With last week’s terrorist attack in Paris, France still dominating the news today, we wanted to take a closer look at the statements of Colorado’s foremost member of Congress on matters of foreign policy, Rep. Mike Coffman, and figure out what his position on how best to confront the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, you know, really is. Over the weekend, Coffman made it clear that he blames the Obama administration in some measure for the Paris attacks:
“This is what the world looks like without American leadership.” – @RepMikeCoffman on @FoxNews. #ParisAttacks #ISIS
— Steffan Tubbs (@TubbsKOA) November 14, 2015
Looking back at Coffman’s public statements as the civil war in Syria slowly evolved into a multinational war against ISIS, though, it’s a lot harder to understand exactly what Coffman means in terms of the United States failing to show “leadership.” In fact, President Barack Obama has apparently tried to do just that on numerous occasions, but Coffman’s response has consistently been to oppose Obama’s actions–even at the risk of contradicting himself. Back in 2013, Coffman was interviewed by the Denver Post’s Tim Hoover on the subject of intervening militarily in Syria:
On this week’s edition of The Roundup, editorial writer Tim Hoover interviews U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora. Coffman explains why he has so far opposed military intervention in Syria, calling the conflict an “intractable” and “sectarian” civil war…
In January of 2014, as ISIS began to loom larger than the pariah Syrian government as a threat, Coffman told local radio host Dan Caplis he would not support anything beyond advisors to combat either:
Certainly an advisory role, but certainly not anything beyond that. And that’s if requested. I think we have to be very careful once out about reentering that particular conflict. I would say, in terms of regular troops on the ground, absolutely not.
Then in June of 2014, Coffman again urged President Obama not to send even advisors to assist the Iraqi Army fighting against ISIS:
Today, U.S. Representative Mike Coffman sent a letter to President Barack Obama requesting that he suspend sending any U.S. military personnel to assist the Iraqi Army until the U.S. is successful in putting pressure on the Iraqi government to establish a process of political reconciliation with the disaffected Sunni Arab and Kurdish minority populations in Iraq. Last week, President Obama put forward a plan to send up to 300 U.S. military advisors to assist the Iraqi army and to assess the situation on the ground with the Iraqi army and their ability to fight Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) led opposition forces. Coffman is a Marine Corps combat veteran and is the only member of Congress to have served in both Iraq Wars.
“The only feasible solution is a political reconciliation. Any further U.S. military assistance must be strictly preconditioned on a fundamental change in the Iraqi government, which will send a clear message to both the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds that they will have a voice in the formation of a new government and their respective provinces will receive an equitable distribution of the oil wealth of the country,” wrote Coffman in his letter.
But by September of 2014, Coffman had turned hawkish once again, claiming without much elaboration that President Obama had done “too little” to “take the fight” to ISIS:
“President Bush did too much, getting us involved in a costly and unnecessary occupation, but President Obama has done too little to take the fight to those who seek to do us harm. [Pols emphasis] I agree with President Obama that a political solution is necessary to dismantle ISIS and know how hard that will be from my time in Western Iraq with the Marine Corps in 2005 and 2006. But we have ignored this threat for far too long. We cannot continue leading from behind.”
A day later, Coffman appeared to contradict himself once again in an interview with Bloomberg News:
“There has to be a political solution; there’s not a military solution alone for this,” Representative Mike Coffman, a Colorado Republican, said in an interview today with Bloomberg Television. He said he doesn’t support U.S. troops on the ground.
By February of this year, though, Coffman was changing his tune again. Are we the only ones who smell an “evolving” position that is consistent only insofar as it is inversely proportional to the Obama administration’s position?
Certainly, as an Iraq war veteran, I wouldn’t want to see U.S. forces on the ground as the maneuver ground element. I want I want to see indigenous forces on the ground, but we’re going to need special operators from time to time to take out high-value targets. We are going to need to give them air logistical and advisory support, and that is going to take some elements of boots on the ground. [Pols emphasis]
Bottom line: what we see from Coffman in his “evolution” on confronting ISIS is not a well thought-out process, but an opportunistic game meant to oppose whatever the Obama administration supports at any given time. There is no question that Coffman has opposed taking military action against ISIS in the past, even opposing reinforcing the Iraqi government with American advisors as you can plainly read above. If Obama announced today, for example, that he was sending more advisors to help the Iraqis fight ISIS, it’s easy to see Coffman going right back to complaining.
Because Coffman’s statements appears to only be consistent in that they oppose Obama. There’s nothing you can extract from Coffman’s own statements on this issue that even look coherent, let alone like “leadership.”
As much as any other angle, that should be the story whenever Coffman opens his mouth.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: itlduso
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Oltmann and Boebert Spread Misinformation on Trump Attack
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Oltmann and Boebert Spread Misinformation on Trump Attack
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Don't forget (and we never could because Coffman wouldn't let us) that Mike had a column in the Springs Gazette where he could tout his expertise every week:
He used the column as ammo against his political adversaries and to prove what a good Spreader of Democracy he was. Except he was allowed to spread a lot more than democracy as the column titles suggest:
As silly as it sounds, I really do think opposing everything Obama supports has really been the strategy. For Coffman and the whole Congress. It's moments like this when you can see just how horrible a strategy that is for the nation.
Or maybe Obama really is as bad as we've been saying. History will tell the tale.
Or that Obama is that good at exercising mind control over feebs like Coffman, so that they make themselves look silly. You certainly must know how that feels
Shut up, modster. You still haven't apologized for lying about us mocking a disabled kid. Nobody here did that. You need to apologize for using a lie as an excuse for manufacturing outrage out of thin air, not for maybe offending me, as if I could possibly be offended by a piss ant like you. Apologize for what you actually did or get lost.
Not silly at all. They announced just that plan prior to Obama's first inauguration. It explains why whenever Obama has put forth policy straight out of conservative think tanks, such as but not limited to Romneycare, Republicans suddenly consider it to be pure evil. It explains why they withdraw their own legisaltive proposals if Obama and too many Dems go for it.
Now they have lost all control and the poor dears are scared to the point where the biggest fear of the party elite is not that Trump or Carson will win the nomination and HRC will surely beat them but that one of them will win the nomination and HRC will "slip on a banana peel" and lose leaving us with a frighteningly incompetent clown as our President, Commander in Chief and leader of the free world.
Had it been at all possible to get a more moderate candidate though primaries they probably could have looked forward to defeating HRC with her high negatives. Not many, even among her supporters love her to pieces.
It's too late for them to engineer a win for the only true moderate, Kasich, to replace moderate only by 21st century GOP wacked out standards,Jeb! (remember when he fought tooth and nail against a grieving husband to force him to keep his brain dead wife on life support?) and Romney is refusing to attempt a ride to the rescue. Kasich would actually have had a very good chance as an acceptable alternative with moderate to somewhat left leaning indies who dislike HRC. But they've made it impossible for any such candidate to get their nomination.
Meanwhile, Dems have managed keep alive the option of centrist nominees for the general, with even most liberals realizing it's a whole lot better to have a centrist to slightly center left Dem in the WH or Senate than a Republican and those are the realistic choices. Sorry Bernie lovers. That's the way it is at this point in time.
Bet the R leadership never imagined it would come to this back in post election 2008 when they devised their just say no and pander like crazy to the crazies plan.
Makes perfect sense.
Obama bad.
Coffman's government pay checks good.