Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2014, 10:37:11 AM
-
How many wars and bombings has this Nobel Peace Prize winner been involved in?
Don’t Call It a War? Administration hit for refusing to use ‘w’ word for ISIS mission
Published September 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is refusing to describe the expanded military campaign against the Islamic State as a war -- despite plans to launch airstrikes across two tumultuous Middle East countries, dispatch hundreds more U.S. military personnel and build a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network.
The reluctance to use that label has generated confusion on Capitol Hill, particularly in light of new intelligence estimates that the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s the size of a small army – and close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001.
Yet in television interviews on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly avoided the term “war” to describe the mission, instead calling it a “major counterterrorism operation” that could last a long time.
“It’s hard to find a response to that,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”
McCain and other lawmaker suggest Kerry’s comments do not square with President Obama’s stated goal of defeating the Islamic State, or ISIS.
“This is John Kerry, vintage,” McCain said.
Other members of the administration besides Kerry appeared to be struggling to both define the conflict and the terms of victory, as the U.S. enters a new and potentially risky phase of its operation against the terror group.
Asked Thursday what would constitute “destroying” ISIS, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “I didn't bring my Webster's Dictionary with me up here.”
Earnest tried to explain the operation as falling under the umbrella of the 2001 authorization to use military force – the measure that provided the legal basis to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. (Kerry also compared the operation to strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen.)
The administration is using this argument in order to avoid seeking new congressional authorization for the fight against ISIS.
But the Islamic State was not originally linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and has since split from the perpetrator of those attacks, Al Qaeda.
Some lawmakers say the administration is on shaky legal ground by treating this as a mere continuation of the counterterrorism missions in other countries, and is effectively downplaying the entire challenge ahead.
McCain said that if the president doesn’t understand the difference between the Islamic State and terror networks in places like Yemen, “then … he is oblivious to the size, shape, strength and ability of ISIS. It’s like comparing a little league team to the New York Yankees.”
A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Thursday that the ISIS fighting force has sharply increased from the original estimate of at least 10,000 fighters.
“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August,” the spokesperson said. “This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”
Asked Thursday whether the government still views these operations as part of the “war on terrorism,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “It’s certainly not how I would refer to our efforts.”
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”
“Words matter,” McCaul said Friday.
McCaul praised the president for moving to expand the mission into Syria, where the “head of the snake” of ISIS is located. But he said the administration is being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.
“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/dont-call-it-war-administration-hit-for-refusing-to-use-w-word-for-isis-mission/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/11/us-ground-troops-needed-to-defeat-islamic-state-in/
-
GWB predicted Obama's folly in 2007:
"If U.S forces were withdrawn before our commanders tell us we are ready
it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan." - George W. Bush
-
-
sometimes you have to war in order to create peace. reagan knew that.
-
-
Doh! I'm sure the White House is going B-slap this guy. lol
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/us-pins-hope-on-syrian-rebels-with-loyalties-all-over-the-map.html?_r=0
-
Keystone Kops. ::)
White House, Pentagon contradict Kerry, say US ‘at war’ with ISIS
Published September 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
The White House and Pentagon acknowledged Friday that the U.S. “is at war” with the Islamic State -- contradicting Secretary of State John Kerry and others who a day earlier refused to use that term, prompting criticism from lawmakers that the administration was downplaying the conflict.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby used almost identical language when pressed by reporters Friday whether or not the expanded military operation against the terrorist group is in fact a war.
“In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest said.
Kirby said “this is not the Iraq War” from a decade ago, “but make no mistake -- we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
The comments are a sharp turnaround from how Kerry described the military operation on Thursday. In interviews with CNN and CBS News, Kerry described it as a “very significant” and “major counterterrorism operation.” He told CBS News that “war is the wrong terminology.”
His spokeswoman, Marie Harf, also said she would not “refer to our efforts” as part of the “war on terrorism.”
Kerry’s comments, though, stirred confusion on Capitol Hill, coming a day after President Obama announced plans to expand airstrikes in Iraq and authorize them in Syria, while dispatching hundreds more U.S. military personnel.
Obama called for a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network. Meanwhile, the CIA confirmed that its latest estimates show the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other lawmakers suggested Kerry’s comments did not square with Obama’s stated goal of defeating the vast terror network.
“It’s hard to find a response to that,” McCain told Fox News on Thursday night, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”
Kerry wasn't the only one having a hard time describing the mission on Thursday. National Security Adviser Susan Rice likewise told CNN on Thursday she wasn't sure whether it should be called a war or a "sustained counterterrorism campaign."
Senior State Department officials stressed to Fox News on Friday that Kerry's comments were consistent with what other senior U.S. officials were saying at the time, and made clear that the secretary remains on the same page as the rest of the administration.
"This was a deliberate, administration-wide adjustment in language," a senior State Department official told Fox News, "which Secretary Kerry would have also used today had he been asked."
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said earlier Friday that the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”
“Words matter,” McCaul said. He claimed the administration was being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.
“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.
But in the Pentagon and White House briefings Friday afternoon, it appeared the administration was backing off the earlier characterization.
Earnest clarified that the operation is not a case of the United States acting alone against the Islamic State, since the Islamic State, he said, is waging a war against the international community.
But he repeated that the U.S. is “at war” with ISIS as it is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/white-house-pentagon-contradict-kerry-say-us-at-war-with-isis/
-
:-\
Krauthammer on ISIS: Obama Is ‘Ambivalent, Reluctant, Obviously Does Not Want to Do This’
BY FOX NEWS INSIDER
SEP 12 2014
Tonight on “The Kelly File,” Charles Krauthammer said President Barack Obama’s entire ISIS strategy “is really in trouble.”
Krauthammer explained that Obama isn’t asking for authorization from the Democrats because they are begging him not to cast a vote for war. Turkey – which is next to Syria – has also said that it will not allow us to use its air bases. He also touched on Obama’s remarks comparing this mission to what we have done in Somalia and Yemen.
“Obama said we have to imitate what we did in Somalia and Yemen, which is quite ridiculous. Somalia – we’ve had two airstrikes all year. He’s gonna defeat ISIS – which his own administration is calling a threat unlike any we’ve ever seen – with two airstrikes, drone strikes? That doesn’t apply.”
Krauthammer: ‘President Trying to Save a Collapsed Presidency’
Krauthammer remarked that George W. Bush had 38 allies with boots on the ground, 25,000 allies on the ground with us.
“Obama as of today has zero,” he said.
Krauthammer said the biggest issue is that “you’ve got a president who is ambivalent, a president who clearly is reluctant, a president who obviously does not want to do this.”
Krauthammer: Obama ‘Was Unable to Manage the Victory’ in Iraq
He noted that Obama announced a surge and withdrawal date in the same sentence.
“They see a president who does not commit himself to win or to succeed, only to go in and to get out,” he said, explaining that allies are asking themselves if they’re going to follow a man into battle who clearly isn’t committed.
“It’s a lack of confidence in the president who draws a red line then walks away and pretends he never drew the red line at all,” he said.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/09/12/krauthammer-isis-obama-‘ambivalent-reluctant-obviously-does-not-want-do-this’
-
LOL @ repubs.
Half of them are shitting their pants in anger that obama isn't sending in 300,000 troops to defeat 31,000 ISIS.
Half of them are shitting the pants for starting another war/conflict that we sure as fck cannot afford as a nation.
There's no unified position here, other than "obama sucks and we'd do it better but we don't know how".
At this point, everyone I know is so immune to the "blame obama" nature of everything. yes, blame him monthly as you write check to obamacare. yes, blame him for mocking "JV" AL-quida as terri'sts still decapitate anyone crazy enough to infiltrate them for a "story". But blaming him for ISIS? Bad guys are going to do this, over and over. And over and over, good guys are going to get them. All this "how could obama let this happen". ... um, no president in HISTORY has stopped bad guys from joining together and being bad guys. Even bush, for all his Al-Q attacking for 7 years, didn't wipe them off the earth, just left them for the next POTUS.
-
LOL @ repubs.
Half of them are shitting their pants in anger that obama isn't sending in 300,000 troops to defeat 31,000 ISIS.
Half of them are shitting the pants for starting another war/conflict that we sure as fck cannot afford as a nation.
There's no unified position here, other than "obama sucks and we'd do it better but we don't know how".
At this point, everyone I know is so immune to the "blame obama" nature of everything. yes, blame him monthly as you write check to obamacare. yes, blame him for mocking "JV" AL-quida as terri'sts still decapitate anyone crazy enough to infiltrate them for a "story". But blaming him for ISIS? Bad guys are going to do this, over and over. And over and over, good guys are going to get them. All this "how could obama let this happen". ... um, no president in HISTORY has stopped bad guys from joining together and being bad guys. Even bush, for all his Al-Q attacking for 7 years, didn't wipe them off the earth, just left them for the next POTUS.
Good post.
Party of personal responsibility has been reduced to a bunch of spineless bureaucrats with big voices and no courage.
-
Good post.
Party of personal responsibility has been reduced to a bunch of spineless bureaucrats with big voices and no courage.
I'd probably agree with whatever their war policy was... if i knew what it even was. But they dont know, it's all over the place. Half want a war, half want zero involvement, and they all hate obama.
-
LMFAO at idiots complaining that people arent subscribing to group think
-
As of yesterday, we are at war again, bombing ISIS in Syria. Wasn't the president on TV less than a year ago begging the American people to support bombing Assad? And now we are bombing Assad's opponents?
This really is like a very bad dream. We are so screwed.
-
As of yesterday, we are at war again, bombing ISIS in Syria. Wasn't the president on TV less than a year ago begging the American people to support bombing Assad? And now we are bombing Assad's opponents?
This really is like a very bad dream. We are so screwed.
;)
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/09/23/Obama-in-2009-Jets-Used-in-Syria-Outdated-and-Unnecessary
>:(
-
As of yesterday, we are at war again, bombing ISIS in Syria. Wasn't the president on TV less than a year ago begging the American people to support bombing Assad? And now we are bombing Assad's opponents?
This really is like a very bad dream. We are so screwed.
It's not a war. We're just containing them and degrading them. ::)
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/6101495/obama-defeat-isis
-
It's not a war. We're just containing them and degrading them. ::)
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/6101495/obama-defeat-isis
I wonder if they will call this one "non-kinetic" too. ::)
-
Army chief: Division headquarters will deploy soon to Iraq
Sep. 23, 2014
By Michelle Tan
Staff report
As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”
It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year.
The division headquarters deploying to Iraq is expected to be responsible for coordinating the efforts of the 1,600 troops President Obama has sent to Iraq. Many of these troops are advising and assisting the Iraqi Security Forces, others are providing extra security, while others are providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. The headquarters also is expected to head up the joint operations center that since July has been run by Maj. Gen. Dana Pittard, the deputy commanding general for operations for U.S. Army Central.
Odierno’s comments were made Friday to a group of defense reporters in Washington, D.C.
During the wide-ranging interview, Odierno discussed the critical role played by the Army’s two-star division headquarters.
“The complexity of the environment that we have to operate in now, and probably the next 10 to 15 to 20 years, we need these headquarters,” he said. “If you ask me one of the stress points in the Army, it’s our headquarters.”
The Army has 10 division headquarters, including two in Afghanistan and one in South Korea.
On Monday night, the U.S. mounted its first airstrikes in Syria, targeting the Islamic State and also the Khorasan group, a little known terrorist cell.
Monday night’s massive air assault hitting 22 targets across Syria was a historic operation that signals a new expansion of a war that is likely to last for years.
U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps aircraft dropped precision-guided missiles on two separate and distinct extremists groups, targeting command-and-control headquarters, barracks, training camps logistical nodes and other sites, defense officials said.
“You are seeing the beginning of a sustained campaign,” Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the Joint Staff’s director of operations, told Pentagon reporters Tuesday.
On Friday, Odierno also emphasized that destroying the Islamic State will be a long-term effort.
“We have to realize this is a long-term threat, this is a long-term commitment,” he said. “If you don’t believe they want to attack the West and America, you’re kidding yourself. That is their goal.”
Staff writer Andrew Tilghman contributed to this report.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140923/NEWS08/309230066/Army-chief-Division-headquarters-will-deploy-soon-Iraq?sf31502441=1
-
LOL @ Repubs whose d*cks were so hard for war for 8 years... suddenly they're the biggest pacifists on the planet lol.
-
LOL @ Repubs whose d*cks were so hard for war for 8 years... suddenly they're the biggest pacifists on the planet lol.
No integrity or leadership what so ever.
-
No integrity or leadership what so ever.
they used to sing songs about bombing iran. they wanted to elect a president than sang war caroles, cause 2 wars just wasn't enough for them.
suddenly they're all greepeace about it...
-
they used to sing songs about bombing iran. they wanted to elect a president than sang war caroles, cause 2 wars just wasn't enough for them.
suddenly they're all greepeace about it...
Its their strategy. Oppose Obama at any cost even if they throw their principles out the window.
Their base will forgive them though,they have the attention span of a house-fly.
Just ask BB and Coach. Heck BB started this thread. The man who thinks Bush was a good president now starts anti-war thread's. But dont expect any accountability from the voters of the party of personal responsibility.
-
Obama at the UN: He Really Doesn’t Get that He’s at War
by KEITH KOFFLER on SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
There’s a reason President Obama and his advisors don’t want to use the word “war” in describing what we are doing against ISIS. It’s that they really don’t believe they are at war. They really don’t get it.
The president seems to be thinking that he’s playing a game of “Risk” with his high school friends in Hawaii.
Obama UNObama this morning stepped to the rostrum of the United Nations at the very moment he has launched attacks against the foe of the civilized world – and even of the uncivilized portion too. You would think, naturally, that he would be rallying the troops, so to speak, since this is supposedly an international coalition. That he’d be sustaining morale by explaining the danger, issuing a call to arms, and assuring jittery allies that we won’t relent until the job is done.
But no, what we got was a lecture to the Mideast Muslim world about how they have to start behaving themselves in order to undermine the rationale for ISIS. They have to talk to each other, join hands, chant the Chimes of Freedom, and stop arguing about religious matters.
Stop arguing about religious matters? Sure.
Listen, this little talking to directed at Muslims is a good idea, and I give Obama credit for doing it. He seems to have shed a little political correctness and decided to ask, in effect, Where’s the outrage among Muslims about Islamism and why are you funding it?
This was a good line, directed in particular at the Saudis:
It is time for a new compact among the civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source: the corruption of young minds by violent ideology.
That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down.
But the president is naive and ultimately laden with hubris. The tyrants, Islamists, and self-servers who run the Middle East are not going to change their ways just because Barack Obama says so.
No one’s going to reform themselves unless the alternative looks too unattractive. That is, unless extremism is met with violence and defeat.
Ronald Reagan didn’t start negotiating with the Soviets until he had made it very clear to them that we would oppose them and seek to destroy their ideology, whether by arming Afghan rebels or promoting missile defense.
What Muslim leaders and societies might do, rather than suddenly start powwowing it up over hookahs, is join us in a shared fight for against ISIS, which for them is an important battle to wage.
And for this, Obama would have had to stir their imaginations with visions of conquest against our shared enemy while making it clear he’s enthusiastic about the task and isn’t going to extract himself at the first sign of bad news.
But no. Opportunity squandered.
The way to defeat Islamist extremism is to defeat it. We can talk about community organizing in Riyadh later.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/09/24/obama-war/
-
Oh big surprise - Obama is a fucking moron
Obama at the UN: He Really Doesn’t Get that He’s at War
by KEITH KOFFLER on SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
There’s a reason President Obama and his advisors don’t want to use the word “war” in describing what we are doing against ISIS. It’s that they really don’t believe they are at war. They really don’t get it.
The president seems to be thinking that he’s playing a game of “Risk” with his high school friends in Hawaii.
Obama UNObama this morning stepped to the rostrum of the United Nations at the very moment he has launched attacks against the foe of the civilized world – and even of the uncivilized portion too. You would think, naturally, that he would be rallying the troops, so to speak, since this is supposedly an international coalition. That he’d be sustaining morale by explaining the danger, issuing a call to arms, and assuring jittery allies that we won’t relent until the job is done.
But no, what we got was a lecture to the Mideast Muslim world about how they have to start behaving themselves in order to undermine the rationale for ISIS. They have to talk to each other, join hands, chant the Chimes of Freedom, and stop arguing about religious matters.
Stop arguing about religious matters? Sure.
Listen, this little talking to directed at Muslims is a good idea, and I give Obama credit for doing it. He seems to have shed a little political correctness and decided to ask, in effect, Where’s the outrage among Muslims about Islamism and why are you funding it?
This was a good line, directed in particular at the Saudis:
It is time for a new compact among the civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source: the corruption of young minds by violent ideology.
That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down.
But the president is naive and ultimately laden with hubris. The tyrants, Islamists, and self-servers who run the Middle East are not going to change their ways just because Barack Obama says so.
No one’s going to reform themselves unless the alternative looks too unattractive. That is, unless extremism is met with violence and defeat.
Ronald Reagan didn’t start negotiating with the Soviets until he had made it very clear to them that we would oppose them and seek to destroy their ideology, whether by arming Afghan rebels or promoting missile defense.
What Muslim leaders and societies might do, rather than suddenly start powwowing it up over hookahs, is join us in a shared fight for against ISIS, which for them is an important battle to wage.
And for this, Obama would have had to stir their imaginations with visions of conquest against our shared enemy while making it clear he’s enthusiastic about the task and isn’t going to extract himself at the first sign of bad news.
But no. Opportunity squandered.
The way to defeat Islamist extremism is to defeat it. We can talk about community organizing in Riyadh later.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/09/24/obama-war/
-
Welcome to Obamastan
May 13, 2013 by Melanie Phillips 0 Comments
2311
Print This Post Print This Post
Benghazi-attackReprinted from MelaniePhillips.com.
Fort Hood, Benghazi, the Boston bombings, Iran/Syria, Israel. The pattern is unmistakeable; the danger to America is exponentially increasing; the scandal is deepening into something nearer to a national crisis.
The Obama administration is playing down the Islamist threat to the US and the free world, empowering Islamists at home and abroad, endangering America and betraying its allies — and covering up its egregious failure to protect the homeland as a result of all the above, while instead blaming America for its own victimisation.
What is coming out in the Benghazi hearings would be jaw-dropping if it had not been apparent from the get-go that the administration failed to protect its own people in the beseiged American mission where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his staff were murdered in 2012, then lied about the fact that this was an Islamist attack, and then covered up both its failure and its lie. (Apparent, that is, to some — but not to the American media, most of which gave the Obama administration a free pass on the scandal in order to ensure the smooth re-election of The One).
But the administration has form on this — serious, continuing form. After the Fort Hood massacre in 2009, in which an Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas shouting ‘Allahu akhbar’, not only was it revealed that his radicalisation and extremist links had been ignored but the Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies classified the shootings merely as an act of ‘workplace violence’.
Weeks after the Boston marathon terrorist atrocity, there is still no explanation of why the FBI did not act against the Tsarnaev brothers, despite having had one of them on their books as a dangerous Islamic radical after a warning from Russian intelligence; and why, as the House Homeland Security Committee heard yesterday, the FBI didn’t pass on their suspicions about the brothers to the Boston police.
Even now, the US authorities are playing down or even dismissing Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s extremist Islamic views. Whether or not the brothers had links to foreign extremists is still unclear. But what is bizarre is the authorities’ belief that if they did not have any such links, they cannot have had any religious motive.
Despite evidence such as Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s outbursts at a Boston mosque, where he denounced clerics’ references to Thanksgiving and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as ‘contrary to Islam’, the brothers were described by Philip Mudd, the former Deputy Director of National Security at the FBI and the former Deputy Director of the Counterterrorist Centre for the CIA, as merely ‘angry kids’. Mudd told Charlie Rose:
‘They may be disenfranchised. They may have had a bad experience at school. They may not have friends, and they say, “Look, we want to do something.” This tactic of terrorism is a tactic of the 21st century. I don’t necessarily think these are real jihadi terrorists. I think they’re angry kids.’
You really do have to pinch yourself. How in heaven’s name can a guy like Mudd, with his background in so-called intelligence, possibly come up with anything quite so stupendously shallow? It is precisely such angry, isolated, disturbed kids who are vulnerable to Islamist preachers who target, groom and manipulate them — whether in person or through the internet — to believe that ‘Islam is the answer’ and that they are its soldiers engaged in holy war against the unbelievers.
The wilful and perverse refusal to acknowledge the religious nature of this holy war — and worse, to lay the blame for such terrorism on the the society that is its victim — is what lies behind the Benghazi scandal.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings this week produced testimony from Gregory Hicks, the former deputy to the murdered Ambassador Stevens, that was simply devastating for the Obama administration and its former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton — who infamously erupted, under questioning last January about the nature of the attack,
‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’
Well, Mr Hicks has started to provide the answer. Despite repeated calls for more security to combat the clear threat of jihadi attack on the US mission, Mrs Clinton’s State Department had farmed out its security to none other than a jihadist group. When the fatal attack started, Mr Hicks vainly appealed for fighter jets to buzz the besieged compound. As the Times (£) reported:
‘When a team of four special forces troops were about to leave Tripoli, at Mr Hicks’s request, their leader had to stand them down because he was not cleared by senior military chiefs to travel. Mr Hicks said the furious officer told him: “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has shown more balls than someone in the military.”’
Disingenuously, the Pentagon says in response that no forces could have arrived in time to mount a rescue. But there was more lethal testimony from Mr Hicks.
After the attack, the Obama administration claimed that it had resulted from a protest that had got out of hand over an anti-islam YouTube video. But Mr Hicks testified that it was known from the start that it was a jihadi attack which had nothing to do with that video. The Wall Street Journal reported:
‘Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Tripoli, recalled his last conversation with Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who told him, “Greg, we’re under attack.” Mr. Hicks said he knew then that Islamists were behind the assault. In other words, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s public claim at the time that an anti-Islam YouTube video spurred the assault was known inside the government to be false when she and White House spokesman Jay Carney said it.
‘Mr. Hicks said he briefed Mrs. Clinton that night, yet the father of victim Tyrone Woods says she later told him that the YouTube video maker would be “prosecuted and arrested” as if he were responsible for Benghazi. Stranger still, Mr. Hicks says Mrs. Clinton’s then chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, ordered him not to give solo interviews about the attack to a visiting Congressional delegation.’
