Is Obama Leading the World toward Star Wars or Blackhawk Down?

British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled Parliament for today's debate on whether to approve airstrike support in Iraq under the Obama-led anti-ISIS coalition. Cameron, who deliberately left the question of Syria out of the resolution, said beforehand that in such key matters, consensus is important so that Britain is united behind the final decision. Well, Cameron got his consensus in spades -- the vote was 524 to 23 for taking airstrike action as part of the Iraq coalition. Cameron made a passionate plea for action in graphic terms - noting that the militants had beheaded their victims, gouged out eyes and carried out crucifixions to promote goals "from the Dark Ages." Cameron told Parliament : "There isn't a 'walk on by' option. There isn't an option of just hoping this will go away." But, Cameron also explained that the current anti-ISIS campaign will require "patience and persistence," not "shock and awe" - a reference to the phrase associated with the invasion of Iraq. ~~~~~ Belgium and Denmark joined Britain on Friday in becoming members the US-led coalition of nations that are launching airstrikes on ISIS in Iraq, with both countries committing warplanes to the battle against the extremist ISIS jihadists. Belgian overwhelmingly approved, voting 114 to 2 to take part, despite widespread concerns that more terrorism may follow in their homeland as a result. Denmark pledged seven F-16 fighter jets. Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said "everyone should contribute" in announcing that her government would send four operational planes and three reserve jets along with 250 pilots and support staff for 12 months. Lawmakers in Denmark must also approve, but that is considered a formality. Britain is expected to deploy Tornado GR4 aircraft,some of which are in Cyprus, within striking distance of northern Iraq. Tornadoes loaded with Brimstone missiles, said British Parliament member Ben Goodlad, have a particular ability to hit convoys and fleeing targets. ~~~~~ The Brirish Parliament, and Europe in general, have agreed to participate in the coalition in Iraq because the Iraqi government has asked for such help, making intervention lawful under international law for them. No European nation has yet agreed to join the US and some Arab states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan) in strikes in Syria, which is not part of the coalition and has not asked for help. Last year, the British Parliament rejected the idea of intervening in Syria to stop al-Assad from using chemical weapons. After today's vote, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon indicated that the government might later ask Parliament for support for Syrian airstrikes. That would be a divisive debate in Britain. Last year, Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party, voted against airstrikes in Syria and said more work needs to be done. "The point I have been making in the last few days is, in my view, when we are not talking about being invited in by a democratic state it would be better - I put it no higher than that - it would be better to seek a UN Security Council resolution," he was quoted as saying. ~~~~~ British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon raised the critical point being debated in Europe. "ISIL is based in Syria. That's where its headquarters are, that's where its resources, its people are. To deal with ISIL you do have to deal and defeat them in both Iraq and in Syria," he told BBC. "We are taking this in a calm, measured way, step-by-step, but it is clear to us that obviously ISIL, in the end, has to be tackled on a broader front." But, Labour leader Ed Miliband, before the Parliament vote today to approve military intervention in Iraq, ruled out British ground troops being committed, saying the UK must not repeat the mistakes of the past. So, to the "Syria question" we must add the "ground troop" question. While the question of entering Syria is uniformly seen as being tied to UN Security Council approval in Europe, the question of ground troop intervention - in Iraq - is still an open issue, much like the US, where entering Syrian airspace is an agreed tactic, but the use of US ground troops is being hotly debated. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said at a news conference today : " No one is under any illusion - any illusions - that airstrikes alone will destroy ISIS." Sitting beside Hagel, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that neither an air assault nor a military campaign will truly win the war against the group, and that troops must be trained to fight ISIS on the ground while the US and other nations take a broader approach towards eradicating the extremists. The US Central Command, Dempsey said, is actively working with "Iraqi military to ensure that what occurs on the ground is their campaign, not our campaign, and the Pentagon continues to talk with leadership in neighboring Turkey “about ways to contribute to the coalition. Yes, there has to be a ground component to the campaign against ISIL," Dempsey said later during the briefing, adding that earlier figures per group of 5,000 prospective US-trained forces may be but a fraction of what is required. Instead, he said, upwards of 15,000 combatants may need to be trained to take on the ever growing Islamic State.“ Hagel added, "This will not be an easy or brief effort. We are at the beginning of the administration’s effort to degrade and destroy the Islamic State." ~~~~~ Dear readers, it seems that which countries' planes fly over what countries is pretty well settled for now. But whose boots, if any, are or will be on what ground is a messy kettle of questions and commentary. Several things are clear. America's military and their Defense Secretary believe that Obama's insistence that no US ground troops will be used is wrong as a strategy. General Dempsey has done everything but carry a protest sign over the issue. And Chuck Hagel would be right beside him. The Obama mantra of "this is their ground war" has made the US military, with Saudi Arabia's help, turn to the tactic of training troops -- Iraqis and moderate Syrian rebels. There is also an ongoing shadowy flow of US Special Operations personnel toward Iraq. And we know that both Arab and European coalition partners are reluctant ground warriors. So, we are in the position, as one European political commentator said today, of being in a "war" that President Obama is making up as he goes along. It is costly, inefficient and ultimately impossible to win. Who will hold Obama's feet to the fire of war? No one he would listen to, and that is the core of the problem -- Barack Obama listens to no one. And so he has dragged the world into the vortex of an undefined, unwinnable Star War, where nobody's boots ever touch ground except when an aircraft is shot down. And that will happen eventually. And whose boots will be on the ground to meet him? ISIS boots. Blackhawk Down II is in the making.