans are the opposition party. They control the House, and hold enough Senate seats to complicate efforts to reach the crucial 60-vote threshold on a use-of-force authorization. That means the mere design of the US system places an elephant’s foot on the war machine’s brake. But with the opposition party — backed by an American public that polls indicate are resigned to the return of US ground combat troops to Iraq — now forcefully pushing for more, it seems the brake line has been severed. What happened Wednesday after reports the Islamic State had captured Kobani, a Syrian town on the Turkish border the Pentagon says is of little strategic import? The pressure on Obama to go faster only intensified. “Evidence is mounting that an ‘Iraq-first’ approach focused on airstrikes isn’t degrading ISIL. From Kobani to Baghdad they are using their Syrian sanctuary to make gains,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., said Wednesday in a statement. “The president needs to adopt a broader strategy if we are to protect our interests,” said the retiring hawk, who wants Obama to leave a closed-door meeting with US combatant commanders “willing to put new options on the table, rather than continuing to rule them out.” Congressional leaders seem to want to put off any brake-applying (read: a debate and vote on the conflict) until January. That’s a lot of time for the war machine to speed toward the Middle East’s slippery slope. Can Obama keep the American machine from careening off it even as lawmakers, generals, and an increasingly anti-Islamic State public implore him to feel the need for ever-more speed?

Soruce:www.defensenews.com