Mr Hicks further claims that he was instructed by officials not to talk to congressional investigators, and then demoted after he asked why senior Clinton aides had blamed the attack on a video protest. Again, officials have denied his claim of demotion. But the cat is now out of the bag. The Times (£) reports that an e-mail has surfaced revealing that senior State Department figures — including Ms Clinton — knew within 24 hours that the group responsible for the Benghazi attack was linked to Islamic terrorists.
Meanwhile, from the beginning of this affair there have also been persistent questions about quite what the US mission was actually doing in Benghazi. Now the Washington Times has reported this:
‘A U.S. intelligence official tells Inside the Ring that the hearing and congressional inquiries have failed to delve into what the official said is another major scandal: CIA covert arms shipments to Syrian rebels through Benghazi.
‘Separately, a second intelligence source said CIA operations in Libya were based on a presidential finding signed in March 2011 outlining covert support to the Libyans. This source said there were signs that some of the arms used in the Benghazi attack — assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades — ended up in the hands of the terrorists who carried out the Benghazi attack as a result of the CIA operation in Libya.
‘The unanswered questions — that appear unasked by most congressional investigators — include whether the CIA facility in Benghazi near the diplomatic compound and the contingent of agency officers working there played a role in the covert transfer through Turkey of captured Libyan weapons or personnel to rebels fighting the Bashar Assad regime in Syria.
‘“There was a ship that transported something to Turkey around the time Ambassador Chris Stevens met with a Turkish diplomat within hours of his murder,” the official said. “Was the president’s overt or covert policy to arm Syrian rebels?”’
Was it indeed. If it was, then Benghazi might turn out to be yet another and particularly terrible example of the damage Obama has wrought upon the security of America and the free world.
This is a President who, by persisting with the charade of negotiation with Iran over its race to manufacture its nuclear bomb, has allowed it to become the dominant power in the region.
That is why Iran’s puppet Assad, who has just accrued hundreds of Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists to help him win his bloody civil war, has been able to slaughter more than 80,000 Syrians and use chemical weapons against them — while Obama himself may have ineptly armed al Qaeda inside Syria. For the Washington Times report goes on:
‘The official said congressional investigators need to ask whether the president indirectly or directly helped bolster al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Jabhat al-Nusrah front rebel group in Syria and whether the CIA ran guns and other weapons captured in Libya to the organization.
‘“Every troubling Middle East-Southwest Asia country — Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and now maybe Syria — where the Obama administration made a significant policy push has gone over to Islamists that are now much more hostile to the United States,” the official said.’
Precisely.
The Benghazi attack was not just appalling in itself; nor was there merely almost certainly a catastrophic failure by the Obama administration to protect its people, and then a mighty cover-up of that failure. Benghazi also serves as a symbol of America’s tragic abandonment, under the Obama administration, of its historic mission to protect life and liberty both in its own homeland and in the free world.
Welcome to Obamastan.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
-
Panetta: '30-year war' and a leadership test for Obama
Susan Page, USA TODAY 1:54 p.m. EDT October 6, 2014
CARMEL VALLEY, Calif. — Americans should be braced for a long battle against the brutal terrorist group Islamic State that will test U.S. resolve — and the leadership of the commander in chief, says Leon Panetta, who headed the CIA and then the Pentagon as Al Qaeda was weakened and Osama bin Laden killed.
"I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," he says, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.
In his first interview about his new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace, Panetta argues that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served.
Even before it's published Tuesday by Penguin Press, the 512-page book has provoked rebukes at the State Department and by Vice President Biden. But Panetta says he was determined to write a book that was "honest," including his high regard for the president on some fronts and his deep concern about his leadership on others.
In an interview at his home with Capital Download, USA TODAY's video newsmaker series, Panetta says Obama erred:
• By not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual U.S. force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort. That "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed." Islamic State also is known as ISIS and ISIL.
• By rejecting the advice of top aides — including Panetta and then-secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — to begin arming Syrian rebels in 2012. If the U.S. had done so, "I do think we would be in a better position to kind of know whether or not there is some moderate element in the rebel forces that are confronting (Syrian President Bashar) Assad."
• By warning Assad not to use chemical weapons against his own people, then failing to act when that "red line" was crossed in 2013. Before ordering airstrikes, Obama said he wanted to seek congressional authorization, which predictably didn't happen.
The reversal cost the United States credibility then and is complicating efforts to enlist international allies now to join a coalition against the Islamic State, Panetta says. "There's a little question mark to, is the United States going to stick this out? Is the United States going to be there when we need them?"
Showing leadership in the fight against ISIS is an opportunity "to repair the damage," he says. He says it's also a chance for Obama to get a fresh start after having "lost his way."
. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-memoir-worthy-fights/16737615/
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/a-terrible-slaughter-is-coming/381157/
-
Operation fill-in-the-blank: Pentagon weighs what to call war against ISIS
By Justin Fishel
Published October 06, 2014
FoxNews.com
After nearly two months of conducting airstrikes over Iraq and Syria, the Pentagon is being pressured to answer a basic question: What are they calling this war?
Every U.S. military intervention since the invasion of Panama in 1989, code-named Operation Just Cause, has had a name. And there are reasons for that -- as the name clears up a number of areas of potential confusion.
Among them:
What does the Pentagon put on the subject line when its accountants submit billions of dollars in military receipts to Congress?
Or, what service medal will these men and women fighting overseas be earning? It can't be the Global War on Terror ribbon. The Pentagon only designated those medals for missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan, which is distinct from the mission in Iraq and Syria.
The debate over what to call this war follows a debate over whether to call the airstrikes a war at all. Secretary of State John Kerry initially was reluctant to do so, but U.S. officials eventually conceded that it is a "war" in the same way the U.S. has been at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Now, the absence of any name for the mission is becoming just as perplexing.
Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby was pressed about the mission name following a report in The Wall Street Journal late last week, which quoted an anonymous Defense official who offered his own explanation. "If you name it, you own it," he told the Wall Street Journal. "And they don't want to own it."
Kirby called that opinion "misinformed."
Nevertheless, in September, Kirby said he knew of "no plans to name the operation." Yet on Friday, he said there is "an effort underway to consider ... a potential name for this operation."
Kirby explained that one reason for waiting to name the operation has to do with the complex evolution of the mission. He walked a fine line, arguing the mission was changing but also has generally remained "the same."
"So in Iraq, the mission has been the same ... but the resources applied and some aspects of it have changed over time," he said. "For instance ... we weren't doing airstrikes in Syria, and now we are. The other thing that has evolved and changed over time of that mission is the participation of coalition members."
Kirby's careful reference to the mission being "the same" may have been an attempt at avoiding criticism about so-called "mission creep." Two months ago, Kirby defined mission creep as "the growth or expansion of the goals and objectives of a military operation." He said it can only be considered mission creep when "the goals and objectives change, morph into something bigger than they were at the outset."
While the Pentagon laid out a careful explanation for why it had not named the anti-ISIS mission, there was no hesitation in assigning a name to the operation to combat Ebola in West Africa.
That mission was given an operational name the same day it was announced: Operation United Assistance.
This isn't the first time the name of a military mission has stirred confusion and controversy.
President Obama made it one of his first orders of business in 2009 to remove the Global War on Terror moniker from the military's vocabulary, particularly as it pertained to the budget. He replaced it with "Overseas Contingency Operations."
The argument now is that the war against the Islamic State is a little more serious than the average contingency. Obama acknowledged this is a "long-term project." The Pentagon has said it could take "years and years" to complete. And on Monday, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said it could be a "30-year war."
A 30-year war ... with no name?
On Friday, the Navy identified the first casualty in the unnamed war against ISIS.
Marine Cpl. Jordan Spears was lost at sea after he and another crewman abandoned their MV-22 Osprey when it nearly crashed into the Persian Gulf, shortly after taking off from the USS Makin Island. One Marine was recovered but Spears was never found.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/06/operation-fill-in-blank-pentagon-weighs-what-to-call-war-against-isis/
-
U.S.-led air war in Syria is off to a difficult start
By Liz Sly October 10, 2014
REYHANLI, Turkey — The U.S.-led air war in Syria has gotten off to a rocky start, with even the Syrian rebel groups closest to the United States turning against it, U.S. ally Turkey refusing to contribute and the plight of a beleaguered Kurdish town exposing the limitations of the strategy.
U.S. officials caution that the strikes are just the beginning of a broader strategy that could take years to carry out. But the anger that the attacks have stirred risks undermining the effort, analysts and rebels say.
The main beneficiary of the strikes so far appears to be President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces have taken advantage of the shift in the military balance to step up attacks against the moderate rebels designated by President Obama as partners of the United States in the war against extremists.
The U.S. targets have included oil facilities, a granary and an electricity plant under Islamic State control. The damage to those facilities has caused shortages and price hikes across the rebel-held north that are harming ordinary Syrians more than the well-funded militants, residents and activists say.
At the start of the air campaign, dozens of U.S. cruise missiles were fired into areas controlled by the moderate rebels, who are supposed to be fighting the Islamic State. Syrians who had in the past appealed for American intervention against Assad have been staging demonstrations denouncing the United States and burning the American flag.
“Everyone is angry with the airstrikes. For three years we have been asking for support, and now the West decides to hit only the Islamic State?” said Abu Wassim, a rebel fighter in the northern province of Idlib. The strikes are weakening the Islamic State, he said, but “empowering the regime.”
Since the outcry about the choice of targeting in the first days of the air campaign, the majority of coalition attacks have been concentrated in the three northern and eastern provinces governed by the Islamic State as part of its self-proclaimed caliphate, which stretches across the Syrian border into Iraq.
U.S. officials say the strikes are working to achieve the core American objective — to degrade and ultimately defeat the militants.
“The airstrikes are hitting the targets they are intended to hit,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told journalists Friday. “They take out ISIL positions. They take out ISIL tanks. They take out ISIL weapons. That’s obviously helping,” she said, using an acronym for the Islamic State.
In their self-styled capital of Raqqah, the foreign jihadists who until recently swept through the streets in armored convoys, showing off American Humvees and other booty captured from the Iraqi army, now drive around in regular vehicles, according to residents. A wealthy neighborhood of spacious villas has been abandoned by the Chechen, European, Arab and other foreign fighters who had moved in. They have relocated to apartments in the city center, blending in among the ordinary citizens, residents say.
Elsewhere, the militants have vacated headquarters, checkpoints, command posts, courts and other facilities, many of which had been conspicuously painted with the Islamic State’s distinctive black-and-white logo.
“You don’t see them around like you used to,” said a resident of Raqqah, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
. . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-led-air-war-in-syria-is-off-to-a-difficult-start-with-moderate-rebels-disenchanted/2014/10/10/e0949dfa-4fe9-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?hpid=z1
-
How about Operation Cluster@#4%?
Military & Defense More: Syria
The Official Name For The War On ISIS Was Rejected 2 Weeks Ago
An EA-6B coming from Iraq lands on the flight deck of the US Navy aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush on Aug. 10 in the Persian Gulf.
After two months of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the US-led coalition has a name: "Inherent Resolve."
Interestingly, the name had previously been rejected for a multitude of reasons, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal two weeks ago.
"It's just kind of bleh," an unnamed military officer told The Journal. An unnamed senior official further said the name was merely a placeholder that had never been considered to be the actual name for the overall operation.
The initial failure of the name of the operation was multifaceted. For some officers, Inherent Resolve failed to evoke the sense of the Middle East. Other officers rejected the name on the grounds that it failed to capture the sense of the international coalition that had joined the US in operations.
Military operations have been named by the US military since at least World War II. The lack of a name for the operations in Syria and Iraq had come as a break with 70 years of military tradition.
The issue of a lack of a name for the operations had been raised since airstrikes first started in Iraq. In August, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said there was no "good reason" for the lack of an operational name.
Operation Inherent Resolve has targeted positions of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, throughout Syria and Iraq for the past two months. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the US-led coalition carried out 18 strikes against the militants in the two countries.
The strikes focused on ISIS positions around the town of Kobani in Syria, while in Iraq the airstrikes hit ISIS militants by the critical Baiji oil refinery plant and the Haditha Dam.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/military-rejects-potential-operation-name-2014-10#ixzz3GEvvYB1D
-
Or more accurately, Operation Charlie Foxtrot.
-
More like Operation Chooming at the Bath House
-
David Petraeus: ‘People Saw ISIS Coming’
Oct. 21, 2014
Madeleine Morgenstern
Former CIA Director David Petraeus said in a new interview that the rise of the Islamic State was “well known” among people monitoring the situation within the U.S. government, and that it was able to flourish amid the chaos of the civil war in Syria.
“ISIS in a sense is the evolution of an organization that we did defeat, Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Petraeus told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an interview published Monday. “Some of the very hard work we did to help re-establish the fabric of Iraqi society — to bring the Sunni Arabs back into Iraqi society and give them an incentive to support the new Iraq rather than to oppose it — was undone. It created fertile ground once again for the planting of the seeds of extremism and alienated the Sunni Arab component of Iraqi society.
“What really revived Al Qaida in Iraq and turned them into the Islamic State was the civil war in Syria,” Petraeus continued. “They grew, gained experience and could identify competent leaders and then begin to capture arms, funding and generate significant resources to enable their expansion. People saw ISIS coming. Even out of the intelligence world, it was well known what ISIS was doing in Syria.”
The U.S. has been leading a coalition in bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, months after President Barack Obama initially dismissed the militant group as “JV.”
Petraeus served as CIA director from 2011 to 2012 before resigning following revelations of an extramarital affair.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/21/david-petraeus-people-saw-isis-coming/
-
Obama supports ISIS and its goals - ddduuhhhhh
David Petraeus: ‘People Saw ISIS Coming’
Oct. 21, 2014
Madeleine Morgenstern
Former CIA Director David Petraeus said in a new interview that the rise of the Islamic State was “well known” among people monitoring the situation within the U.S. government, and that it was able to flourish amid the chaos of the civil war in Syria.
“ISIS in a sense is the evolution of an organization that we did defeat, Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Petraeus told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an interview published Monday. “Some of the very hard work we did to help re-establish the fabric of Iraqi society — to bring the Sunni Arabs back into Iraqi society and give them an incentive to support the new Iraq rather than to oppose it — was undone. It created fertile ground once again for the planting of the seeds of extremism and alienated the Sunni Arab component of Iraqi society.
“What really revived Al Qaida in Iraq and turned them into the Islamic State was the civil war in Syria,” Petraeus continued. “They grew, gained experience and could identify competent leaders and then begin to capture arms, funding and generate significant resources to enable their expansion. People saw ISIS coming. Even out of the intelligence world, it was well known what ISIS was doing in Syria.”
The U.S. has been leading a coalition in bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, months after President Barack Obama initially dismissed the militant group as “JV.”
Petraeus served as CIA director from 2011 to 2012 before resigning following revelations of an extramarital affair.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/21/david-petraeus-people-saw-isis-coming/
-
Obama hoped ISIS would'nt get traction until he was out of office.
A great leader ::)
-
Obama hoped ISIS would'nt get traction until he was out of office.
A great leader ::)
False - Obama supports ISIS and is sending them aid and helping them.
-
False - Obama supports ISIS and is sending them aid and helping them.
Sure why not..
-
OBAMA AUTHORIZES 1,500 MORE TROOPS FOR IRAQ
Nov 7, 2014
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is authorizing the U.S. military to deploy up to 1,500 more troops to Iraq as part of the mission to combat the Islamic State group.
Obama is also asking Congress for more than $5 billion to help fund the fight.
The White House says the troops won't serve in a combat role, but will train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting IS.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest says Obama has also authorized the additional personnel to operate at Iraqi military facilities outside Baghdad and Erbil. Until now, U.S. troops have been operating a joint operation center setup with Iraqi forces there.
The announcement is part of a $5.6 billion funding request to Congress and came just after Obama met with congressional leaders Friday.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_ISLAMIC_STATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-
BREAKING NEWS Friday, November 7, 2014 3:37 PM EST
U.S. to Send 1,500 More Troops to Iraq
President Obama has authorized the deployment of an additional 1,500 American troops to Iraq in the coming months, the Defense Department said on Friday, a move that will double the number of those sent to advise and assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the battle against the Islamic State.
The Pentagon also said that American military advisers would establish a number of additional training sites across Iraq, in a significant expansion of the American military campaign against the Sunni militant group in Iraq and Syria. Officials in the office of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that a number of American military personnel would deploy specifically to Anbar province.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/middleeast/us-to-send-1500-more-troops-to-iraq.html?emc=edit_na_20141107
-
Dempsey: US troops could fight alongside Iraqi forces in war against ISIS
Published November 13, 2014
FoxNews.com
WASHINGTON – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress on Thursday that he wouldn’t rule out sending a small number of American forces to fight alongside Iraqi troops during some of the more complex missions against the Islamic State.
"I'm not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by U.S. forces, but we're certainly considering it,” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee.
President Obama, since launching the mission, repeatedly has vowed that U.S. combat troops will not be fighting on the ground in Iraq. But Dempsey has appeared to leave some wiggle room. Dempsey's sober assessment echoed his testimony to Congress in September at the start of the campaign against the militants who have seized parts of Iraq and Syria.
Dempsey added Thursday that the U.S. has a modest force in Iraq now, and "any expansion of that, I think, would be equally modest. I just don't foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent."
Joining him at the witness table was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who said the coalition was making progress in the fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but the American people must prepare for a long and difficult struggle.
Hagel said the "pressure is having an effect on potential ISIL recruits and collaborators ... striking a blow to morale and recruitment. We know that. Our intelligence is very clear on that."
He used the term ISIL for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, another term for the group.
“We are at war against ISIL,” Dempsey said.
The testimony comes just days after Obama asked Congress for another $5.6 billion to expand the U.S. mission in Iraq and send up to 1,500 more American troops to the war-torn nation.
Obama authorized the deployment of advisory teams and trainers to bolster struggling Iraqi forces across the country, including into Iraq's western Anbar province where fighting with Islamic State militants has been fierce. Obama's plan could boost the total number of American troops in Iraq to 3,100. There are currently about 1,400 U.S. troops there, out of the 1,600 previously authorized.
Lawmakers expressed skepticism about limiting the U.S. deployment to advisers and trainers, with Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, arguing that "limiting our advisers to headquarters buildings will not help newly trained Iraqi and Syrian opposition forces hold terrain, much less defeat ISIL in the field. Yet the president has doubled down on his policy of `no boots on the ground,' despite any advice you give him."
In citing expert advice, McKeon offered comments from previous defense secretaries and also quoted Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, who last month told an Army conference that ruling out ground forces is like telling a rival you won't play your best players.
Hagel maintained that the U.S. personnel will not be involved in ground combat.
Congress also must decide whether to reauthorize training and equipping of moderate Syrian rebels, an authority that expires Dec. 11.
Lawmakers are bracing for a broader fight next year over a new authorization to use military force to replace the post-Sept. 11 law and the one crafted for the Iraq war 11 years ago.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/13/dempsey-us-troops-could-fight-alongside-iraqi-forces-in-war-against-isis/
-
Is he actually learning something?? :o
Obama widens post-2014 combat role for U.S. forces in Afghanistan
BY STEVE HOLLAND AND MIRWAIS HAROONI
WASHINGTON/KABUL Sun Nov 23, 2014
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama has approved plans to give U.S. military commanders a wider role to fight the Taliban alongside Afghan forces after the current mission ends next month, a senior administration official said.
The decision made in recent weeks extends previous plans by authorizing U.S. troops to carry out combat operations against the Taliban to protect Americans and support Afghanistan's security forces as part of the new ISAF Resolute Support mission next year.
Obama had announced in May that U.S. troop levels would be cut to 9,800 by the end of the year, by half again in 2015 and to a normal embassy presence with a security assistance office in Kabul by the end of 2016.
Under that plan, only a small contingent of 1,800 U.S. troops was limited to counter terrorism operations against remnants of al Qaeda. The new orders will also allow operations against the Taliban.
"To the extent that Taliban members directly threaten the United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan or provide direct support to al Qaeda, we will take appropriate measures to keep Americans safe," the official said.
A report by the New York Times late on Friday said the new authorization also allows the deployment of American jets, bombers and drones.
The announcement was welcomed by Afghan police and army commanders after heavy losses against the Taliban this summer.
"This is the decision that we needed to hear ... We could lose battles against the Taliban without direct support from American forces," said Khalil Andarabi, police chief for Wardak province, about an hour's drive from the capital and partly controlled by the Taliban.
Afghan government forces remain in control of all 34 provincial capitals but are suffering a high rate of casualties, recently described as unsustainable by a U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
More than 4,600 Afghan force members have been killed since the start of the year, 6.5 percent more than a year ago. Despite being funded with more than $4 billion in aid this year, police and soldiers frequently complain they lack the resources to fight the Taliban on their own.
"Right now we don’t have heavy weapons, artillery and air support. If Americans launch their own operations and help us, too, then we will be able to tackle Taliban,” said senior police detective Asadullah Insafi in eastern Ghazni province.
The Taliban said it is undeterred by the U.S. announcement.
"They will continue their killings, night raids and dishonor to the people of Afghanistan in 2015. It will only make us continue our jihad," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujajhid said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/23/us-usa-afghanistan-idUSKCN0J60OV20141123
-
Krauthammer: Obama's Ambivalence About Terror Attacks Leaves U.S. Exposed
By Dan Joseph
While discussing the Islamic terrorist attack in Paris on Special Report's online segment yesterday, Juan Williams and Stephen Hayes debated as to whether President Obama was showing the appropriate type of leadership when it comes to world events.
At that point Charles Krauthammer chimed in with his analysis of just how badly the President has bungled the "War on Terror."
"This is a war against an enemy and these are the elements of it. And we have a president and these events remind us that you cannot retain this ambivalence about the seriousness of this and the nature of the war. And that's what worries me because as long as we think that we can deal with this like law enforcement we are going to be continuing to be exposed to a threat that could hit us as easily as it hits them and it deprives us of the weapons like interrogation, like intelligence, like human intelligence that Obama is depriving us of and has been for six years. "
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/krauthammer-obama-ambivalent-unserious-about-attacks
-
Fox News Poll: Obama gets low marks on fighting Islamic extremists
By Dana Blanton
Published January 14, 2015
FoxNews.com
Americans have some big worries about the battle against Islamic extremists -- and how the administration is waging it.
According to a Fox News national poll, American voters think:
- The threat from Islamic extremists is increasing, yet President Obama isn’t prepared to do “whatever it takes” to defeat them.
- The Obama administration isn’t making the country safer.
- President Obama is doing a bad job handling the Islamic extremist group ISIS.
- The president overstepped his authority by transferring terrorist suspects out of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
- America’s political, business, and media leaders could react to the recent attacks on Sony Entertainment and Charlie Hebdo in ways that limit freedom of speech.
Click to view the full results of the poll (pdf)
Here are the details of the poll, released Wednesday:
A decisive 64-percent majority of voters thinks the threat from Islamic extremists is increasing and another 29 percent says it is holding steady. Just 4 percent say the threat is decreasing.
Republicans overwhelmingly think the threat is increasing (79 percent). Democrats split between saying it is increasing (45 percent) and staying the same (45 percent).
At the same time, a 55-38 percent majority says Obama is not prepared to do “whatever it takes to defeat Islamic extremists.” That’s mostly unchanged since September, when the margin was 54-39 percent.
Among the issues where ratings of Obama’s performance were tested, he receives some of his lowest job ratings on the response to ISIS. Currently 33 percent of voters approve of the job he’s doing, while 56 percent disapprove. More than one in four Democrats (29 percent) joins in the disapproval.
Obama also gets low marks on his overall handling of foreign policy (34 percent approve vs. 57 percent disapprove).
He does a bit better for his handling of terrorism: 39 percent approve, while 53 percent disapprove.
On the broad question of whether the Obama administration has made the country safer, 43 percent of voters think it has “mostly succeeded.” Yet that’s down 12 points from the 55 percent who felt that way in June 2012.
Currently, more -- 49 percent -- think Obama has “mostly failed” to make the U.S. safer.
Meantime, 54 percent say Obama is exceeding his authority as president when he transfers suspected terrorists out of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Just 37 percent say he is acting within his authority.
A Fox News poll taken in December found a majority wants any ISIS terrorists captured on the battlefield to be taken to Gitmo (59 percent) rather than a U.S. federal prison (29 percent).
It isn’t just the president’s response to the attacks that concern voters. Overall, nearly seven in 10 (69 percent) are at least somewhat concerned American leaders -- political, business and media -- will respond to the recent attacks on media companies such as Sony Entertainment and the Paris newspaper Charlie Hebdo in a way that limits self-expression in the United States. Just 27 percent aren’t worried. More Republicans (77 percent) than Democrats (63 percent) are worried.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,018 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from January 11-13, 2015. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/14/fox-news-poll-obama-gets-low-marks-on-fighting-islamic-extremists/
-
LOL @ fox news poll.
Megyn kelly walks around the break room at FOX studios wearing a bikini and carrying a clipboard, asking all the young male interns which one of them hates obama worse, and why. lol.
-
LOL @ fox news poll.
Megyn kelly walks around the break room at FOX studios wearing a bikini and carrying a clipboard, asking all the young male interns which one of them hates obama worse, and why. lol.
(http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/wta3.jpg)
-
Pentagon to Deploy 400 Troops to Train Syrian Rebels
Friday, 16 Jan 2015
The U.S. military is planning to send more than 400 soldiers to train Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State along with hundreds of U.S. support personnel, a Pentagon spokesman said on Thursday.
The training mission is expected to begin in the spring at sites outside Syria, Colonel Steve Warren said. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have offered to host the training.
The Syrian state news agency SANA said the plan showed Washington was "continuing to support terrorism in Syria". Syria's government describes all of its armed opponents as terrorists.
The training program is a part of U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to field local forces in Syria to halt and eventually roll back Islamic State fighters, while pounding them with airstrikes.
But the insurgency in Syria is now dominated by hardline Sunni Islamists, including both Islamic State and the al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, complicating U.S. measures to find a suitable ally on the ground.
Warren did not offer additional details on the troop figures.
The Pentagon has estimated that it can train more than 5,000 recruits in the first year under a $500 million program, and that up to 15,000 will be needed to retake areas of eastern Syria controlled by Islamic State.
Critics in Congress have said the Pentagon program will not aid Syrian opposition forces fast enough, however, and question whether it is too small to influence the course of Syria's civil war, which pits President Bashar al-Assad;s government against an array of opponents.
Across the border in Iraq, Obama has authorized more than 3,000 U.S. troops to advise and train Iraqi and Kurdish forces.
The disclosure of the planned troop deployments for the Syria training mission followed a meeting between senior U.S. officials and Syrian opposition and civil society leaders in Istanbul.
"These introductory meetings were an important step as we prepare to launch the train-and-equip program later this spring with our international partners," Pentagon spokeswoman Commander Elissa Smith said.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pentagon-US-troops-Syrian-rebels/2015/01/16/id/618960/#ixzz3P0oDcvwl
-
John McCain: 'Have No Doubt: ISIS Is Winning'
Wednesday, 04 Feb 2015
President Barack Obama’s nominee for defense secretary pledged to stop cost overruns and other wasteful spending, even as he pleaded for relief from automatic budget cuts that will resume in October.
“The taxpayer cannot comprehend, let alone support, the defense budget when they read of cost overruns, lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead, and the like,” Ashton Carter said Wednesday in prepared testimony for the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This must stop.”
While Carter’s nomination has won support from lawmakers of both political parties, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, the committee chairman, has said he will use a daylong confirmation hearing to grill him on Obama’s foreign policy, including the president’s strategy for combating Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria and the war in Afghanistan.
“Have no doubt: ISIS is winning,” McCain said Wednesday on CNN, using an acronym for Islamic State, which occupies parts of Iraq and Syria and declared a self-styled caliphate.
Carter, a former deputy defense secretary who would succeed the departing Chuck Hagel, said in written responses to questions the committee submitted that the U.S. “is at the beginning of what could be a long campaign to degrade and inflict a lasting defeat” on Islamic State forces.
When asked what the defeat of Islamic State would look like, Carter said the group “must no longer be a threat to Iraq, the region, the United States and our partners.”
In opening remarks, McCain said Carter will face a difficult challenge because previous defense secretaries under Obama have complained of micromanagement by White House aides.
Panetta, Gates
Carter, 60, spent more than two years as the Pentagon’s No. 2 civilian official under former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and then Hagel. He also served under Obama’s first Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, as the military’s top weapons buyer.
McCain, a frequent critic of Pentagon procurement strategies, cited soaring costs for weapons, in some cases for systems that were canceled after billions of dollars were spent.
Cost estimates for the $398.6 billion F-35 fighter jet, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., have climbed about 71 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since the Pentagon signed an initial contract in 2001.
“Every company, state and city in the country has had to lean itself out in recent years, and it should be no different for the Pentagon,” Carter said in his remarks.
He also echoed Obama’s call to end the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, which he said “introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful” and “conveys a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike.”
http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/mccain-isis-winning-ashton/2015/02/04/id/622660/#ixzz3QntluJfA
-
Obama administration facing pressure to define ISIS strategy, boost aid to Jordan
Published February 05, 2015
FoxNews.com
A day after President Obama's defense pick struggled to explain the administration's ISIS strategy, Capitol Hill lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are upping pressure on the White House to give Jordan's military what it needs to strike back at the Islamic State.
At the Senate hearing on Wednesday, secretary of defense nominee Ashton Carter told Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., he "absolutely" believes the U.S. needs an ISIS strategy. But when asked to define it in specific terms, Carter responded in generalities.
"I think the strategy connects ends and means," Carter said. While calling for the Islamic State's defeat, Carter said the strategy in Iraq is to continue to "strengthen" Iraq's security forces. "On the Syria side," he said, "our strategy is to try to build the forces to keep them defeated."
McCain retorted: "Well, it doesn't sound like a strategy to me, but maybe we can flesh out your goals."
McCain and the rest of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee later urged the administration to do more -- specifically, to help Jordan in its own military campaign after a captured Jordanian pilot was burned alive by the Islamic State.
Jordan's King Abdullah II has vowed to strike back, and already has launched airstrikes against ISIS over Syria in response. Reports from the Middle East said the latest strikes killed 55 members of ISIS, including a senior commander known as the "Prince of Nineveh."
According to U.S. lawmakers who met with Abdullah on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the king has asked for more military assistance from the U.S.
"They literally need ammo, bombs, and they need fuel," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told Fox News on Thursday. He also urged the Pentagon to embed troops with the Jordanian military and other fighting forces, so they could help call for U.S. airpower as needed.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also said Thursday the administration should "move quickly to give more capacity to the Jordanians."
Republicans and Democrats alike are pressing the Obama administration to move swiftly to provide aircraft parts, night-vision equipment and other weapons to Jordan.
In the letter from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, they said Jordan's situation and the unanimity of the coalition battling the extremists "demands that we move with speed to ensure they receive the military materiel they require."
In the current year, the United States is providing Jordan with $1 billion in economic and military assistance. The Defense Department is also giving an unspecified amount of help to Jordan to secure its border with Syria. Islamic militants have grabbed significant swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq.
The senators said Abdullah expressed his gratitude for the U.S. aid, but "we were concerned to hear from the king that Jordan is experiencing complications and delays in obtaining certain types of military equipment through our foreign military sales system."
"Specifically, Jordan is seeking to obtain aircraft parts, additional night vision equipment and precision munitions that the king feels he needs to secure his border and robustly execute combat air missions into Syria," the senators wrote.
At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration would consider any aid package put forward by Congress, but that the White House would be looking for a specific request from Jordan's government.
"I'd want a little more detailed assessment of what exactly they're talking about," Earnest said. "But I can tell you that this is something that this is something that the president feels strongly about."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/05/obama-administration-facing-pressure-to-define-isis-strategy-boost-aid-to/
-
Obama's strategy is to do nothing and allow ISIS to grow exponentially
Obama administration facing pressure to define ISIS strategy, boost aid to Jordan
Published February 05, 2015
FoxNews.com
A day after President Obama's defense pick struggled to explain the administration's ISIS strategy, Capitol Hill lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are upping pressure on the White House to give Jordan's military what it needs to strike back at the Islamic State.
At the Senate hearing on Wednesday, secretary of defense nominee Ashton Carter told Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., he "absolutely" believes the U.S. needs an ISIS strategy. But when asked to define it in specific terms, Carter responded in generalities.
"I think the strategy connects ends and means," Carter said. While calling for the Islamic State's defeat, Carter said the strategy in Iraq is to continue to "strengthen" Iraq's security forces. "On the Syria side," he said, "our strategy is to try to build the forces to keep them defeated."
McCain retorted: "Well, it doesn't sound like a strategy to me, but maybe we can flesh out your goals."
McCain and the rest of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee later urged the administration to do more -- specifically, to help Jordan in its own military campaign after a captured Jordanian pilot was burned alive by the Islamic State.
Jordan's King Abdullah II has vowed to strike back, and already has launched airstrikes against ISIS over Syria in response. Reports from the Middle East said the latest strikes killed 55 members of ISIS, including a senior commander known as the "Prince of Nineveh."
According to U.S. lawmakers who met with Abdullah on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the king has asked for more military assistance from the U.S.
"They literally need ammo, bombs, and they need fuel," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told Fox News on Thursday. He also urged the Pentagon to embed troops with the Jordanian military and other fighting forces, so they could help call for U.S. airpower as needed.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also said Thursday the administration should "move quickly to give more capacity to the Jordanians."
Republicans and Democrats alike are pressing the Obama administration to move swiftly to provide aircraft parts, night-vision equipment and other weapons to Jordan.
In the letter from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, they said Jordan's situation and the unanimity of the coalition battling the extremists "demands that we move with speed to ensure they receive the military materiel they require."
In the current year, the United States is providing Jordan with $1 billion in economic and military assistance. The Defense Department is also giving an unspecified amount of help to Jordan to secure its border with Syria. Islamic militants have grabbed significant swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq.
The senators said Abdullah expressed his gratitude for the U.S. aid, but "we were concerned to hear from the king that Jordan is experiencing complications and delays in obtaining certain types of military equipment through our foreign military sales system."
"Specifically, Jordan is seeking to obtain aircraft parts, additional night vision equipment and precision munitions that the king feels he needs to secure his border and robustly execute combat air missions into Syria," the senators wrote.
At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration would consider any aid package put forward by Congress, but that the White House would be looking for a specific request from Jordan's government.
"I'd want a little more detailed assessment of what exactly they're talking about," Earnest said. "But I can tell you that this is something that this is something that the president feels strongly about."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/05/obama-administration-facing-pressure-to-define-isis-strategy-boost-aid-to/
-
Bad idea to place handcuffs on how the war will be fought. I say kick Obama and all his cronies out of the room, fill it with Marines, let them come up with a battle plan, then execute.
Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces
985 FEB 10, 2015 1:45 PM EST
By Josh Rogin
President Barack Obama will soon give Congress his proposal for a new authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State fighters, and it will place strict limits on the types of U.S. ground forces that can be deployed, according to congressional sources.
Almost six months after the president began using force against the Islamic State advance in Iraq and then in Syria, the White House is ready to ask Congress for formal permission to continue the effort. Until now, the administration has maintained it has enough authority to wage war through the 2001 AUMF on al-Qaeda, the 2002 AUMF regarding Iraq and Article II of the Constitution. But under pressure from Capitol Hill, the White House has now completed the text of a new authorization and could send it to lawmakers as early as Wednesday.
If enacted, the president's AUMF could effectively constrain the next president from waging a ground war against the Islamic State group until at least 2018. Aides warned that the White House may tweak the final details before releasing the document publicly.
In advance of the release, top White House and State Department officials have been briefing lawmakers and Congressional staffers about their proposed legislation. Two senior Congressional aides relayed the details to me.
The president’s AUMF for the fight against Islamic State would restrict the use of ground troops through a prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations," but provide several exemptions. First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel.
Under the president’s proposal, the 2002 AUMF that was passed to authorize the Iraq war would be repealed, but the 2001 AUMF that allows the U.S. to fight against al-Qaeda and its associated groups would remain in place.
The new statute would authorize military action against Islamic State and its associated forces, which are defined in the text as organizations fighting alongside the jihadists and engaged in active hostilities. This means the president would be free to attack groups such as the al-Nusra Front or Iraqi Baathist elements who have partnered with the Islamic terrorists in Syria or Iraq. There are no geographic limitations, so the administration would be free to expand the war to other countries.
The president’s proposed AUMF would sunset in three years and would not give the president the unilateral authority to extend the authorization. That means the next president would have to come back to Congress for a new authorization in 2018, if the fight against Islamic State fighters lasts that long.
The White House’s AUMF largely tracks a version introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Robert Menendez last December, with small tweaks to clarify the definition of Islamic State and its associated groups, and to remove the geographic limits. The president's limits on ground troops are more constricting than what some Republicans had asked for.
The president has crafted the bill so it can engender bipartisan support on Capitol Hill while still preserving an enormous amount of flexibility on the battlefield without micromanagement from Congress, one senior Republican Senate aide said. More Republicans are likely to support an AUMF now that the president has requested it formally, the aide added, warning that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and other hawks will still object to the ground-force limitations.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had been resisting a vote on the floor on an AUMF, but now that the president has made his move we can expect floor action in late February or early March, following hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Some Republicans remain skeptical of the president’s actual enthusiasm for an AUMF, as the current ambiguity gives Obama a lot of flexibility in carrying out the war. They will now wait to see if the administration remains active on the issue after the legislation is introduced.
“The president has to deliver Democrat votes on this and he has to show a commitment,” the senior Republican Senate aide said. “He’s actually got to prosecute the fight to get this thing passed. If he doesn’t demonstrate that he actually wants this, you might see Republicans walk.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment. In recent days, White House officials have acknowledged that the release of the president’s AUMF proposal is just the beginning of the effort.
“There will be a very robust debate,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said last week. “Things that aren’t that serious have a hard time getting through the United States Congress these days. So when we’re talking about something as weighty as an authorization to use military force, I would anticipate that it will require substantial effort.”
The last time President Obama asked for an authorization to use military force, it was to strike the Assad regime in response to its use of chemical weapons. Yet it was obvious that the administration wasn’t wholly committed to actually prosecuting that war. He nixed the attacks before Congress weighed in.
This time around, Obama is already engaged in the fight against Islamic State and his team genuinely wants Congressional buy-in. Clearing up the legal ambiguity of the war will be helpful. But it won’t solve the more important conflict between the White House and lawmakers over the scale and effectiveness of the mission.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-10/obama-s-islamic-state-war-authorization-limits-u-s-ground-forces
-
No "enduring ground combat operations"? What the heck does that mean? ::)
Obama opens door to 'limited' ground combat operations against ISIS
Published February 11, 2015
FoxNews.com
President Obama on Wednesday opened the door to "limited" ground combat operations against the Islamic State, as he asked Congress to formally authorize military force against the terrorist network.
The president, in a proposed resolution and a letter to Congress, underscored the "grave threat" posed by ISIS.
"If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland," Obama said.
The proposal includes limitations that would bar "enduring offensive ground combat operations" and let the authorization lapse after three years. The letter from Obama says the authorization would not allow "long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those" conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the request includes no restrictions on where U.S. forces could pursue the threat. And while the current military campaign centers on coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the proposal clearly allows U.S. ground troops to engage in limited circumstances.
"The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership," Obama wrote in his letter to Congress. "It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the provision would allow special operations missions, such as potential raids targeting Islamic State leaders and rescue efforts. "It's impossible to envision every scenario where ground combat troops might be necessary," Earnest told the Associated Press.
The request kicks off what is likely to be a drawn-out debate in Congress, with hawkish lawmakers sure to push for a broader authorization and anti-interventionist voices seeking more limits.
Already, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he is "concerned about the breadth and vagueness of the U.S. ground troop language and will seek to clarify it."
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he appreciated the president seeking the authorization and would quickly begin holding "rigorous hearings" on the White House request.
"Voting to authorize the use of military force is one of the most important actions Congress can take, and while there will be differences, it is my hope that we will fulfill our constitutional responsibility, and in a bipartisan way, pass an authorization that allows us to confront this serious threat," Corker said.
The White House insists it already has the authority to launch airstrikes against ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, as the U.S. has been doing for months, but wants Congress to sign off in order to demonstrate American unity.
In a letter to lawmakers accompanying the request, Obama urged them to "show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat."
The proposed resolution listed ISIS atrocities in the region, including executions of American hostages and the "abduction, enslavement, torture, rape and forced marriage" of women and girls in the region.
"It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller," Obama said in his letter, listing the American hostages who died in ISIS custody.
Obama plans to speak on his request from the White House Wednesday afternoon, at 3:30 p.m. ET.
Obama's proposal launches an ideological debate over what authorities and limitations the commander in chief should have in pursuit of the extremists, with the shadow of lost American lives hanging over its fate. Confirmation of the death of 26-year-old humanitarian worker Mueller on the eve of Obama's proposal added new urgency, while the costly long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a caution to some lawmakers against yet another protracted military campaign.
Obama is offering to limit authorization to three years, extending to the next president the powers and the debate over renewal for what he envisions as a long-range battle. He is proposing no geographic limitations where U.S. forces could pursue the elusive militants. The authorization covers the Islamic State and "associated persons or forces," defined as those fighting on behalf of or alongside IS "or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
The proposal bars "enduring offensive ground combat operations," an ambiguous term intended as compromise between lawmakers who want authority for ground troops and those who don't.
Obama's resolution would repeal a 2002 authorization for force in Iraq, but maintain a 2001 authorization against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, although Obama said in his letter to lawmakers his goal is to refine and ultimately repeal that authorization as well.
Obama argues the congressional authorizations President George W. Bush used to justify military action after 9/11 are sufficient for him to deploy more than 2,700 U.S. troops to train and assist Iraqi security forces and conduct ongoing airstrikes against targets in Iraq and Syria. Critics have said Obama is overstepping outdated authorities to target the new threat from militants imposing a violent form of Shariah law in pursuit of the establishment of an Islamic state.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/obama-proposes-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/
-
Bob Woodward: Obama 'No Longer the Anti-War President'
Wednesday, 11 Feb 2015
By Wanda Carruthers
The Islamic State (ISIS) forced President Barack Obama to change his stance as an anti-war president to respond to the growing threat posed by the radical militant organization, Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward told MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Obama, who lauded the efforts of his administration for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, was forced to send forces back into the battle against ISIS, Woodward said, adding that withdrawing forces from Afghanistan was slowing down as well.
"He switched on ISIS because this is a brutal, growing organization that has taken over, for instance, the northern Iraq city of Mosul, which is effectively their capital now.
"The idea that an organization can do this so quickly, you know, get so much attention in the world with these beheadings and burnings and so forth, this is something that has to be addressed. And, Obama (is), at least on this issue, no longer the anti-war president," Woodward said Wednesday.
The White House lacked a defined strategy to defeat ISIS, Woodward said, adding Obama's request to Congress for the Authorization for Use of Military Force would prompt a needed debate.
"I think everyone who looks at this realizes there is no strategy," he said. "There's going to be a giant, and there should be a giant debate on this. This is a shared power."
Woodward, on "Fox News Sunday," said that officials at the Pentagon were frustrated with administration officials who were "micromanaging the tactical situation (against ISIS) on a daily and weekly basis." He told "Morning Joe" the White House argued that "this is the president's war. He's the commander in chief. He needs to know what's going on."
"The White House says we want to be involved in that process. From the perspective of the Pentagon, what exactly are we supposed to do here? Get your finger out of our eyes, and let us do the job," he said.
Woodward said ISIS continued to be a "recruiting machine" that enticed a young person "who doesn't have a job or is looking for a life."
"They say, 'look, we're going to give you three things. We're going to give you a gun. We're going to give you a little bit of money. And, we're going to promise you a wife,'" he said.
"To somebody who has no moorings, no place to really live, no focus in their lives, that's very, very appealing. So, you are going to get growth of this movement, rather than shrinkage."
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Bob-Woodward-isis-strategy/2015/02/11/id/624107/#ixzz3RSlA0xTx
-
ISIS Agrees to Three-Year War
Posted on February 13, 2015
by Keith Koffler
ISIS commanders today announced that they had agreed to President Obama’s time limit of three years for the war between the Islamic state and the United States and its allies.
“We think three years is enough time to decide who’s best,” an ISIS spokesman said today. “There is much wisdom to Obama’s approach. It’s kind of like a soccer match. At some point, you have to call time, and whoever is ahead is the winner.”
President Obama’s proposed authorization of military force lasts for three years, after which the next president would have to try to extract a new authorization from Congress if he decided to continue the war.
U.S. and ISIS officials cautioned that time may be added at the end of the three years if the fighting is interrupted by injuries. Injuries are generally expected in soccer and in wars, so the actual duration of the match could extend a bit beyond three years.
The ISIS announcement is seen as a victory for proponents of the Obama Doctrine, which states that wars can be “led from behind” and ended when the United States feels like it.
The doctrine was previously known as “surrendering.”
“We think ‘surrender’ had an awful ring to it,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. “It implied we needed to continue wars until we win them, and that’s just not the case here in the 21st-century. We oppose outmoded ways of thinking.”
White House officials said that in order to maintain interest among fans watching the contest and following it on the Internet, the United States would make the matchup “more fair” by fielding players who had no idea what they were doing.
“Of course, we could wipe ISIS out in 30 days on our own if we wanted to,” said one U.S. official. “But why would we want to do that? Where’s the sportsmanship and the excitement? Much better to get our allies intimately involved and draw this thing out.”
U.S. officials acknowledged that not fielding a full U.S. team could mean that some of the play would occur on the U.S. side of the field. “Sure, they’ll send their strikers into U.S. territory,” said the U.S. official. “But we are counting on the Department of Homeland Security to block their shots.”
U.S. negotiators sought to have red cards given to ISIS fighters who slice off people’s heads or burn them alive, but ISIS successfully argued that this was an integral component of their “culture” and they should not be penalized for it.
However, U.S. troops who draw pictures of Muhammed will be issued yellow cards. Negotiators noted that they had successfully knocked this down from a red card penalty.
The contest will be preceded by at three-month “warmup” period during which ISIS will be permitted to kill as many people in Mosul as possible and plan attacks on the United States. American troops will use the time to try to recoup weapons they were forced to leave in Yemen.
Speaking from his pickle jar in Red Square, Vladimir Lenin praised the three-year war plan. “Boy, Obama really gets it. If we can have five-year plans for the economy, why can’t we make a three-year plan for a war? This is sheer brilliance.”
A spokesman for The Nazi Veterans of Dusseldorf spoke wistfully of the three-year war plan. “Oh, if only we had such a plan in place during World War II,” he said. “We’d end the fighting in control of nearly all of Western and Eastern Europe. If only Obama were president then instead of Roosevelt.”
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/02/13/isis-agrees-threeyear-war/
-
Poll: Most disapprove of Obama handling of ISIS
By Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
February 17, 2015
Washington (CNN)Americans are increasingly unhappy with President Barack Obama's handling of ISIS, and a growing share of the nation believes that fight is going badly, according to a new CNN/ORC survey released Monday.
The CNN/ORC poll found 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS, a significant decline in support for the President over the past few months. In late September, that number was 49%.
Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs more broadly, and 54% disapprove of how the President is handling terrorism. Another 60% rate Obama negatively on his handling of electronic national security.
The declining approval ratings for Obama on national security come as a weekend of international turmoil further underscores the growing threats abroad.
Denmark's capital was rocked by two shootings, one at a free speech event featuring a controversial cartoonist and another just hours later outside a synagogue. The attacks left two dead and five police officers wounded.
And Egypt launched a second round of airstrikes against Islamic State strongholds in Libya on Monday, in retaliation for a video released Sunday that appeared to show ISIS militants beheading a group of 21 Egyptian Christians.
Obama issued a statement condemning the killing of the Christians on Sunday night, though Obama's Republican opponents have consistently made the case that the growing Islamic State threat is exacerbated by what they see as his weak leadership.
In the poll, Americans increasingly believe the U.S. military action against ISIS is going badly, with 58% saying so in the latest survey, up from 49% who said the fight wasn't going well in October.
Even among Democrats, nearly half — 46% — say things aren't going well in the battle against ISIS.
And about half of respondents, 51%, say they trust the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.
But with ISIS affiliates continuing to commit brutal, gruesome murders and multiple terrorist attacks abroad grabbing international headlines over the past few months, support for sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria to confront the threat appears to be growing.
The survey suggests Americans are warming up to the idea of sending ground troops to combat the terrorist organization.
In November, just 43% supported deploying ground troops, while 55% of Americans opposed it; now the number in support has ticked up to 47%, the highest level of support yet measured, with just half of Americans opposed.
Still, the parties have become more polarized on the prospect since November, with 61% of Democrats opposed and a similar majority of Republicans supportive of the prospect, an eight-point increase. Independents, meanwhile, are split, with 48% in favor and 50% opposed.
The prospect of sending in ground troops remains a sticking point for both congressional Democrats and Republicans in the debate over Obama's Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which would give him legal authority to combat ISIS.
But the AUMF, and Obama's decision to go to Congress for the official authority to continue battling ISIS, is widely popular, according to the new poll.
Seventy-eight percent of Americans say Congress should give Obama the authority to fight ISIS, a slight decline from 82% who supported it in December. A similarly large majority say Obama was right to ask Congress for the authority, rather than proceeding with the battle unilaterally.
The survey was conducted among 1,027 adult Americans from Feb. 12-15, and has a margin of sampling error of 3%.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/politics/cnn-poll-isis-obama-approval/index.html
-
Good article. Good summary.
How Obama Lost Iraq and Allowed ISIS to Bloom
Posted on March 17, 2015, by Keith Koffler
President Obama is playing his customary Blame Bush card, trying to heave the Iraq catastrophe, featuring the ISIS caliphate, onto his predecessor.
“ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News released Monday. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”
I suppose, if you try hard enough, you can find a way to blame the British or the Ottomans for ISIS. But the fact is that Obama was handed a stable Iraq by George W. Bush, who had real reasons to go into country, including what everyone thought was accurate intelligence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
A piece in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs by Rick Brennan, a senior civilian adviser to the U.S. military in Iraq from 2006 through the end of 2011, lays out exactly what happened. It makes several things clear:
The failure of the Iraqis to secure their country absent U.S. troops was predicted;
Obama did not seek to keep nearly the number of U.S. troops in Iraq his commanders requested;
The excuse that a status of forces agreement was not reached because U.S. troops would have been subject to Iraqi law is a canard. In fact, U.S. forces operating in Iraq today have less legal protection than they would have under a deal Obama could have struck in 2011 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.
Let’s walk through the argument together.
The 2008 agreements negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraqis called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. The deal was the best Bush could get at the time and was always intended to be renegotiated, which is exactly what Obama was supposedly trying to do.
Military planners believed about 24,000 troops would need to remain in Iraq to maintain the peace, which had been achieved with enormous U.S. blood and treasure, and to continue to prepare Iraq to secure the the place on its own.
Otherwise, disaster would engulf the country. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which had been defeated, was nevertheless licking its wounds in Syria and rebranding itself. It could return. Withdrawal by the United States would also provide an opening for Iran in Iraq.
Brennan writes:
The military planners’ scorecard made one thing perfectly clear: by 2011, enough information was available to conclude that absent a significant U.S. military presence, within a few years, the situation in Iraq was likely to deteriorate — perhaps irreversibly.
The Iraqi military, for example, was still three to five years away from being able to independently sustain the gains made during the past four years.
All of this turned out to be correct. ISIS was not specifically seen, though with substantial U.S. troops in Iraq, it likely would have been noticed:
Had a residual U.S. force stayed in Iraq after 2011, the United States would have had far greater insight into the growing threat posed by ISIS and could have helped the Iraqis stop the group from taking so much territory. Instead, ISIS’ march across northern Iraq took Washington almost completely by surprise.
Obama was having none of it.
In April (2011), Obama directed (U.S. forces in Iraq commander General Lloyd) Austin to develop a plan that would result in a residual force of just 8,000 to 10,000 troops and to identify the missions that a force of that size could realistically accomplish.
In August, according to (then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq James) Jeffrey, Obama informed him that he was free to start negotiations with the Iraqis to keep 5,000 U.S. service members in Iraq: 3,500 combat troops who would be stationed on yearlong tours of duty and 1,500 special operations forces who would rotate in and out every four months.
As we know, Obama reached no deal for a continued U.S. troop presence. The president blamed the prospect of Iraqi legal purview over U.S. forces serving in the country.
Let’s talk about this.
Few realize that this would have simply maintained the status quo, which Bush had felt worth the risk when compared to squandering all our gains:
Washington had to drop its insistence that U.S. forces enjoy complete immunity from Iraqi law. Instead, in somewhat ambiguous terms, the agreement gave Iraqi authorities legal jurisdiction over cases in which U.S. service members were accused of committing serious, premeditated felonies while off duty and away from U.S. facilities.
In his memoir, Duty, published earlier this year, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed that Pentagon lawyers (during Bush’s negotiations with Iraq) strongly opposed the compromise. But Gates explains that he believed it was worth the risk if it meant that U.S. forces could stay in Iraq past 2008. Commanders in the field were also comfortable with the compromise; after all, since members of the U.S. armed forces are on duty 24 hours a day and are not permitted to leave their bases unless on a mission, there was little chance that an American marine or soldier would ever wind up in the hands of Iraqi authorities.
Here’s how the end game played out for Obama on the issue:
In early September (2011), U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns visited Iraq to press Maliki on both those issues. According to a former administration official familiar with what happened during the meeting, Maliki told Burns that although he could likely persuade Iraq’s parliament to request a residual force, anyone who believed that the parliament would approve a status-of-forces agreement that included complete immunity did not understand Iraqi politics. Instead, Maliki proposed signing an executive memorandum granting immunity without the need to gain parliamentary approval. White House lawyers rejected that offer, arguing that for any such agreement to be legally binding, it would have to be formally ratified by the Iraqi parliament.
In early October, as Maliki had predicted, the parliament approved the request for an extended U.S. military presence but declined to grant legal immunity to U.S. military personnel. Later that month, Obama told Maliki that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2011, in fulfillment of the terms of the agreement signed by the Bush administration in 2008.
The compromise offered by Maliki, Brennan writes, would have involved some risk for American service members. But not unacceptable risk:
In the nearly three years since Bush had agreed to a similar compromise, no U.S. service member or civilian official stationed in Iraq had been charged with violating an Iraqi law.
As noted above, U.S. commanders were comfortable with the legal exposure negotiated by Bush. And let’s be honest. Would the Iraqis really risk ending U.S. assistance by imprisoning a U.S. service member? And is the risk of imprisonment in Iraq really worse than the risk of death, which is implicit in any U.S. deployment?
If you want to understand how disingenuous this all was, note what Brennan writes:
It is also worth pointing out that the U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq today count on a promise of immunity backed only by a diplomatic note signed by the Iraqi foreign minister — an assurance even less solid than the one Maliki offered (and Obama rejected) in 2011.
Get it? With catastrophe imminent by 2014, Obama actually took a lesser deal on immunity. So how big a issue would this have been in 2011 if Obama had been able to wrap his mind around the awesomeness of mistake he was making then?
Obama fist bump troops
If Obama was so concerned about reaching a deal to keep troops in Iraq, why did he make their complete withdrawal into a celebration, using the “I ended the war” claim as a central plank of his reelection campaign. This provides clear proof that Obama wasn’t serious about the negotiations to begin with.
In one of the bravest moves by a commander in chief in U.S. history, Bush ignored all the conventional wisdom and, with his faith in the skill and bravery of our armed forces, ordered the surge in Iraq that won the war.
Obama turned around and lost the war. Those are the facts that Obama, and all of us, now have to live with.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/03/17/obama-lost-iraq-allowed-isis-bloom/
-
If bush had stayed the fuck out of Iraq we wouldn't have this shit going on,all he did was make a vacuum .shit even his old man knew this, I guess he forgot to tell his idiot son
-
Obama at the UN: He Really Doesn’t Get that He’s at War
by KEITH KOFFLER on SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
There’s a reason President Obama and his advisors don’t want to use the word “war” in describing what we are doing against ISIS. It’s that they really don’t believe they are at war. They really don’t get it.
The president seems to be thinking that he’s playing a game of “Risk” with his high school friends in Hawaii.
Obama UNObama this morning stepped to the rostrum of the United Nations at the very moment he has launched attacks against the foe of the civilized world – and even of the uncivilized portion too. You would think, naturally, that he would be rallying the troops, so to speak, since this is supposedly an international coalition. That he’d be sustaining morale by explaining the danger, issuing a call to arms, and assuring jittery allies that we won’t relent until the job is done.
But no, what we got was a lecture to the Mideast Muslim world about how they have to start behaving themselves in order to undermine the rationale for ISIS. They have to talk to each other, join hands, chant the Chimes of Freedom, and stop arguing about religious matters.
Stop arguing about religious matters? Sure.
Listen, this little talking to directed at Muslims is a good idea, and I give Obama credit for doing it. He seems to have shed a little political correctness and decided to ask, in effect, Where’s the outrage among Muslims about Islamism and why are you funding it?
This was a good line, directed in particular at the Saudis:
It is time for a new compact among the civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source: the corruption of young minds by violent ideology.
That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It’s time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy, and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down.
But the president is naive and ultimately laden with hubris. The tyrants, Islamists, and self-servers who run the Middle East are not going to change their ways just because Barack Obama says so.
No one’s going to reform themselves unless the alternative looks too unattractive. That is, unless extremism is met with violence and defeat.
Ronald Reagan didn’t start negotiating with the Soviets until he had made it very clear to them that we would oppose them and seek to destroy their ideology, whether by arming Afghan rebels or promoting missile defense.
What Muslim leaders and societies might do, rather than suddenly start powwowing it up over hookahs, is join us in a shared fight for against ISIS, which for them is an important battle to wage.
And for this, Obama would have had to stir their imaginations with visions of conquest against our shared enemy while making it clear he’s enthusiastic about the task and isn’t going to extract himself at the first sign of bad news.
But no. Opportunity squandered.
The way to defeat Islamist extremism is to defeat it. We can talk about community organizing in Riyadh later.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/09/24/obama-war/
Only a moron would suggest doing anything close to what Bush did. You can't defeat an ideology with guns, in fact, it most likely entrenches those sharing the ideology.
Bush's wars are massive failures, it was like chasing the fucking boogeyman.
"The way to defeat Islamist extremism is to defeat it. We can talk about community organizing in Riyadh later. "
Tell this fucking moron to strap on some boots and go to war then. Last time there was a war on terror, you tried to defeat it, it not only didn't work, it clearly made things worse.
-
Yeah. Terrorists just need jobs. And a hug.
-
Yeah. Terrorists just need jobs. And a hug.
Imagine if we took the same position when christians were stuck in the middle ages, during the inquisition etc..
You can't kill away an ideology. education, leadership, economic opportunity are the answer and have always been etc.
Why do you think they are the way they are?
Just like gangs, the answer isn't firefighting with them and killing them. Humans are good at the core, this is a perversion of humanity. The problem is religion, once it's gone things will be a lot better.
You didn't even address my arguments. Are things better or worse since Bush put all those boots on the ground? what did it accomplish? worsening the situation, spending obscene amounts of money, causing untold death and injury to soldiers etc. For what? what exactly did it accomplish? They didn't even get the person they were hunting, there was no WMD's etc.
Boots on the ground just like before will not speed up the process and cost much more money and lives.
If you have an example of when a country wars with an idea and benefits I would love to hear it. In ww2 It was Germany, a clearly delineated country etc.. it wasn't nazism, that would spread the problem far and wide, making it impossible to "win". This is the scenario you are currently in.
-
Imagine if we took the same position when christians were stuck in the middle ages, during the inquisition etc..
You can't kill away an ideology. education, leadership, economic opportunity are the answer and have always been etc.
Why do you think they are the way they are?
Just like gangs, the answer isn't firefighting with them and killing them. Humans are good at the core, this is a perversion of humanity. The problem is religion, once it's gone things will be a lot better.
You didn't even address my arguments. Are things better or worse since Bush put all those boots on the ground? what did it accomplish? worsening the situation, spending obscene amounts of money, causing untold death and injury to soldiers etc. For what? what exactly did it accomplish? They didn't even get the person they were hunting, there was no WMD's etc.
Boots on the ground just like before will not speed up the process and cost much more money and lives.
If you have an example of when a country wars with an idea and benefits I would love to hear it. In ww2 It was Germany, a clearly delineated country etc.. it wasn't nazism, that would spread the problem far and wide, making it impossible to "win". This is the scenario you are currently in.
I did address your comments by highlighting how naive they are.
I'm not going to comment on the inquisition, etc. I'll leave that absurd comparison to people like you . . . and Obama.
Regarding our enemies, they cannot be reasoned with. They have a "convert or die" mentality. They intentionally murder innocent civilians. They don't follow rules of engagement. They're not interested in compromise. They have to be killed. That's the cold, hard truth.
-
I did address your comments by highlighting how naive they are.
I'm not going to comment on the inquisition, etc. I'll leave that absurd comparison to people like you . . . and Obama.
Regarding our enemies, they cannot be reasoned with. They have a "convert or die" mentality. They intentionally murder innocent civilians. They don't follow rules of engagement. They're not interested in compromise. They have to be killed. That's the cold, hard truth.
-
I did address your comments by highlighting how naive they are.
I'm not going to comment on the inquisition, etc. I'll leave that absurd comparison to people like you . . . and Obama.
Regarding our enemies, they cannot be reasoned with. They have a "convert or die" mentality. They intentionally murder innocent civilians. They don't follow rules of engagement. They're not interested in compromise. They have to be killed. That's the cold, hard truth.
They are not naive, it's naive to think doing the same thing you have done previously will result in a different outcome. We know how this story ends, perhaps some outside the box thinking is needed?
The inquisition is a perfect example, the religious undercurrent at the time made it possible to kill people in the name of god, the christian god. Fast forward to USA now, christian, doesn't kill people. Why did that happen? I know there are still people doing it, however, my point is that islam is where christianity was during the inquisition.
I agree with everything you said regarding ISIS, however, killing the people won't kill the idea it may only embolden it as history has shown. Wasn't the same thing said of AQ? how did that work out for you? did you just not kill enough? do you literally mean kill every single one of them?
Why is the western world different? these people are hurled into the world just like you, there isn't something genetic making them kill in the name of a fairy tale. It's the culture/society they grew up in which permits and perpetuates this issue, the change has to come bottom up.
I would do exactly as Obama is, Air strikes, without wasting human lives. It would be a waste as the people would have no more success then the drone strikes. Target supplies etc not the people. Counter act the recruitment of young people into the cause, with gasp education.
If it was North Korea I would be with you, but this nebulous decentralized ideologic group, no.
-
They are not naive, it's naive to think doing the same thing you have done previously will result in a different outcome. We know how this story ends, perhaps some outside the box thinking is needed?
The inquisition is a perfect example, the religious undercurrent at the time made it possible to kill people in the name of god, the christian god. Fast forward to USA now, christian, doesn't kill people. Why did that happen? I know there are still people doing it, however, my point is that islam is where christianity was during the inquisition.
I agree with everything you said regarding ISIS, however, killing the people won't kill the idea it may only embolden it as history has shown. Wasn't the same thing said of AQ? how did that work out for you? did you just not kill enough? do you literally mean kill every single one of them?
Why is the western world different? these people are hurled into the world just like you, there isn't something genetic making them kill in the name of a fairy tale. It's the culture/society they grew up in which permits and perpetuates this issue, the change has to come bottom up.
I would do exactly as Obama is, Air strikes, without wasting human lives. It would be a waste as the people would have no more success then the drone strikes. Target supplies etc not the people. Counter act the recruitment of young people into the cause, with gasp education.
If it was North Korea I would be with you, but this nebulous decentralized ideologic group, no.
Your point is wrong. It is based on a misreading of ancient history, which has zero applicability to what is happening today. You should go read up on the Inquisition: who was involved, who wasn't, what happened, how long it lasted, etc. You'll have a more informed opinion.
I mean killing every single one of them if we can. I know that will never happen, but giving them jobs isn't the answer. Negotiating isn't the answer. They don't even have a friggin country.
What Obama is doing is a bandaid. He's probably just trying to run out the clock until his term is up so he can hand over the mess he created to his successor.
And North Korea is nothing like the terrorists we are fighting. N. Korea isn't about an ideology bent on killing Americans. It's about a handful of people in power who are running a civilized country; a country that wants to be included with the rest of us, rather than kill us. Horrible comparison.
-
Your point is wrong. It is based on a misreading of ancient history, which has zero applicability to what is happening today. You should go read up on the Inquisition: who was involved, who wasn't, what happened, how long it lasted, etc. You'll have a more informed opinion.
I mean killing every single one of them if we can. I know that will never happen, but giving them jobs isn't the answer. Negotiating isn't the answer. They don't even have a friggin country.
What Obama is doing is a bandaid. He's probably just trying to run out the clock until his term is up so he can hand over the mess he created to his successor.
And North Korea is nothing like the terrorists we are fighting. N. Korea isn't about an ideology bent on killing Americans. It's about a handful of people in power who are running a civilized country; a country that wants to be included with the rest of us, rather than kill us. Horrible comparison.
You literally missed every inference I was suggesting. The point of the inquisition is that religious dogma drives people to do insane things, the evolution of christianity is in line with Islam, one is further evolved including more humanist elements.
The NK reference was meant to highlight the point you made, they don't have a country, making it impossible to win this war, just like the last. You are also mis representing ISIS, sure the US is a target but so are all non-muslim people or infidels. NK is potentially far more dangerous Then ISIS due to being a centralized state.
I think you are thinking of South Korea to be honest, NK wants the US gone.
Regardless of your comprehension issue, what precedent is there for this war? Bush's is the only one that comes to mind, it was a massive failure and worsened the issue. What extra effect would boots on the ground accomplish?Drone warfare seems like the best decision. There is only band aids is the point you are missing, you aren't solving this with war or more death.
-
You literally missed every inference I was suggesting. The point of the inquisition is that religious dogma drives people to do insane things, the evolution of christianity is in line with Islam, one is further evolved including more humanist elements.
The NK reference was meant to highlight the point you made, they don't have a country, making it impossible to win this war, just like the last. You are also mis representing ISIS, sure the US is a target but so are all non-muslim people or infidels. NK is potentially far more dangerous Then ISIS due to being a centralized state.
I think you are thinking of South Korea to be honest, NK wants the US gone.
Regardless of your comprehension issue, what precedent is there for this war? Bush's is the only one that comes to mind, it was a massive failure and worsened the issue. What extra effect would boots on the ground accomplish?Drone warfare seems like the best decision. There is only band aids is the point you are missing, you aren't solving this with war or more death.
I addressed your point and disagreed with it. Using the Inquisition as any basis of comparison to ISIS is ridiculous. Stop trolling and do your homework.
You are as bad as the religious people so you are so obsessed with. You are every bit the anti-religious extremist as those you criticize. Maybe it clouds your judgment?
North Koreans don't want the U.S. gone. A handful of people in power saber rattle on occasion, spy, etc. It is absolutely nothing like the collection of individuals all over the planet whose mission is to kill Americans. As I said, ISIS doesn't have a country, no easily identifiable command and control centers, and no platform other than imposing their will on others and killing anyone who disagrees.
Drone warfare is not going to solve anything, as most of the military folks will tell you, and have told the president. We're not going to sit at the table with ISIS and smoke the peace pipe. Have you been watching the news? The kidnapping and murder of innocents? You cannot negotiate with animals like that.
-
White House announces pause in US troop drawdown from Afghanistan
Published March 24, 2015
FoxNews.com
President Obama announced Tuesday that the U.S. will keep nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through the end of the year, hitting pause on the scheduled drawdown after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani voiced security concerns.
The president, saying Afghanistan remains a "dangerous place," announced the move in a joint press conference with Ghani. The two met earlier in the Oval Office, during Ghani's first White House visit since being elected president of the war-torn country.
Obama stressed that his goal of finishing the drawdown by the end of his term has not changed, but said hitting pause this year is "well worth it," as the spring fighting season approaches.
"This flexibility reflects our reinvigorated partnership with Afghanistan," Obama said, standing next to Ghani.
The change also reflects a desire -- by both Kabul and Washington -- for Afghanistan not to go the way of Iraq, where the void left by U.S. troops was filled by Islamic State fighters. In Afghanistan, while there is an ISIS-affiliated presence, the Taliban still pose the biggest threat.
Obama acknowledged he wants to make sure Afghan forces are prepared to handle security "so we don't have to go back."
The original U.S. military plan was to bring the U.S. force down to 5,500 by the end of the year. Under the new plan, detailed in a White House statement and announced by Obama during the press conference, the current force of 9,800 troops will remain through the end of 2015. Ghani had sought the more robust U.S. troop presence.
Obama stressed that the "specific trajectory" of the drawdown for 2016 will be established later this year -- and he still wants to stick to the plan of reducing the force to a "Kabul-based embassy presence" by the time he leaves office. "That hasn't changed," Obama said on Tuesday.
The pace of the U.S. troop drawdown was the focus of daylong White House meetings, and the centerpiece of Ghani's highly anticipated visit to the U.S. On the job only six months, Ghani is trying to make the case that he's a reliable partner worthy of American support, despite his fractured government and a litany of problems still rampant in Afghanistan's military -- illiteracy, drug abuse and desertions, to name a few.
Ghani arrived midmorning at the White House, where a U.S. military honor guard lined the driveway leading to the West Wing. Inside, he and Obama chatted casually and sat side by side as reporters were allowed briefly to observe the start of their meeting.
For Obama, Ghani represents the last, best hope to make good on the president's promise to end America's longest war by the time he leaves office, keeping just a thousand or so troops at the embassy to coordinate security. Ghani predecessor Hamid Karzai's relationship with the White House was increasingly dysfunctional, and if the dealings with Ghani don't turn out better, Obama risks leaving Afghanistan still vulnerable to the kinds of violent extremist groups that operated with impunity until 14 years ago, when the U.S. attacked after 9/11.
Ghani's government asked the president to keep more U.S. troops in his country for longer, as Afghan forces brace for a tough spring fighting season and contend with Islamic State fighters looking to recruit on their soil.
Also at stake: the future of U.S. bases in Jalalabad and in Kandahar, where the Taliban had their capital until 2001. U.S. military leaders have seemed receptive to Ghani's request that those bases stay open as long as possible -- sources tell Fox News the Obama administration plans to keep the bases open through this year.
Further underscoring the fragile security situation, gunmen killed at least 13 people overnight during a midnight assault on a highway near Taliban-held territory in eastern Afghanistan, although no group immediately claimed responsibility.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/24/white-house-announces-pause-in-us-troop-drawdown-from-afghanistan/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Hawaii Dem takes on Obama
By Kristina Wong - 05/14/15
TheHill.com
One of the toughest critics of President Obama’s strategy against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who represents his home state of Hawaii.
Gabbard has taken the administration to task for refusing to use the term “radical Islam” and called for the White House to be more aggressive.
In an interview with The Hill, Gabbard said she has spoken to the White House about her criticism, though she has yet to speak with Obama himself.
“The president hasn’t called me. I’ve had a number of ongoing conversations with different people in the administration about some of these issues, both one-on-one, as well as in smaller, classified group settings,” she said.
“I’ve never been asked directly to not do my job. So obviously, there are areas where we’re going to agree to disagree.”
Gabbard, 34, one of the youngest members of Congress, is a Hawaii Army National Guard captain with two deployments under her belt, including a year in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit.
She later served in Kuwait as a platoon commander for a military police unit that accompanied a brigade running convoys. Those experiences have shaped her views on the fight against ISIS and given her credibility as a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
While her criticism of Obama would appear risky in Hawaii, where the president remains popular, Gabbard says she simply disagrees with elements of his foreign policy.
“The leadership in our country, unfortunately, is still not looking at this in a comprehensive way,” she said.
Gabbard argues the administration needs to take a closer look at the shared ideology between terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and Boko Haram, rather than viewing them and their offshoots as separate threats.
“Each of these different groups that are basically all being fueled by the same ideology, and none of them can be defeated with a military-only strategy,” she said.
“There has to be a simultaneous ideological strategy to defeat the ideology that’s allowing them to recruit so heavily, not just in the Middle East, but foreign fighters as well.”
Part of the solution, Gabbard argues, is dividing Iraq into three states for the Shiite, Sunni and the Kurdish populations, to ease the sectarian tensions that have long plagued the country, including after the U.S. invasion in 2003.
The administration disagrees and continues to back a strong central government in Iraq.
“If we don’t address the sectarian issues that have been rumbling below the surface for so long that we’re going to continue to see that oxygen that allows ISIS to maintain a stronghold,” Gabbard said.
“It’s disappointing that we, the United States, is not leveraging whatever influence we still have in that country to move in that direction.”
While some Democrats have been critical of Obama’s strategy on ISIS, few have been as outspoken as Gabbard, who in February said it was “mind-boggling” that Obama refused to say the phrase “Islamic terrorism.”
The Hawaii Democrat said she believes it’s important to speak her mind and not look at the issue through a partisan lens.
“If we’re headed in the wrong direction, it’s our responsibility to call that out and try to right the course and bring us back on track,” she said.
“I think it’s unfortunate — and people in both parties are guilty of this — when a blind eye is turned sim ply because it’s your friend or your party who is in a position of power,” she said.
Gabbard was first elected to the House in 2012, taking the seat that was left open when then-Rep. Mazie Hirono (D) ran for the Senate. Gabbard won a second term handily last year, taking 77 percent of the vote.
Her election has coincided with a changing of the guard in Congress, with veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars entering politics in both parties. She is one of two Democratic female combat veterans in the House, along with Rep. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), who is running for the Senate.
Gabbard co-founded the Post-9/11 Veterans Caucus, and like every reserve soldier, does one weekend a month of military service.
Last weekend, after arriving in Hawaii at 10 p.m., she was up at 6 a.m. leading a 10-mile ruck march of soldiers hoping to go to Officer Candidate School.
There, she says troops see her as “Captain Gabbard” and are more focused on their training than being around a congresswoman.
“They’re going through some really tough training, and they’re very focused on that, so it’s cool,” she said.
Aside from calling for a tougher approach to terrorism, the Hawaii Democrat has been a vocal advocate for female troops integrating into combat positions — a difficulty she experienced firsthand during her military service.
She says her police platoon was once excluded from providing security on a convoy because the infantry battalion commander did not want women on the mission.
“The context for how you decide who goes on a mission should be the best equipped and the most capable. Gender should not be a question in that decision,” she said.
She said she sometimes gets emails from female troops thanking her for representing them in Congress.
“On a deeply personal level, that means so much to me,” she said.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/242024-hawaii-dem-takes-on-obama
-
I always love the threads where Bum talks to himself
He's his own personal echo chamber...always agreeing with himself
-
President Obama's destabilization of the Middle East on full display.
Key Iraqi City Falls to ISIS as Last of Security Forces Flee
By TIM ARANGO
MAY 17, 2015
BAGHDAD — The last Iraqi security forces fled Ramadi on Sunday, as the city fell completely to the militants of the Islamic State, who ransacked the provincial military headquarters, seizing a large store of weapons, and killed people loyal to the government, according to security officials and tribal leaders.
The fall of Ramadi, despite intensified American airstrikes in recent weeks in a bid to save the city, represented the biggest victory so far this year for the Islamic State, which has declared a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast areas of Syria and Iraq that it controls. The defeat also laid bare the failed strategy of the Iraqi government, which had announced last month a new offensive to retake Anbar Province, a large desert region in the west of which Ramadi is the capital.
By The New York Times
“Men, women, kids and fighters’ bodies are scattered on the ground,” said Sheikh Rafi al-Fahdawi, a tribal leader from Ramadi, who was in Baghdad on Sunday and whose men had been resisting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
He also said, “All security forces and tribal leaders have either retreated or been killed in battle. It is a big loss.”
Ramadi fell a day after the Pentagon said Special Operations forces, flying in helicopters that took off from Iraq, carried out a raid in eastern Syria that resulted in the death of an Islamic State leader and the capture of his wife, along with the recovery of a trove of materials American officials hope will yield important intelligence on the group.
American officials said recently that the Islamic State was on the defensive in Iraq, noting that the group had lost territory in Salahuddin Province and in some other areas in northern Iraq near the border with the autonomous Kurdish region. Yet the fall of Ramadi shows that the group is still capable of carrying out effective offensive operations.
Anbar Province holds painful historical import for the United States as the place where nearly 1,300 Marines and soldiers died after the American-led invasion of 2003. Since the beginning of 2014, months before the fall of Mosul and the start of the American air campaign against the Islamic State, the United States has been working with the Iraqi government to drive the extremist group from Anbar, sending vast supplies of weapons and ammunition and, more recently, training Sunni tribal fighters at an air base in the province.
With defeat looming in Ramadi on Sunday afternoon, the Anbar Provincial Council met in Baghdad and voted to ask Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to send Shiite fighters to rescue Anbar, a largely Sunni province. In response, Mr. Abadi issued a statement calling for the militias, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces and including several powerful Shiite forces supported by Iran, to be ready to fight. Some of the Shiite irregular units, which were formed last summer after Shiite clerics put out a call to arms, are more firmly under the command of the government, while others answer to Iran.
The involvement of the militias in Anbar had been opposed by the United States, which leads an international coalition that has been carrying out airstrikes in support of Iraqi forces. American officials had worried that the militias could inflame sectarian tensions in the province and ultimately make it harder to pacify.
As they considered asking for the militias’ assistance, Anbar officials met over the weekend with the American ambassador to Iraq, Stuart E. Jones, to ascertain the United States’ position on the issue. According to officials, Mr. Jones told the Anbar delegation that the United States would continue its air campaign, provided that the militias were under the command of Mr. Abadi, and not Iranian advisers, and that the militias were properly organized to avoid American bombing runs.
At the outset of an offensive to liberate Tikrit, in Salahuddin Province, in March, the Iranian-backed militias took the lead, and American warplanes stayed away. Once those militias stalled, Mr. Abadi ordered them to retreat, which was followed by airstrikes by the United States, an advance by Iraqi security forces, and the liberation of Tikrit.
In the wake of that victory, Mr. Abadi promised a new effort in Anbar, a campaign to be led by the Iraqi security forces and supported by American airstrikes, with Iranian-backed militias on the sidelines. A crucial component of that strategy was to arm local Sunni tribesmen to fight, but that plan never materialized on a large-scale, partly because of resistance by powerful Shiite political leaders in Baghdad.
The deterioration of Anbar over the past month underscored the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi Army, which is being trained by American military advisers, and raised questions about the United States’ strategy to defeat the Islamic State. At the same time, now that the militias are being called upon, the collapse of Ramadi has demonstrated again the influence of Iran, even if its advisers are unlikely to be on the ground in Anbar, as they were during the operation in Tikrit.
The Islamic State, which has held areas around Ramadi for nearly a year and a half, began an offensive on the city late Thursday night, and on Friday afternoon captured the provincial government headquarters.
Mr. Abadi on Friday promised to send reinforcements, but only about 200 soldiers arrived from Baghdad to help resist in one of the last contested neighborhoods in the city, according to a security official in Anbar.
American officials in Washington played down the situation Friday, saying it was similar to the up-and-down fighting there since the beginning of last year.
Yet the Islamic State was able to consolidate its hold of the city over the weekend, and on Sunday seized one of the last government redoubts, the local operations command center. The remaining officers and soldiers had fled, and one of them reached by telephone Sunday afternoon said they were stuck in a convoy southwest of Ramadi, with Islamic State militants closing in from four sides.
Another soldier who had been stationed at the Anbar Operations Command headquarters said the forces had left behind a huge cache of weapons recently sent by Baghdad, including rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns. The weapons had been supplied by both the United States and Russia.
“ISIS is gaining more weapons, and the battle will be harder in the future,” said the soldier, who declined to give his name because he feared for his life.
Shiite militia leaders, who had mostly watched the collapse from afar, were scrambling on Sunday to mobilize their men.
Mueen al-Kadhumi, a leader in the Popular Mobilization Forces and a member of the Badr Organization, a longstanding militia with ties to Iran, said, “We have recalled all off-duty fighters to join their units as soon as possible to participate in the upcoming battle for Anbar.”
Pentagon officials said Sunday that it was premature to declare that Ramadi had fallen.
“We’re continuing to monitor reports of tough fighting in Ramadi, and the situation remains fluid and contested,” said Col. Steven H. Warren, a Defense Department spokesman.
Coalition warplanes carried out more attacks on Islamic State targets in Iraq, with seven airstrikes on militant positions in or near Ramadi over the weekend, according to official statements. But the advance by Islamic State fighters was evidence again that American air power alone could not hold territory for the Baghdad government, or dislodge the militants, without an effective Iraqi force on the ground.
The wife of the Islamic State’s senior financial officer remained in American custody in Iraq on Sunday. Umm Sayyaf was captured during the Saturday raid into Syria that killed her husband, Abu Sayyaf, and about a dozen militant fighters.
A senior American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation, said Abu Sayyaf’s death was likely to cause only a minor disruption in the Islamic State’s financial operations, including black-market sales of oil petroleum products.
“This will be short-lived,” the official said. “Organizations like this are designed to have succession plans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/middleeast/isis-ramadi-iraq.html?_r=0
-
ISIS Seizes Important Ancient City from Syrian Forces
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=7281df0f-8196-4d6f-8bf7-fa5cb794af46&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: ISIS Seizes Important Ancient City from Syrian Forces Palmyra was an ancient Aramaic city in central Syria. (Erwin F./Dreamstime)
Thursday, 21 May 2015
Islamic State seized full control of the historic city of Palmyra in central Syria on Thursday, just days after it captured a provincial capital in neighboring Iraq, suggesting momentum is building for the ultra-hardline group.
The twin successes pile pressure not just on Damascus and Baghdad, but also throw doubt on U.S. strategy to rely almost exclusively on air strikes to defeat the Sunni Muslim movement, which is an offshoot of al-Qaida.
Islamic State said in a statement posted by followers on Twitter it was in full charge of Palmyra, including its military bases, marking the first time it had taken a city directly from President Bashar al-Assad's army and allied forces.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Islamic State now controls more than half of Syrian territory following four years of civil war.
The radical group has destroyed antiquities and monuments in Iraq and there are fears it might now devastate Palmyra, an ancient World Heritage site and home to renowned Roman-era ruins including well-preserved temples, colonnades and a theater.
"This is the fall of a civilization," Syria's antiquities chief Maamoun Abdulkarim told Reuters by telephone on Thursday. "Human, civilized society has lost the battle against barbarism. I have lost all hope."
Clashes in the area since Wednesday killed at least 100 pro-government fighters, said Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which bases its information on a network of sources on the ground.
Islamic State said retreating pro-government forces had left behind many dead, but gave no precise figures.
The assault on the city is part of a westward advance by Islamic State that is adding to pressures on Assad's overstretched army and pro-government militia, which have also recently lost ground in the northwest and south.
"Palmyra is very strategically situated and can now be used as a launching pad for further territorial pushes towards Homs and Damascus," said Matthew Henman, Head of IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center, in a note.
Palmyra's fall came just five days after the Islamist group seized Ramadi, capital of Iraq's largest province, Anbar. Fighters loyal to the group have also consolidated their grip on Sirte in Libya, hometown of former leader Muammar Gaddafi, extending their reach in the region.
COUNTER-OFFENSIVE
Iraqi forces said on Thursday that they had thwarted a third attempt by Islamic State militants to break through their defensive lines east of Ramadi overnight.
Police and pro-government Sunni fighters exchanged mortar and sniper fire with insurgents across the new frontline in Husaiba al-Sharqiya, about halfway between Ramadi and a base where a counter-offensive to retake the city is being prepared.
The loss of Ramadi handed the central Iraq government in Baghdad its most significant setback in a year and exposed the limitations of both the Iraqi army and a campaign of U.S.-led air strikes designed to "degrade and destroy" Islamic State.
The United States plans to deliver 1,000 anti-tank weapons to Iraq in June to combat suicide bombings like those that helped the Islamist group grab Ramadi, a senior U.S. State Department official said on Thursday.
Iraq's government has ordered Shi'ite militia, some of which have close ties to Iran, to join the battle to retake Ramadi, raising fears of renewed sectarian strife in the country.
Washington has said it will support the Ramadi counter-offensive, but says it should include both Sunni and Shi'ite forces under the direct command of central government.
The militants in Ramadi are seeking to consolidate their gains in the surrounding province of Anbar by pushing east towards the Habbaniya base where Iraqi security forces and Shi'ite paramilitaries are massing.
"Daesh is desperately trying to breach our defences but this is impossible now," Police major Khalid al-Fahdawi said, referring to Islamic State. "They tried overnight to breach our defences but they failed. Army helicopters were waiting for them."
Habbaniya is one of only a few remaining pockets of government-held territory in Anbar, and lies between Ramadi and the town of Falluja, which has been controlled by Islamic State for more than a year.
Local officials say the militants want to join up the two towns and overrun the other remaining government holdouts, strung out along the Euphrates river valley and the border with Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Sabah Nouri, spokesman for Iraq's counterterrorism forces, said forces were "flowing to Habbaniya with new lethal arms that will help reverse the course of action against Daesh."
He said the reinforcements would allow the army to wage several simultaneous attacks, and that regular troops would hold any recaptured territory to allow the counter-terrorism units to focus on maintaining an offensive.
Although Islamic State has seized large chunks of Syria, the areas it holds are mostly sparsely inhabited. Syria's main cities, including the capital Damascus, are located on its western flank along the border with Lebanon and the coastline and have been the priority for Assad's government.
In Syria's northeast, Kurdish forces backed by U.S.-led air strikes have been pressing an attack on Islamic State in Hasaka province, which links territories held by the group in Syria with neighbouring Iraq. Scores of its members have been killed this week according to the Observatory and a Kurdish official.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/isis-captures-palmyra-control/2015/05/20/id/645803/#ixzz3an6YUOu6
-
I did address your comments by highlighting how naive they are.
I'm not going to comment on the inquisition, etc. I'll leave that absurd comparison to people like you . . . and Obama.
Regarding our enemies, they cannot be reasoned with. They have a "convert or die" mentality. They intentionally murder innocent civilians. They don't follow rules of engagement. They're not interested in compromise. They have to be killed. That's the cold, hard truth.
what I find odd is that you so much hate Obama that you want to label these conflicts as Obama's wars when he started absolutely none of them........Bush started the Iraq and Afghan wars.....ISIS war started due to Assad not wanting to quit even though his people told him to and to Al Maliki who fucked up the calm peaceful country we left him..............The Libyan War was started by France, Britain and Italy.....Obam helped reluctantly as long as US trops weren't involved which was the right call......
Why dio you feel the need to blame everything on Obama and exonerate everyone else????????????????????????????????????????????
-
ISIS Seizes Important Ancient City from Syrian Forces
it's obama's fault that a country we hate (Syria) and that hates us, is having internal strife with a group of bad guys.
i mean seriously, two groups of people wasting each other, and both of these groups hate us. They're going to take each others cities and strategic targets. it's gonna happen. people screaming "why can't obama stop isis" - let ISIS and syria fight it out.
-
it's obama's fault that a country we hate (Syria) and that hates us, is having internal strife with a group of bad guys.
i mean seriously, two groups of people wasting each other, and both of these groups hate us. They're going to take each others cities and strategic targets. it's gonna happen. people screaming "why can't obama stop isis" - let ISIS and syria fight it out.
Exactly..let the Arbas get their hands dirty for a change...the arabs have to sort this out..its a religious war.....the US cant stop this from happening and will never be able to impose order.....
-
what I find odd is that you so much hate Obama that you want to label these conflicts as Obama's wars when he started absolutely none of them........Bush started the Iraq and Afghan wars.....ISIS war started due to Assad not wanting to quit even though his people told him to and to Al Maliki who fucked up the calm peaceful country we left him..............The Libyan War was started by France, Britain and Italy.....Obam helped reluctantly as long as US trops weren't involved which was the right call......
Why dio you feel the need to blame everything on Obama and exonerate everyone else????????????????????????????????????????????
I don't hate Obama. I just think he is dishonest and a lousy president. That's essentially all I've ever said about him.
Obama inherited a stable Iraq and proceeded to destabilize the country, and the entire Middle East.
It doesn't matter who started the other wars. The fact is he is involved. And doing a horrible job.
-
Exactly..let the Arbas get their hands dirty for a change...the arabs have to sort this out..its a religious war.....the US cant stop this from happening and will never be able to impose order.....
obama is now to blame for not spending US money, weapons and lives, "breaking up" every civil war in every shitty part of the world.
I mean, we're almost at war with syria and we are at war with ISIS. We have a situation where they're killing each other daily for control of a shitty city in Syria.... fccking let them! Let them! Let them keep this battle contained, let them waste each other, drag it out, use up their men and money.
WTF... repubs' dicks are so hard for a war, they are so desperate to borrow from china to start another war, they just want boots on ground somewhere. Armchair QBs. Our mutual enemies are wasting each other, that's a win.
-
Marine 4-star: Ramadi's fall to ISIS 'breaks my heart'
By Hope Hodge Seck, Staff writer
May 20, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9a020a2b164833271ef98a89db88b1dce1ec36c3/c=740-0-4511-2835&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/05/20/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635677347329038469-MAR-Kelly-060115-1.JPG)
Gen. John F. Kelly briefs reporters
(Photo: Glenn Fawcett/DoD)
A Marine four-star general who commanded troops during the Iraq War said seeing Ramadi fall to Islamic State militants left him heartbroken and mindful of how hard U.S. service members worked to bring stability to the region.
Gen. John Kelly, the head of U.S. Southern Command, shared his thoughts about the troubling news out of Iraq with an audience at the Atlantic Council in Washington on Tuesday. Kelly commanded I Marine Expeditionary Force (forward) in 2007 and Multi-National Force-West in Iraq from 2008 to 2009.
"It breaks my heart," Kelly said. "I've got over two years of my life in Ramadi and Anbar province. As a senior commander once and as a second senior commander once, I got hundreds of young Americans either killed or wounded under my command."
Kelly said he experienced a very different Iraq at the end of his second tour, when regional security was largely in the hands of Iraqi troops and partnerships were brokered with Sunni leaders.
"My last saunters down the streets of Ramadi, I walked unarmed with just my Iraqi soldiers — a couple of the Iraqi soldiers who had sidearms," he said. "Same thing in Fallujah when I left there."
Kelly said the region then had a functioning democratic election process and that troops had begun to tear down the reminders of war in the region: barbed wire and concrete barriers.
"When I went back on my last tour I would meet some of these sheikhs my predecessors had brought on board that had been fighting us tooth and nail," he said. "And I would say, you know, 'Sheikh Ahmed, the last time I was here I was trying to kill you, or at least track you down and capture you.' 'My brother, that's exactly what I was trying to do to you,' [the sheikh replied]. That's how much it changed."
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/e1c78d346ebff2acd109aea8d4879d640ff544eb/c=76-0-1210-853&r=x383&c=540x380/local/-/media/2015/05/20/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635677283060750654-MAR-John-F.-Kelly-3.jpg)
Then-Maj. Gen. John Kelly, commanding general of Multi National Forces-West, speaks to Iraqi Brig. Gen. Nour al Din, the chief intelligence official in Anbar province in 2008. (Photo: Pfc. Jerry Murphy/Marine Corps)
Kelly did not speculate on the strategic significance of the IS capture of Ramadi or the ability of Iraqi troops to regain the turf that had been lost to the militants.
As early as 2008, however, Kelly had warned that Syria was becoming a "sanctuary" from which terrorists and extremists flowed into Iraq.
"The Syrian border ... is the last frontier," Kelly told U.S. News and World Report that year.
Now the U.S. commander responsible for South and Central America and the Caribbean, Kelly is also rumored to be a contender for next commandant of the Marine Corps. The current commandant, Gen. Joseph Dunford, has been nominated to succeed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey when he retires this fall.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/05/20/marine-general-john-kelly-ramadis-fall-heartbreaking-iraq/27642143/
-
obama is now to blame for not spending US money, weapons and lives, "breaking up" every civil war in every shitty part of the world.
I mean, we're almost at war with syria and we are at war with ISIS. We have a situation where they're killing each other daily for control of a shitty city in Syria.... fccking let them! Let them! Let them keep this battle contained, let them waste each other, drag it out, use up their men and money.
WTF... repubs' dicks are so hard for a war, they are so desperate to borrow from china to start another war, they just want boots on ground somewhere. Armchair QBs. Our mutual enemies are wasting each other, that's a win.
I gotta admit this is a great line.....good job
-
Krauthammer, Special Report Panel Clobber Obama Over Spread of ISIS
By Curtis Houck | May 22, 2015
The Thursday panel on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier took on the issue of the Obama administration’s so-called policy in addressing ISIS and blasted the President for maintaining that the U.S. and its allies are not losing the fight against the Islamic extremist group despite the seizures this week of Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria.
Leading the way was FNC contributor Charles Krauthammer, who asserted that “[t]he administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq” and that “[t]hey're losing” which “[e]verybody understands.”
Following a clip of a testy exchange between State Department Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf and a State Department reporter, host Bret Baier began the segment by reading aloud a quote from President Obama’s interview with The Atlantic before turning to National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson and admitting to her that “there seems to be a series of bad days” that are reminiscent of 2006 during the Iraq War.
Not long after she began her answer, Liasson started poking holes in the current White House attitude on fighting ISIS in the Middle East:
[T]he problem is that the White House, at least talking points, are there’s only two choices. What we're doing and reinvading Iraq, sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops. There's a lot in between there and the question is what, if anything, is the White House willing to do other than what it's doing right now?
Krauthammer then joined the conversion and, as expected, held little back in slamming the administration:
The administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq. They're losing. Everybody understands that. ISIS, it wasn't only that they took over in Iraq, but it took the town – the city of Palmyra in Syria which gives it control of half of Syria and later, in the day today, they took over a crucial crossing point between Syria and Iraq, essential erasing the frontier and making it easier to resupply Ramadi.
Considering all that ISIS has been able to accomplish in the last week, Krauthammer observed that “[t]hese are huge strategy gains” and “not tactical defeats and what Obama says, well, it's because it wasn’t our – the guys who were trained by us who were in Ramadi.”
With the simple declaration that “this is nuts,” Krauthammer picked apart the premise that the issues in fighting ISIS lie in the lack of training for the Iraqi military:
The idea is, if you're going to have success, you have to have training and you have to have will. The idea that what the Iraqis are lacking is training is ridiculous. We've been training them for 15 years. If the troops haven't gotten their heart battle, it will not succeed and that's what happened in Mosul when they ran away and that's what happened in Ramadi when they ran away.
Later, fellow panelist and FNC contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano opined that “[t]he President coveys an image of being passive and indecisive and that leads to an image of defeat.” In addition, he made the analogy that, on ISIS, Obama is “punching with his left hand and apologizing to the galleries with his right hand for hitting too hard.”
(h/t: Daily Caller)
The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on May 22 can be found below.
FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier
May 21, 2015
6:52 p.m. Easterm
BRET BAIER: The President was asked, are we losing against ISIS in Atlantic magazine. He said this, “No, I don't think we're losing...There's no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced..The training of Iraqi security forces, the fortification, the command-and-control systems are not happening fast enough in Anbar, in the Sunni parts of the country.” We're back with the panel. Mara, I tell you, there seems to be a series of bad days. We saw this in 2006 at the White House and there was a change.
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO’s MARA LIASSON: Well, you know the President was very accurate. Not being trained fast enough. It’s not happening and the problem is that the White House, at least talking points, are there’s only two choices. What we're doing and reinvading Iraq, sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops. There's a lot in between there and the question is what, if anything, is the White House willing to do other than what it's doing right now?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: “Tactical Setback; Pres Obama Contends Not Losing ISIS Fight]
BAIER: Charles?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq. They're losing. Everybody understands that. ISIS, it wasn't only that they took over in Iraq, but it took the town – the city of Palmyra in Syria which gives it control of half of Syria and later, in the day today, they took over a crucial crossing point between Syria and Iraq, essential erasing the frontier and making it easier to resupply Ramadi.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Palmyra, Syria Falls to ISIS]
These are huge strategy gains. They are not tactical defeats and what Obama says, well, it's because it wasn’t our – the guys who were trained by us who were in Ramadi. This is nuts. The idea is, if you're going to have success, you have to have training and you have to have will. The idea that what the Iraqis are lacking is training is ridiculous. We've been training them for 15 years. If the troops haven't gotten their heart battle, it will not succeed and that's what happened in Mosul when they ran away and that's what happened in Ramadi when they ran away.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Pres Obama Strategy vs ISIS]
BAIER: You know, Judge, the Pentagon continues to have these different stories about a air strikes and how much they're doing. We know definitively now from our people over there that there have been no air strikes in Ramadi in the past 24 hours. It seems like there's this shift and people trying to figure out what's going on.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I wish I knew. I wish we all knew knew what was going on and, on this, I agree with both of my colleagues. The President conveys an image of being passive and indecisive and that leads to an image of defeat. If you're going to be there, fight to win to and come home. If you don't think we can win it, then we shouldn't there be. In my view, this cannot be won without a long term commitment of ground troops for a long period of time and nation-building and the American public will not tolerate that politically and we can't afford it. However, what we're doing now accomplishes nothing. He's punching with his left hand and apologizing to the galleries with his right hand for hitting too hard.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/05/22/krauthammer-special-report-panel-clobber-obama-over-spread-isis#sthash.B3a9rsGp.dpuf
-
Krauthammer, Special Report Panel Clobber Obama Over Spread of ISIS
By Curtis Houck | May 22, 2015
The Thursday panel on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier took on the issue of the Obama administration’s so-called policy in addressing ISIS and blasted the President for maintaining that the U.S. and its allies are not losing the fight against the Islamic extremist group despite the seizures this week of Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria.
Leading the way was FNC contributor Charles Krauthammer, who asserted that “[t]he administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq” and that “[t]hey're losing” which “[e]verybody understands.”
Following a clip of a testy exchange between State Department Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf and a State Department reporter, host Bret Baier began the segment by reading aloud a quote from President Obama’s interview with The Atlantic before turning to National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson and admitting to her that “there seems to be a series of bad days” that are reminiscent of 2006 during the Iraq War.
Not long after she began her answer, Liasson started poking holes in the current White House attitude on fighting ISIS in the Middle East:
[T]he problem is that the White House, at least talking points, are there’s only two choices. What we're doing and reinvading Iraq, sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops. There's a lot in between there and the question is what, if anything, is the White House willing to do other than what it's doing right now?
Krauthammer then joined the conversion and, as expected, held little back in slamming the administration:
The administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq. They're losing. Everybody understands that. ISIS, it wasn't only that they took over in Iraq, but it took the town – the city of Palmyra in Syria which gives it control of half of Syria and later, in the day today, they took over a crucial crossing point between Syria and Iraq, essential erasing the frontier and making it easier to resupply Ramadi.
Considering all that ISIS has been able to accomplish in the last week, Krauthammer observed that “[t]hese are huge strategy gains” and “not tactical defeats and what Obama says, well, it's because it wasn’t our – the guys who were trained by us who were in Ramadi.”
With the simple declaration that “this is nuts,” Krauthammer picked apart the premise that the issues in fighting ISIS lie in the lack of training for the Iraqi military:
The idea is, if you're going to have success, you have to have training and you have to have will. The idea that what the Iraqis are lacking is training is ridiculous. We've been training them for 15 years. If the troops haven't gotten their heart battle, it will not succeed and that's what happened in Mosul when they ran away and that's what happened in Ramadi when they ran away.
Later, fellow panelist and FNC contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano opined that “[t]he President coveys an image of being passive and indecisive and that leads to an image of defeat.” In addition, he made the analogy that, on ISIS, Obama is “punching with his left hand and apologizing to the galleries with his right hand for hitting too hard.”
(h/t: Daily Caller)
The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on May 22 can be found below.
FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier
May 21, 2015
6:52 p.m. Easterm
BRET BAIER: The President was asked, are we losing against ISIS in Atlantic magazine. He said this, “No, I don't think we're losing...There's no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced..The training of Iraqi security forces, the fortification, the command-and-control systems are not happening fast enough in Anbar, in the Sunni parts of the country.” We're back with the panel. Mara, I tell you, there seems to be a series of bad days. We saw this in 2006 at the White House and there was a change.
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO’s MARA LIASSON: Well, you know the President was very accurate. Not being trained fast enough. It’s not happening and the problem is that the White House, at least talking points, are there’s only two choices. What we're doing and reinvading Iraq, sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops. There's a lot in between there and the question is what, if anything, is the White House willing to do other than what it's doing right now?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: “Tactical Setback; Pres Obama Contends Not Losing ISIS Fight]
BAIER: Charles?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The administration is sounding like Baghdad Bob during the invasion of Iraq. They're losing. Everybody understands that. ISIS, it wasn't only that they took over in Iraq, but it took the town – the city of Palmyra in Syria which gives it control of half of Syria and later, in the day today, they took over a crucial crossing point between Syria and Iraq, essential erasing the frontier and making it easier to resupply Ramadi.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Palmyra, Syria Falls to ISIS]
These are huge strategy gains. They are not tactical defeats and what Obama says, well, it's because it wasn’t our – the guys who were trained by us who were in Ramadi. This is nuts. The idea is, if you're going to have success, you have to have training and you have to have will. The idea that what the Iraqis are lacking is training is ridiculous. We've been training them for 15 years. If the troops haven't gotten their heart battle, it will not succeed and that's what happened in Mosul when they ran away and that's what happened in Ramadi when they ran away.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Pres Obama Strategy vs ISIS]
BAIER: You know, Judge, the Pentagon continues to have these different stories about a air strikes and how much they're doing. We know definitively now from our people over there that there have been no air strikes in Ramadi in the past 24 hours. It seems like there's this shift and people trying to figure out what's going on.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I wish I knew. I wish we all knew knew what was going on and, on this, I agree with both of my colleagues. The President conveys an image of being passive and indecisive and that leads to an image of defeat. If you're going to be there, fight to win to and come home. If you don't think we can win it, then we shouldn't there be. In my view, this cannot be won without a long term commitment of ground troops for a long period of time and nation-building and the American public will not tolerate that politically and we can't afford it. However, what we're doing now accomplishes nothing. He's punching with his left hand and apologizing to the galleries with his right hand for hitting too hard.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/05/22/krauthammer-special-report-panel-clobber-obama-over-spread-isis#sthash.B3a9rsGp.dpuf
Krauthammer has lost all credibility and has become a shill...I even wrote him a personal e-mail telling him that......he didn't answer of course :D
-
Krauthammer has lost all credibility and has become a shill...I even wrote him a personal e-mail telling him that......he didn't answer of course :D
he provides a balance by delivering the right's point of view. it's that simple.
anyone that claims he's balanced/fair/impartial obviously fcks sheep. underage sheep.
-
Krauthammer has lost all credibility and has become a shill...I even wrote him a personal e-mail telling him that......he didn't answer of course :D
Oh please. ::) He is my favorite conservative commentator. Honest, straight, and usually right (so to speak).
-
he provides a balance by delivering the right's point of view. it's that simple.
anyone that claims he's balanced/fair/impartial obviously fcks sheep. underage sheep.
lol
totally using that.
-
Oh please. ::) He is my favorite conservative commentator. Honest, straight, and usually right (so to speak).
oh please back......he only became a conservative when he got hired at FAUX NEWS......I had been reading his column for years..he was never that extreme..now every single column is an anti-Obama hit piece
-
oh please back......he only became a conservative when he got hired at FAUX NEWS......I had been reading his column for years..he was never that extreme..now every single column is an anti-Obama hit piece
Stop making up stuff up. ::) He has been a conservative for decades. He has only been a Fox News contributor for about ten years.
Of course he's going to be hard on Obama. He has been the president the last six years and running the country into the ground. And everything I've heard him say about Obama has been spot on.
-
Stop making up stuff up. ::) He has been a conservative for decades. He has only been a Fox News contributor for about ten years.
Of course he's going to be hard on Obama. He has been the president the last six years and running the country into the ground. And everything I've heard him say about Obama has been spot on.
you are obviously residing in a parallell universe
-
White House: US won't be 'responsible' for 'security situation' in Iraq
Published May 28, 2015·
FoxNews.com
The White House on Thursday, in no uncertain terms, put the onus on the Iraqis to fight and defeat the Islamic State -- even as a new report warned foreign fighters are flocking to the battlefield at a historic and dangerous pace.
"The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq," Press Secretary Josh Earnest told Fox News.
Earnest defended the administration's strategy, amid growing concerns about gains made by ISIS fighters in both Iraq and Syria. Earnest said the effort would take a "sustained commitment," but stressed that the U.S. will continue to focus on training and equipping Iraqi forces, while backing them up on the battlefield with air power.
"Our strategy is to support the Iraqi security forces in doing what we will not do for them," he said. "The United States is prepared to train them, to equip them, and to back them on the battlefield with coalition military air power as they take the fight to ISIL in their own country."
In saying the U.S. will not be "responsible" for the security situation, the White House was putting clear limits on the lengths to which the U.S. will go to reverse ISIS' gains, even as the Pentagon considers adjustments to the strategy.
Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell countered that "it is everybody's fight." Speaking with Brian Kilmeade on Fox News Radio's "Kilmeade and Friends," Morell said the terror group poses a "significant threat to the stability of the entire Middle East."
He said "we cannot be there forever" but urged the U.S. to play a "larger role."
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday that U.S. military leaders are looking for ways to improve and speed up the program to train and equip Iraqi forces, including options to better prepare Sunni tribes to join the fight.
Getting equipment to the battlefield more quickly and enhancing the training could help build the Iraqi forces' confidence, Carter said, just days after he publicly chastised them for showing "no will to fight" when they fled Ramadi last week even though they greatly outnumbered Islamic State militants.
"One particular way that's extremely important is to involve the Sunni tribes in the fight -- that means training and equipping them," said Carter, who has tasked advisers to come up with options.
Iraqi officials have complained that they are not getting the heavy military equipment they need fast enough. And on Tuesday President Obama said the U.S. and its allies must examine whether they are deploying military assets in Iraq effectively. A senior defense official said Carter is not considering providing weapons directly to the Sunnis, and still wants to work through the Iraqi government.
Meanwhile, Earnest, in the interview with Fox News, also stressed the importance of continuing to go after the flow of foreign fighters and "shut down the pipeline."
Based on a new United Nations report, however, this is a task that has grown ever-more challenging.
The report reflected a 70 percent increase in the flow of foreign fighters in the last nine months. The report said the 25,000 fighters have been traveling to jihadi conflicts from more than 100 countries -- representing more than half the countries in the world. They are joining ISIS, Al Qaeda-aligned groups and other networks.
"The rate of flow is higher than ever and mainly focused on [Syria and Iraq], with a growing problem also evident in Libya," the report said.
"Such individuals and their networks pose an immediate and long-term threat. Those that have returned or will return to their States of origin or to third countries may pose a continuing threat to national and international security."
The Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team is tasked with assessing the growth and movement of the fighters. They explained that the phenomenon of foreign fighters is not new and fighters associated with Al Qaeda can be traced to various countries, not just Afghanistan, all the way back to the 1990's.
What is different today, the report explained, is the rapid growth in just the last year. "The overall numbers have risen sharply ...the number of countries of origin has also significantly increased." Terrorist fighters in the 1990's came from a small group of states, and now it is more than 100, "including countries that have never experienced problems with groups associated with [Al Qaeda]."
"The problem has become an urgent global security matter," the report warned. Considering the convenience of global travel, it said, "the chance of a national of any country becoming a victim of an attack relating to foreign terrorist fighters is growing, especially with attacks targeting hotels and pubic spaces and venues."
John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration, said the report reflected a "stunning number" of recruits.
He told Fox News it shows "the breath of recruiting, I think, particularly for ISIS and the nature of this threat as a global growing threat."
The Obama administration also has come under criticism lately for allegedly imposing heavy-handed rules on those involved in the air campaign against ISIS.
Critics say the system does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: "There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn't get clearance to engage."
Asked about the complaints on Thursday, Earnest said there are "rules of engagement," and stressed that the U.S. is "very cautious" to ensure no civilian casualties. But, he said, "This strategy, when it's been well executed, has enjoyed some success."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/white-house-isis-strategy/
-
:-\
Obama under fire for saying no ‘complete strategy’ yet for training Iraqis
Published June 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
President Obama took heat Monday for admitting he doesn't yet have a "complete strategy" in hand for training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State -- months into the coordinated campaign to defeat the deadly terrorist network.
"When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people," Obama said, adding, "We don't yet have a complete strategy."
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said in a statement: "It is no surprise this administration does not have a 'complete strategy' for training Iraqis to fight ISIS. What is surprising is that the president admitted it."
The president addressed the ISIS fight during a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Germany. He appeared to be speaking specifically to a new strategy for accelerating the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. "We're reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that," Obama said.
A U.S. official afterward stressed to Fox News that Obama was indeed talking only about optimizing that train-and-equip mission, "including integration of Sunni fighters," and not "overall strategy." State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke also said Obama was not speaking to overall strategy.
But the comments nevertheless fueled critics' concerns about the direction of the U.S. mission, particularly on the heels of ISIS gains in Ramadi, and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tweeted: "Pres Obama admits: 'We don't yet have a complete strategy' to combat #ISIS"
Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short cited a similar comment Obama made 10 months ago, saying in a statement, "the fact he still doesn't have a final plan for the deteriorating situation in Iraq is unacceptable."
A military official also took issue with Obama's claim that he was waiting for options from the Pentagon. "What the f--- was that? We have given him lots of options, he just hasn't acted on them," the official told Fox News.
Obama, similarly, said last August that the U.S. did not "have a strategy yet" for confronting ISIS in Syria. The administration later approved airstrikes in Syria.
Underscoring the work to be done training Iraqi forces, a Pentagon official told Fox News that zero soldiers are being trained at the al-Asad Air Base in Anbar -- the province where ISIS seized the city of Ramadi last month.
However, the Pentagon says 2,598 are in training at other locations in Iraq. And 8,920 Iraqi soldiers have been trained to date by the U.S. military.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren backed up the president on his assertion he was still awaiting a "finalized plan" from the Pentagon. He said Defense Secretary Ash Carter has assembled a group of "experts" to develop courses of action to "increase support" to Iraqi forces. Warren would not give a timeline on when this "finalized plan" would be presented to the White House.
A separate defense official told Fox News that any potential increases in the size of the U.S. military presence would likely be in the "train-and-equip" mission and not tactical air controllers to call in close air support against ISIS forces by U.S. aircraft flying overhead.
Echoing the president, the official said, "the problem is the number of recruits" that the U.S. military can train. "We are sending weapons as quickly as we can to Iraq, I don't think we can send anymore," he said.
Obama put some of the responsibility on the Iraqis themselves, urging them to be more inclusive. Speaking Monday, shortly after meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Obama said a "big part" of the solution is "outreach to Sunni tribes."
"We've seen Sunni tribes who are not only willing and prepared to fight ISIL, but have been successful at rebuffing ISIL. But it has not been happening as fast as it needs to," he said. "And so, one of the efforts that I'm hoping to see out of Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi legislature when they're in session is to move forward on a national guard law that would help to devolve some of the security efforts in places like Anbar to local folks and to get those Sunni tribes involved more rapidly."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/obama-under-fire-for-saying-no-complete-strategy-yet-for-training-iraqis/
-
I blame Bush for invading in the first place and not having any plan at all after "Shock and Awe"
I blame Rumsfeld for not having a plan and selling the American public on "six day, six weeks, I doubt six months"
I blame Paul Bremer for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Provisional_Authority_Order_2
-
:-\
Obama under fire for saying no ‘complete strategy’ yet for training Iraqis
Published June 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
President Obama took heat Monday for admitting he doesn't yet have a "complete strategy" in hand for training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State -- months into the coordinated campaign to defeat the deadly terrorist network.
"When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people," Obama said, adding, "We don't yet have a complete strategy."
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said in a statement: "It is no surprise this administration does not have a 'complete strategy' for training Iraqis to fight ISIS. What is surprising is that the president admitted it."
The president addressed the ISIS fight during a press conference on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Germany. He appeared to be speaking specifically to a new strategy for accelerating the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. "We're reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that," Obama said.
A U.S. official afterward stressed to Fox News that Obama was indeed talking only about optimizing that train-and-equip mission, "including integration of Sunni fighters," and not "overall strategy." State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke also said Obama was not speaking to overall strategy.
But the comments nevertheless fueled critics' concerns about the direction of the U.S. mission, particularly on the heels of ISIS gains in Ramadi, and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., tweeted: "Pres Obama admits: 'We don't yet have a complete strategy' to combat #ISIS"
Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short cited a similar comment Obama made 10 months ago, saying in a statement, "the fact he still doesn't have a final plan for the deteriorating situation in Iraq is unacceptable."
A military official also took issue with Obama's claim that he was waiting for options from the Pentagon. "What the f--- was that? We have given him lots of options, he just hasn't acted on them," the official told Fox News.
Obama, similarly, said last August that the U.S. did not "have a strategy yet" for confronting ISIS in Syria. The administration later approved airstrikes in Syria.
Underscoring the work to be done training Iraqi forces, a Pentagon official told Fox News that zero soldiers are being trained at the al-Asad Air Base in Anbar -- the province where ISIS seized the city of Ramadi last month.
However, the Pentagon says 2,598 are in training at other locations in Iraq. And 8,920 Iraqi soldiers have been trained to date by the U.S. military.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren backed up the president on his assertion he was still awaiting a "finalized plan" from the Pentagon. He said Defense Secretary Ash Carter has assembled a group of "experts" to develop courses of action to "increase support" to Iraqi forces. Warren would not give a timeline on when this "finalized plan" would be presented to the White House.
A separate defense official told Fox News that any potential increases in the size of the U.S. military presence would likely be in the "train-and-equip" mission and not tactical air controllers to call in close air support against ISIS forces by U.S. aircraft flying overhead.
Echoing the president, the official said, "the problem is the number of recruits" that the U.S. military can train. "We are sending weapons as quickly as we can to Iraq, I don't think we can send anymore," he said.
Obama put some of the responsibility on the Iraqis themselves, urging them to be more inclusive. Speaking Monday, shortly after meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, Obama said a "big part" of the solution is "outreach to Sunni tribes."
"We've seen Sunni tribes who are not only willing and prepared to fight ISIL, but have been successful at rebuffing ISIL. But it has not been happening as fast as it needs to," he said. "And so, one of the efforts that I'm hoping to see out of Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi legislature when they're in session is to move forward on a national guard law that would help to devolve some of the security efforts in places like Anbar to local folks and to get those Sunni tribes involved more rapidly."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/obama-under-fire-for-saying-no-complete-strategy-yet-for-training-iraqis/
whats the problem???..its refreshing that hes telling the truth
-
whats the problem???..its refreshing that hes telling the truth
The problem is he is incompetent. From the story:
Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short cited a similar comment Obama made 10 months ago, saying in a statement, "the fact he still doesn't have a final plan for the deteriorating situation in Iraq is unacceptable."
A military official also took issue with Obama's claim that he was waiting for options from the Pentagon. "What the f--- was that? We have given him lots of options, he just hasn't acted on them," the official told Fox News.
-
The problem is he is incompetent. From the story:
Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short cited a similar comment Obama made 10 months ago, saying in a statement, "the fact he still doesn't have a final plan for the deteriorating situation in Iraq is unacceptable."
A military official also took issue with Obama's claim that he was waiting for options from the Pentagon. "What the f--- was that? We have given him lots of options, he just hasn't acted on them," the official told Fox News.
Its not an easy problem to fix.....do you suggest he do like the repubs and just send in the troops???
-
Its not an easy problem to fix.....do you suggest he do like the repubs and just send in the troops???
I suggest he have a strategy, which includes picking one of the "lots of options" the Pentagon has given him.
-
I think the retard has made a decision. From what we're hearing the folks at Hood and Riley are getting their shit together. But don't worry...u pussies can sit this one out as well.
-
I suggest he have a strategy, which includes picking one of the "lots of options" the Pentagon has given him.
I asked you last week what should be done in your opinion..you have yet to give me an answer..you sit on the fence and say Obama should do something....he is...again...training Iraqi troops...conducting an airwar.....sending arms.....has advisers there......he is doing something..its going to be a long drawn out affair
-
I think the retard has made a decision. From what we're hearing the folks at Hood and Riley are getting their shit together. But don't worry...u pussies can sit this one out as well.
Good luck.
-
I asked you last week what should be done in your opinion..you have yet to give me an answer..you sit on the fence and say Obama should do something....he is...again...training Iraqi troops...conducting an airwar.....sending arms.....has advisers there......he is doing something..its going to be a long drawn out affair
You asked me what we should have done. I answered you about three times.
-
You asked me what we should have done. I answered you about three times.
you answered and said nothing...and that's because you know in your heart you don't have an answer either.....you just repeat over and over that Obama should "do something" or pick and option"...he has..you just want to beat him over the head because you've got nothing else
-
you answered and said nothing...and that's because you know in your heart you don't have an answer either.....you just repeat over and over that Obama should "do something" or pick and option"...he has..you just want to beat him over the head because you've got nothing else
O Rly?
We didn't leave a stabilizing force behind in Vietnam. We did in Germany and South Korea. That's exactly what we should have done in Iraq. Had we done so, we wouldn't be talking about ISIS running through Iraq and headhunter wouldn't be getting WARNOs for possible deployments back to Iraq.
you know exactly why we couldn't be in IRAQ..stop being dishonest..they did not want us there and not grantlng us the agreement we wanted was tantamount to kicking us out of the country...we could not stay there against their wishes as an occupying force....
I'm still waiting for your solution to ISIS
Ok andre. Whatever you say. ::)
I gave you my solution. We should have left a stabilizing force behind.
-
You said what we should have done..too late for that..what do we do NOW
-
"I think Obama has failed in every way with Iraq, but Bush handled things pretty well"
- Stone cold fcking idiot blind partisan person.
-
Iraqi security forces can no longer handle the job. Iranian forces have'nt done much better. Obama's current plan is no longer working. It was based on "hope". He hoped they could do the job with air power to back them. It has been proven not to work. There are very few options that any of you libs are going to like. If you are not ready to send in troops then you work a deal now where you massively increase aid directly to the kurdish north. You tell Baghdad that the Kurds are getting Kirkuk and their own country and if they don;t want to get beheaded then thats the deal. Then you deploy a Marine MEU to the North along with almost an entire SOF group to train and assist the Kurds as they push South. If and when this bogs down you deploy 2-3 BDE's of HBCT's and finish the fucks and pull out. You leave an HBCT rotating out of Kurdistan every year. You also deploy the appropriate amount of carrier and helo assets to do the job.
Heavy brigade combat teams -
-
Look who is criticizing Bush now
Rumsfeld: 'Unrealistic' for Bush to try to build democracy in Iraq
Getty Images
By Ben Kamisar - 06/09/15 07:41 AM EDT
President George W. Bush made an “unrealistic” decision to try to build a democracy in Iraq, one of his top Cabinet members told a British newspaper.
“I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories,” former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told The Times.
“The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words.”
Rumsfeld added that President Obama’s strategy to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has not been helpful, according to Bloomberg.
“If leaders aren’t willing to [confront ISIS], why the hell should a guy with a wife and kids in the community put himself at risk?” he said.
Rumsfeld served as Bush’s first Defense secretary, heading the Pentagon during the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of his main responsibilities was developing the wars' plans and publicly touting the strategies.
“This was the man stoking the fires for going into Iraq on the day of 9/11,” veteran journalist Bob Woodward said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“He was the chief spokesman and agitator that we don’t just do Afghanistan, where bin Laden was, but we are going to do Iraq. He was pushing it and kind of sandpapered the whole war plan down.”
When asked about the timing of these comments, more than a decade after the war, former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told “Morning Joe” that Rumsfeld might have been trying to give GOP candidates that have been dogged by questions about the war “wiggle room.”
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244377-rumsfeld-unrealistic-to-build-democracy-in-iraq
-
Iraqi security forces can no longer handle the job. Iranian forces have'nt done much better. Obama's current plan is no longer working. It was based on "hope". He hoped they could do the job with air power to back them. It has been proven not to work. There are very few options that any of you libs are going to like. If you are not ready to send in troops then you work a deal now where you massively increase aid directly to the kurdish north. You tell Baghdad that the Kurds are getting Kirkuk and their own country and if they don;t want to get beheaded then thats the deal. Then you deploy a Marine MEU to the North along with almost an entire SOF group to train and assist the Kurds as they push South. If and when this bogs down you deploy 2-3 BDE's of HBCT's and finish the fucks and pull out. You leave an HBCT rotating out of Kurdistan every year. You also deploy the appropriate amount of carrier and helo assets to do the job.
Heavy brigade combat teams -
there are aspects of your idea that I like and agree with..... begin arming the kurds...and just giving up on the whole idea of a united Iraq.....its not going to happen....however, the Turks don't want the kurds armed and thats the problem...they feel the Kurds will turn those arms on them....I think politically thats whats holding back the United States from arming them......I probably would like for us to try and secure the border between Iraq and Syria so that ISIS can't just move men and material across it like they have been doing..
and it has nothing to do with Libs and Conservatives...the American people do not want to send troops back there again.....Our military is STILL recovering from all the wounds and mental illnesses caused by their last involvement there...This whole thing started due to Assad not wanting to share power with his people.......thats where ISIS and the war really started...yet you guys are strangely silent about that..also Putin vetoed all attempts at first initiall to solve the problem through the UN.....yet you guys are silent about that as well because you have some need to blame Obama for everything
BUT..also if you break up Iraq there could be another civil war down the line because WHO WOULD HAVE CLAIMS TO THE OIL???????...the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would soon fight over that as well
-
You said what we should have done..too late for that..what do we do NOW
I already told you.
I suggest he have a strategy, which includes picking one of the "lots of options" the Pentagon has given him.
-
I already told you.
tell me again in plain language...WHAT WOULD YOU DO RIGHT NOW???...you're such a bull-shitter and fence-sitter its amazing..if you repeat "I already told you" again then consider yourself destroyed (again) and lets end the thread and move on
-
tell me again in plain language...WHAT WOULD YOU DO RIGHT NOW???...you're such a bull-shitter and fence-sitter its amazing..if you repeat "I already told you" again then consider yourself destroyed (again) and lets end the thread and move on
::) You like to repeat questions that have already been answered. Early onset Alzheimer's? :)
And . . . . I already told you.
I suggest he have a strategy, which includes picking one of the "lots of options" the Pentagon has given him.
-
::) You like to repeat questions that have already been answered. Early onset Alzheimer's? :)
And . . . . I already told you.
In other words you've got nothing....DESTROYED.... ...AGAIN 8)
-
How many wars and bombings has this Nobel Peace Prize winner been involved in?
Don’t Call It a War? Administration hit for refusing to use ‘w’ word for ISIS mission
Published September 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is refusing to describe the expanded military campaign against the Islamic State as a war -- despite plans to launch airstrikes across two tumultuous Middle East countries, dispatch hundreds more U.S. military personnel and build a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network.
The reluctance to use that label has generated confusion on Capitol Hill, particularly in light of new intelligence estimates that the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s the size of a small army – and close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001.
Yet in television interviews on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly avoided the term “war” to describe the mission, instead calling it a “major counterterrorism operation” that could last a long time.
“It’s hard to find a response to that,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”
McCain and other lawmaker suggest Kerry’s comments do not square with President Obama’s stated goal of defeating the Islamic State, or ISIS.
“This is John Kerry, vintage,” McCain said.
Other members of the administration besides Kerry appeared to be struggling to both define the conflict and the terms of victory, as the U.S. enters a new and potentially risky phase of its operation against the terror group.
Asked Thursday what would constitute “destroying” ISIS, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “I didn't bring my Webster's Dictionary with me up here.”
Earnest tried to explain the operation as falling under the umbrella of the 2001 authorization to use military force – the measure that provided the legal basis to go into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. (Kerry also compared the operation to strikes against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen.)
The administration is using this argument in order to avoid seeking new congressional authorization for the fight against ISIS.
But the Islamic State was not originally linked to the Sept. 11 attacks and has since split from the perpetrator of those attacks, Al Qaeda.
Some lawmakers say the administration is on shaky legal ground by treating this as a mere continuation of the counterterrorism missions in other countries, and is effectively downplaying the entire challenge ahead.
McCain said that if the president doesn’t understand the difference between the Islamic State and terror networks in places like Yemen, “then … he is oblivious to the size, shape, strength and ability of ISIS. It’s like comparing a little league team to the New York Yankees.”
A CIA spokesperson confirmed to Fox News on Thursday that the ISIS fighting force has sharply increased from the original estimate of at least 10,000 fighters.
“CIA assesses the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports from May to August,” the spokesperson said. “This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”
Asked Thursday whether the government still views these operations as part of the “war on terrorism,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “It’s certainly not how I would refer to our efforts.”
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”
“Words matter,” McCaul said Friday.
McCaul praised the president for moving to expand the mission into Syria, where the “head of the snake” of ISIS is located. But he said the administration is being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.
“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/dont-call-it-war-administration-hit-for-refusing-to-use-w-word-for-isis-mission/
Both parties suck & could give a rats ass about ANY of you.
Dems & GOP need and want WAR, it's the only business still performing well in our crappy economy.
Dems & GOP = Two piles of dog shit. The ONLY difference is the sprinkles they put on top as window dressing.
Chocolate sprinkles - Dems
Vanilla sprinkles- GOP
Other than the top coating, BOTH are IDENTICAL & leave the taste of shit in your mouth.
Now go back and argue for the sprinkles you love. But remember, under the facade of YOUR sprinkles is the same SHIT as your opposition.
Chow down Boys!!!
-
If the dem's want war why is Obama not starting one with ISIS?
-
Yeah...more drivel.....unless you have any grasp of foreign policy why don't you stay out of these threads.
-
there are aspects of your idea that I like and agree with..... begin arming the kurds...and just giving up on the whole idea of a united Iraq.....its not going to happen....however, the Turks don't want the kurds armed and thats the problem...they feel the Kurds will turn those arms on them....I think politically thats whats holding back the United States from arming them......I probably would like for us to try and secure the border between Iraq and Syria so that ISIS can't just move men and material across it like they have been doing..
and it has nothing to do with Libs and Conservatives...the American people do not want to send troops back there again.....Our military is STILL recovering from all the wounds and mental illnesses caused by their last involvement there...This whole thing started due to Assad not wanting to share power with his people.......thats where ISIS and the war really started...yet you guys are strangely silent about that..also Putin vetoed all attempts at first initiall to solve the problem through the UN.....yet you guys are silent about that as well because you have some need to blame Obama for everything
BUT..also if you break up Iraq there could be another civil war down the line because WHO WOULD HAVE CLAIMS TO THE OIL???????...the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds would soon fight over that as well
Of course I blame Obama....he tried to reset with Putin and Putin knows he's a weak leader. The russians didn;t dare do a damm thing while Bush was in office besides screwing around in Georgia....read on how that went militarily. Obama is weak....or doesn't care. He only cares when he's made to look bad. Red lines....and all that shit.
Having been on that border....yeah we're gonna need a DIV plus to secure it. There's not much out there.
-
They're increasing the amount of advisors as of today....so 3K on the ground. This is how it begins.
-
Both parties suck & could give a rats ass about ANY of you.
Dems & GOP need and want WAR, it's the only business still performing well in our crappy economy.
Dems & GOP = Two piles of dog shit. The ONLY difference is the sprinkles they put on top as window dressing.
Chocolate sprinkles - Dems
Vanilla sprinkles- GOP
Other than the top coating, BOTH are IDENTICAL & leave the taste of shit in your mouth.
Now go back and argue for the sprinkles you love. But remember, under the facade of YOUR sprinkles is the same SHIT as your opposition.
Chow down Boys!!!
Dude.....you're losing it.....you gotta stay consistent when taking Xanax....miss a day and you get posts like the above
-
Of course I blame Obama....he tried to reset with Putin and Putin knows he's a weak leader. The russians didn;t dare do a damm thing while Bush was in office besides screwing around in Georgia....read on how that went militarily. Obama is weak....or doesn't care. He only cares when he's made to look bad. Red lines....and all that shit.
Having been on that border....yeah we're gonna need a DIV plus to secure it. There's not much out there.
of course you blame Obama...because it suits you politically to do so.....again....Assad gets no blame...Putin gets no blame.....Bush gets no blame.....the Chinese get no blame...the EU get no blame...its ALL Obama.......OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA........and yes the Russians invaded Georgia on Bush's watch........and contrary to what you say, the Russians are still occupying Georgian territory.....did that make Bush weak???...no it didn't.....the US simply can't intervene everywhere....what did the US do?...NOTHING........nor should we have........same as with Ukraine......this is in the backyard of the EU...did they respond militarily???????????...so why should we?..the US was the leader in getting sanctions done on the Russians......
but you want to repeat the Republican broken record of just usign the military when it is clear that in the middle east it simply does not work......ask Israel.....they are in worse shape today than ever.....even with their military victories over the palestinians and Hezbollah what has that changed EXACTLY?????....NOTHING
-
Must be part of his non-strategy strategy.
Obama approves sending up to 450 more US troops to Iraq
Published June 10, 2015
FoxNews.com
The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama has approved sending up to 450 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, in a bid to boost local forces fighting the Islamic State's advances.
The troops will be sent to help train, advise and assist Iraqi security forces, at a base in eastern Anbar province.
"The President made this decision after a request from Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi and upon the recommendation" of top U.S. military officials, the White House said in a statement.
The decision comes after recent ISIS gains, most significantly the takeover of the Anbar capital of Ramadi. Obama came under criticism earlier this week for saying his administration still did not have a "complete" strategy for ramping up training of Iraqi troops.
While the decision to send more trainers won praise in some corners -- House Speaker John Boehner called it a step in the right direction -- the administration continues to face accusations that its strategy in the region is rudderless.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was dismissive of Wednesday's decision. "This is incremental-ism at its best or worst, depending on how you describe it," McCain said.
Even Obama's former military intelligence chief, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, said in Capitol Hill testimony Wednesday that there's "no clear U.S. policy" in Iraq and Syria.
Obama continues to resist demands for combat troops or for more U.S. soldiers on the ground to call in air strikes.
Under the latest plan, the number of U.S. training sites in Iraq would increase from four to five, enabling a larger number of Iraqis to join the fight against the Islamic militant group. Most of the fighters would be Sunni tribal volunteers, under the plan.
The Defense Department stressed in a written statement that the decision "does not represent a change in mission," but provides another location for DOD personnel.
The additional U.S. troops would join the roughly 3,100 U.S. troops already in Iraq. They are currently training about 3,000 Iraqi fighters.
ISIS' gains, though, have raised pressing questions about the ability of the Iraqis to blunt the terror network's advances. The Iraqi government, and the U.S., face the immediate challenge of recruiting enough Sunni fighters, to battle the Sunni-aligned terror group.
Most of those currently being trained are Kurds or Shiite Muslims.
Obama earlier this week urged Iraq's Shiite-dominated government to allow more of the nation's Sunnis to join the campaign against the violent militant group.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said recommendations on how to improve and accelerate the Iraq training efforts were discussed at a White House meeting last week and said follow-up questions were asked about how the proposed changes would be implemented and what risks they would pose to U.S. troops and to U.S. commitments elsewhere in the world.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest indicated the plans could continue to develop, and said the engagement is not a "short-term proposition." He predicted some U.S. military personnel would still be in Iraq when Obama leaves office.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/10/obama-approves-sending-up-to-450-more-us-troops-to-iraq/
-
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.
i'm serious. it's honestly fucking adorable.
-
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.
i'm serious. it's honestly fucking adorable.
There will likely never be peace in the Middle East. And as much as I'd like to pack our stuff and let them all kill each other, that's not in our best interests, or those of our allies in the region.
-
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.
i'm serious. it's honestly fucking adorable.
Correct.
Muslims have been killing muslims in the middle East forever.
Its not gonna change anytime soon.
-
maybe a president doesn't make 100% of his war strategies public. What a concept lol.
-
I just think its cute that a lot of you think that there actually is an answer to the problems in the Middle East AND that it's going to be some American politician that is going to be the catalyst for that answer.
i'm serious. it's honestly fucking adorable.
Thank you 8)
-
There will likely never be peace in the Middle East. And as much as I'd like to pack our stuff and let them all kill each other, that's not in our best interests, or those of our allies in the region.
that's exactly what I've been saying....you just can't bring yourself to agree with me, hence why I have to keep destroying you :)
-
that's exactly what I've been saying....you just can't bring yourself to agree with me, hence why I have to keep destroying you :)
A legend in your own mind aren't you? lol
But what exactly is it that you want me to agree with? That the president has no strategy? Yes, I agree with that.
-
A legend in your own mind aren't you? lol
But what exactly is it that you want me to agree with? That the president has no strategy? Yes, I agree with that.
whatever strategy he has its better than yours ..you don't have a strategy either
-
whatever strategy he has its better than yours ..you don't have a strategy either
Dude. How ridiculous is that? I'm not the president. I haven't been presented with numerous options by the Pentagon, and failed to pick one. I haven't been in front of a camera, as the leader of the free world, admitting that I'm incompetent.
He doesn't have a strategy.
I think the main reason for his failure to do what it takes to retake the territory seized by ISIS is it's likely going to require boots on the ground, which would destroy his "I ended the war in Iraq" lie.
-
Dude. How ridiculous is that? I'm not the president. I haven't been presented with numerous options by the Pentagon, and failed to pick one. I haven't been in front of a camera, as the leader of the free world, admitting that I'm incompetent.
He doesn't have a strategy.
I think the main reason for his failure to do what it takes to retake the territory seized by ISIS is it's likely going to require boots on the ground, which would destroy his "I ended the war in Iraq" lie.
that may be so....but obviously what he's doing now was one of the options he was given..so that destroys your argument...the president doesn't make strategy....he obviously is using one of the options the pentagon is giving him...so exactly HOW is he supposed to take back territory from ISIS if both you say you don't favor boots on the ground???
-
that may be so....but obviously what he's doing now was one of the options he was given..so that destroys your argument...the president doesn't make strategy....he obviously is using one of the options the pentagon is giving him...so exactly HOW is he supposed to take back territory from ISIS if both you say you don't favor boots on the ground???
It isn't obvious that the president picked one of the options given to him by the Pentagon. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't.
I don't favor having any presence at all over there. But that isn't reality, as I've said before. We have to do whatever is necessary to stop a terrorist group from taking over Iraq, because the failure to do so could have damaging results at home and for our allies in the region.
-
It isn't obvious that the president picked one of the options given to him by the Pentagon. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't.
I don't favor having any presence at all over there. But that isn't reality, as I've said before. We have to do whatever is necessary to stop a terrorist group from taking over Iraq, because the failure to do so could have damaging results at home and for our allies in the region.
of course its obvious...any action the president takes he is given a set of options first.....he then chooses which one suits his goals, and YES, his politics
use some critical thinking skills
-
of course its obvious...any action the president takes he is given a set of options first.....he then chooses which one suits his goals, and YES, his politics
use some critical thinking skills
So you are saying the president has not, on multiple occasions, ignored the recommendations given to him by his military advisors?
-
How the heck is this man Commander in Chief? :-\
Obama on ISIS Threat: "Ideologies Are Not Defeated With Guns, They Are Defeated By Better Ideas"
July 6, 2015
After consulting with military leaders at the Pentagon this afternoon President Obama held a press conference on the growing threat of ISIS. President Obama declared the United States "will never be at war with Islam." Obama also said, "ideologies are not defeated with guns but better ideas."
"We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam," President Obama said Monday afternoon. "We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims."
"This challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort," the president said. "Ideologies are not defeated with guns but better ideas and more attracting and more compelling vision."
PRESIDENT OBAMA: This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL's hateful propaganda, especially online. We'll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims.
We're also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we're going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we're teaching young people.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/06/obama_on_isis_threat_ideologies_are_not_defeated_with_guns_they_are_defeated_by_better_ideas.html
-
How the heck is this man Commander in Chief? :-\
RINOs lack the balls to impeach. #fact
-
RINOs lack the balls to impeach. #fact
Fact:
The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals. It's a full-time job.
-
Fact:
seriously man, it's sad that I matter to you.
-
seriously man, it's sad that I matter to you.
What I'm trying to say is that every time something unflattering or negative is said about a liberal, you pipe in to try and deflect attention away from liberals. The DNC should put you on their payroll.
-
seriously man, it's sad that I matter to you.
;D
-
Army chief Odierno, in exit interview, says US could have ‘prevented’ ISIS rise
By Jennifer Griffin, Lucas Tomlinson
Published July 22, 2015
FoxNews.com
EXCLUSIVE: The Army’s top officer told Fox News Tuesday it’s “frustrating” to watch the gains he helped achieve in Iraq disintegrate at the hands of the Islamic State, saying in an exit interview that the chaos now unfolding “might have been prevented” had the U.S. stayed more engaged.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, weeks away from retirement after 39 years in uniform, spent more time in Iraq than any other U.S. Army general -- more than four years, the last two as top commander. He is widely viewed as a key architect of the Iraq surge.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News, the general tackled a range of topics, from the Iran nuclear deal to the deep cuts to U.S. Army troop levels. But Odierno had pointed words on the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria – suggesting it didn’t have to be this way.
“It's frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.”
Odierno said the fall of large parts of Iraq was not inevitable, reiterating concerns about the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal there.
“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” he said. “I've always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
In 2009, while still the top commander in Iraq, Odierno recommended keeping 30,000-35,000 U.S. troops after the end of 2011, when the U.S. was scheduled to pull out. The recommendation was not followed.
“I think it would have been good for us to stay,” Odierno said, when asked if it was a mistake to pull out.
Further, when ISIS took over large portions of Iraq last year including its second-largest city, Mosul, the White House apparently didn’t reach out to the Army officer who had spent more time commanding U.S. forces than anyone else.
“All my work was given to [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Martin] Dempsey,” Odiernio said. “I never talked directly to the president about it at that time, but I talked to the secretary of defense and I'm sure he relayed all of my thoughts,” he added.
Odierno, though, is most worried about the deep cuts to the Army over the past four years – from 570,000 troops in 2010 to near 490,000 today, a reduction of 14 percent. And the cuts are getting deeper.
“In my mind, we don't have the ability to deter. The reason we have a military is to deter conflict and prevent wars. And if people believe we are not big enough to respond, they miscalculate,” Odierno said.
Earlier this month, the Army announced an additional cut of 40,000 troops, which would take the Army down to 450,000 soldiers -- or pre-9/11 levels -- the result of a decision taken two years ago.
"I believed at the time we could do that,” said Odierno. “But I said we were on the razor’s edge that we could actually do our mission at 450.”
He added: “Two years ago, we didn’t think we had a problem in Europe. … [Now] Russia is reasserting themselves. We didn’t think we’d have a problem again in Iraq and ISIS has emerged.
“So, with Russia becoming more of a threat, with ISIS becoming more of a threat, in my mind, we are on a dangerous balancing act right now with capability.”
“When we go to 450, we are going to have to stop doing something," said Odierno.
As for what message these cuts send to adversaries of the United States, Odierno said: “I believe they question whether we will be able to respond and so they're willing to take maybe a bit more risk than they might have just a few years ago.”
While Odierno says he supports the recently announced nuclear deal with Iran, he warned that Iran will not change its behavior in the region.
“Iran has continued to do malign activities throughout the Middle East [and] they will continue,” warned Odierno, who blamed Iran for contributing to the unraveling of Iraq and the rise of ISIS.
Dempsey recently told Congress that Iran was responsible for roughly 500 American deaths, an estimate Odierno did not dispute.
Odierno said of Iran: “We can't be naïve.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/exclusive-army-chief-odierno-in-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/
-
Top general: U.S. should consider boots on ground in Iraq
By Barbara Starr and Jim Sciutto, CNN
Wed August 12, 2015
Washington (CNN)The top Army general said Wednesday that the U.S should consider embedding soldiers in Iraq if the battle against ISIS doesn't improve.
"If we find in the next several months that we aren't making progress, we should absolutely consider embedding some soldiers (in Iraq)," Gen. Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, said in response to a CNN question about putting troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria at his final press conference. He called it an "option we should present to the President."
But he stopped short of making the same suggestion in Syria.
"Syria is different," he said.
Odierno rejected the idea, however, of the U.S. taking over the fight against ISIS: "I absolutely believe the region has to solve this problem. The U.S. can't solve this."
He later suggested breaking up Iraq and Syria could be part of the solution. "My assessment would be it will be difficult to have a Syria that looks like it did before."
The general also said that had the U.S. not withdrawn all troops from Iraq in 2011, "we may not have been where we are now," while also noting that the withdrawal was negotiated under President George W. Bush.
It was left to President Barack Obama to seal the deal on the pace of the withdrawal and any residual troops, eventually pulling all of them out. He has since steadfastly opposing sending more troops back to Iraq.
The position has been a focus of attacks from Republican candidates, who have called for more aggressive action against ISIS.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush offered a sharp critique of Obama's ISIS strategy Tuesday night, saying that he would embed U.S. troops with Iraqi forces.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/politics/iraq-raymond-odierno-army-general-ground-troops/index.html
-
Top general: U.S. should consider boots on ground in Iraq
By Barbara Starr and Jim Sciutto, CNN
Wed August 12, 2015
Washington (CNN)The top Army general said Wednesday that the U.S should consider embedding soldiers in Iraq if the battle against ISIS doesn't improve.
"If we find in the next several months that we aren't making progress, we should absolutely consider embedding some soldiers (in Iraq)," Gen. Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, said in response to a CNN question about putting troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria at his final press conference. He called it an "option we should present to the President."
But he stopped short of making the same suggestion in Syria.
"Syria is different," he said.
Odierno rejected the idea, however, of the U.S. taking over the fight against ISIS: "I absolutely believe the region has to solve this problem. The U.S. can't solve this."
He later suggested breaking up Iraq and Syria could be part of the solution. "My assessment would be it will be difficult to have a Syria that looks like it did before."
The general also said that had the U.S. not withdrawn all troops from Iraq in 2011, "we may not have been where we are now," while also noting that the withdrawal was negotiated under President George W. Bush.
It was left to President Barack Obama to seal the deal on the pace of the withdrawal and any residual troops, eventually pulling all of them out. He has since steadfastly opposing sending more troops back to Iraq.
The position has been a focus of attacks from Republican candidates, who have called for more aggressive action against ISIS.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush offered a sharp critique of Obama's ISIS strategy Tuesday night, saying that he would embed U.S. troops with Iraqi forces.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/12/politics/iraq-raymond-odierno-army-general-ground-troops/index.html
This statement ends ONCE AND FOR ALL the notion that it was Obama's fault in terms of pulling the troops out
-
This statement ends ONCE AND FOR ALL the notion that it was Obama's fault in terms of pulling the troops out
but but but but neocons/chickenhawks on getbig claim obama failed by "not redoing Bush's agreement".
They think there was a wink/nod that obama would undo the Bush agreement. They're essentially pissed off that obama followed thru on bush's arrangement.
They're going to bitch no matter what. It's why they chose a loser in 2008, a loser in 2012, and will probably just decide to let a democrat like Trump woo them in 2016.
-
This statement ends ONCE AND FOR ALL the notion that it was Obama's fault in terms of pulling the troops out
No it doesn't. Obama was supposed to negotiate a new SOFA and failed to do so.
-
No it doesn't. Obama was supposed to negotiate a new SOFA and failed to do so.
'
link?
-
'
link?
www.Google.com
-
www.Google.com
hahaha you're a fail. Worst response ever. You just made up that shit about 'was supposed to redo bush's deal'.
-
hahaha you're a fail. Worst response ever. You just made up that shit about 'was supposed to redo bush's deal'.
LOL! Now this is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you. :)
-
LOL! Now this is the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you. :)
my pleasure.
now seriously, it's a pretty big accusation to say obama didn't renegotiate a Bush deal like he was supposed to, without linking it. You've said it over and over, he was supposed to.
I just want to see a link to it, and you cannot or will not provide one.
For that, you won't be getting a Christmas card this year from me, buddy. And if you're ever in my hood, there will be no invite for cold lemonade. You accuse our president of something, you should back it up with a link.
-
my pleasure.
now seriously, it's a pretty big accusation to say obama didn't renegotiate a Bush deal like he was supposed to, without linking it. You've said it over and over, he was supposed to.
I just want to see a link to it, and you cannot or will not provide one.
For that, you won't be getting a Christmas card this year from me, buddy. And if you're ever in my hood, there will be no invite for cold lemonade. You accuse our president of something, you should back it up with a link.
Nah. Do your own homework troll. You liberal lackeys crack me up sometimes. :)
-
Nah. Do your own homework troll. You liberal lackeys crack me up sometimes. :)
everyone reading this knows you can't back it up with a link or you would have jumped on it, in a chance to prove me wrong.
everyone reading this is looking at their screen saying, "wow, beach bum is probably the type of guy who falsely accuses presidents of things, while eating peanut butter".
But you deny it, saying you don't even like peanut butter.
-
everyone reading this knows you can't back it up with a link or you would have jumped on it, in a chance to prove me wrong.
everyone reading this is looking at their screen saying, "wow, beach bum is probably the type of guy who falsely accuses presidents of things, while eating peanut butter".
But you deny it, saying you don't even like peanut butter.
Anyone reading this, who has been reading the board for a while, knows (a) you are a lying liar, (b) I rarely engage in substantive discussions with you, and (c) information about the SOFA is all over the internet.
Go educate yourself. You need it.
-
Anyone reading this, who has been reading the board for a while, knows (a) you are a lying liar, (b) I rarely engage in substantive discussions with you, and (c) information about the SOFA is all over the internet.
Go educate yourself. You need it.
you sound like the type of guy rooting for the patriots tonight, amirite? Can always see your type a mile away.
-
you sound like the type of guy rooting for the patriots tonight, amirite? Can always see your type a mile away.
You sound like a troll. Am I right?
-
You sound like a troll. Am I right?
A US president was supposed to renege on a deal made by the former president.
If this a feeling you had? A dream or something? Maybe you read it on a potato chip, or "potatoe" [sic] chip as you Clinton voters like to spell it, obviously mocking Bush's VP choice.
-
A US president was supposed to renege on a deal made by the former president.
If this a feeling you had? A dream or something? Maybe you read it on a potato chip, or "potatoe" [sic] chip as you Clinton voters like to spell it, obviously mocking Bush's VP choice.
No you got it all wrong. A U.S. president was supposed to be in Paraguay hiding from prosecution for conspiring with foreign terrorist to attack us on 9/11. Get your facts straight. >:(
-
No you got it all wrong.
why are you attacking me, instead of providing a link to prove your conspiracy theory that a US pres was "supposed" to undermine an agreement made by a previous president?
Easier to deliver a personal attack than provide facts, I get it.
-
08.26.15
Spies: Obama’s Brass Pressured Us to Downplay ISIS Threat
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/08/26/spies-obama-s-brass-pressured-us-to-downplay-isis-threat/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/48021498.cached.jpg)
U.S. intelligence analysts keep saying that the American-led campaign against ISIS isn’t going so well. Their bosses keep telling them to think again about those conclusions.
Senior military and intelligence officials have inappropriately pressured U.S. terrorism analysts to alter their assessments about the strength of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, three sources familiar with the matter told The Daily Beast. Analysts have been pushed to portray the group as weaker than the analysts believe it actually is, according to these sources, and to paint an overly rosy a picture about how well the U.S.-led effort to defeat the group is going,
Reports that have been deemed too pessimistic about the efficacy of the American-led campaign, or that have questioned whether a U.S.-trained Iraqi military can ultimately defeat ISIS, have been sent back down through the chain of command or haven’t been shared with senior policymakers, several analysts alleged.
In other instances, authors of such reports said they understood that their conclusions should fall within a certain spectrum. As a result, they self-censored their own views, they said, because they felt pressure to not reach conclusions far outside what those above them apparently believed.
“The phrase I use is the politicization of the intelligence community,” retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told The Daily Beast when describing what he sees as a concerted push in government over the past several months to find information that tells a preferred story about efforts to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups, including al Qaeda. “That’s here. And it’s dangerous,” Flynn said.
At U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, analysts have been frustrated for months that as their reports make their way up the chain, senior officers change them to adhere more closely to the administration’s line. Three U.S. officials and analysts spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters.
The analysts said it was unclear who was leading the pressure to adjust their assessments, which more than one referred to as “spinning.” Some called it a result of a climate of the culture their commanders create. How such reports travel from CENTCOM headquarters to the senior reaches of the government and the military, and who reads them along the way, varies. Some reports go directly to the White House. More often, they go through several internal organizations and checks to determine what information is most useful to top officials.
“The phrase I use is the politicization of the intelligence community. That’s here. And it’s dangerous.”
Two defense officials said that some felt the commander for intelligence at CENTCOM failed to keep political pressures from Washington from bearing on lower-level analysts at command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. That pressure, while described as subtle and not overt, is nevertheless clear, the analysts said: Assessments on ISIS should comport with “the leadership consensus,” that is, top policymakers’ view, that the U.S.-led campaign against the group is paying dividends.
A process has developed, these individuals said, by which officials from the Defense Intelligence Agency, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, are trying to achieve something close to consensus among the several intelligence agencies that weigh in on the threat of ISIS and the U.S. efforts against it.
The CENTCOM analysts say they’ve concluded that the campaign isn’t going well, but that the senior officials want all reports on ISIS to see “eye to eye” and to avoid analyses that reach widely different conclusions.
“I think it comes from the seniors that interact with the policy folks [meaning senior administration officials] and it filters its way down,” one of the analysts said.
In the past, the CENTCOM intelligence commander buffered the analysts from outside pressure but in the last two years that protection has been less reliable, the official said.
“You get this pressure. It’s a very subtle approach but it is effective,” he said.
CENTCOM declined to comment about the specific charge of pressure put on analysts. Similar concerns have reportedly been raised within the Defense Intelligence Agency, which provides analysis both for military commanders and civilian leaders.
The Defense Department’s Inspector General is investigating allegations that military officials “have skewed intelligence assessments” about the anti-ISIS campaign, The New York Times reported on Tuesday. A complaint was lodged with the Inspector General by at least one civilian analyst at the agency, who claimed that CENTCOM officials were “reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments” prepared for senior leaders, including President Obama, the Times reported.
“I’m not surprised by this investigation,” Flynn said. He noted that senior military and Obama administration officials have been too optimistic in their public assessments about how the war against ISIS is faring.
While Flynn noted that he had no particular information about the current Inspector General investigation—which multiple sources confirmed is active—he said that only very senior officials would have the power to change intelligence assessments or lead them to be altered from their original form.
DIA analysis on extremist groups in the Middle East and North Africa has “typically been more hard hitting” and has not tried to paint a preferred picture about how the fight is going against ISIS and al Qaeda, Flynn said.
“It’s not trying to sugar-coat and give you a lot of ‘maybes’ and ‘probably,’” Flynn said. “It’s, ‘Here’s what we believe.’”
Current analysts said that there’s a tendency in some reporting to leave a sort of escape clause, that while the current efforts to defeat ISIS are going well, they could be set back at any moment. That kind of hedging appears designed to protect senior officials from subsequent accusations that they underestimated ISIS’s strength, while at the same time allowing them to say that the group is on the ropes.
Separate from analysts’ complaints, there have been signs within the military and the Pentagon that different groups of analysts were reaching different conclusions. In public statements and testimony, Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been notably less optimistic about developments in the war against ISIS than senior members of the Obama administration have been.
The process of coordinating intelligence assessments is supposed to take into account the different views of the more than a dozen individual agencies that might weigh in on a particular topic. In the wake of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program—when it didn’t—and that formed the basis for the U.S. invasion, the intelligence agencies are supposed to emphasize competing views, particularly when one or a few agencies reach a conclusion that is at odds with the prevailing view.
The intelligence community “routinely produces a wide range of subjective assessments related to the current security environment,” CENTCOM spokesman Colonel Patrick Ryder told The Daily Beast, in response to questions about the IG report. “Prior to publication, it is customary for the IC [intelligence community] to coordinate these intelligence assessments. More specifically, members of the IC are typically provided an opportunity to comment on draft assessments.”
But it’s ultimately up to the “primary agency” that wrote the initial report as to whether it will “incorporate recommended changes or additions,” Ryder said. “Further, the multi-source nature of our assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers.”
How precisely one report could influence a senior leader, of course, is a highly subjective matter. Top leaders consider different assessments during planning and decision-making, along with insights “provided by subordinate commanders and other key advisers,” Ryder said.
This isn’t the first time analysts have alleged that their terrorism reporting was skewed for political purposes.
“Whether al Qaeda was destroyed or no longer a factor—we were told to cease and desist that kind of analysis” following the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011, retired Army Colonel Derek Harvey, a former senior intelligence official at DIA, told The Daily Beast.
“Al Qaeda core was declared all but dead by the Obama administration,” Harvey said. But based on material found in documents that U.S. forces retrieved from bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, “the organization in our view was more diverse and stronger in many ways than it had ever been before, despite al Qaeda core being hit hard.”
In the years following the raid, it became clearer that al Qaeda maintained the ambition and the capacity to threaten attacks inside the United States. Intelligence officials now say that al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen and a group of fighters dispatched to Syria last year have sought to smuggle explosive devices that can’t be detected by airline security systems onto commercial passenger jets.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/26/spies-obama-s-brass-pressured-us-to-downplay-isis-threat.html
-
Commander admits size of US-trained Syrian fighting force at ‘4 or 5’
Published September 16, 2015
FoxNews.com
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East admitted Wednesday that only "four or five" U.S.-trained fighters remain on the battlefield in Syria, leading to accusations from lawmakers that the program is a "joke" and "total failure."
Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of the U.S. Central Command, addressed the state of the so-called "train and equip" mission in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The original goal for the first year was to train roughly 5,400 fighters to take on the Islamic State. But the first group of 54 U.S.-trained fighters was attacked by a Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, which killed and captured several of them and sent others fleeing.
For the first time Wednesday, the U.S. military acknowledged hardly any remain.
"It's a small number. The ones that are in the fight ... we're talking four or five," Austin told lawmakers, admitting the military will not reach its training goal this year.
The admission inflamed criticism that's been simmering for months.
While more Syrians are in training, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., suggested it may be time for a new plan. And she challenged the Pentagon's request for $600 million for more training next year.
"We're counting on our fingers and toes at this point," she said of the trained fighters.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., suggested the Pentagon shift to supporting other countries operating in the region like Turkey.
"This four or five U.S.-trained fighters -- let's not kid ourselves, that's a joke," she said.
The witnesses acknowledged the shortcomings with the program but suggested it is salvageable.
"They will figure out a way to get the job done one way or the other," Austin said of U.S. trainers.
Christine Wormuth, under secretary of defense for policy, said the mission is part of a "broader effort" and those getting training can be "force multipliers" for other groups on the ground.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., though, said: "We have to acknowledge this was a total failure. ... I wish it weren't so, but that's a fact."
The congressional criticism of the training mission made up just part of the severe concerns lawmakers voiced about the state of the anti-ISIS fight. They grilled Austin and Wormuth about the growing refugee crisis in Europe stoked by unrest in Syria; the Russian military build-up in Syria in support of the Assad regime; and allegations that intelligence on ISIS and other militant groups in Syria was manipulated to exaggerate progress being made against them.
On the latter charge, Austin vowed Wednesday to take "appropriate action" if an investigation indicates that senior defense officials altered intelligence reports.
A Defense Department inspector general began an investigation into the matter after an intelligence officer at the Central Command lodged a complaint in July. In his first remarks about the allegations, Austin said he welcomed the inspector general's investigation, but that he could not comment directly until the review was over.
Committee members expressed concern.
"Published media reports suggest that the CIA's estimate of ISIL's manpower has remained constant, despite U.S. airstrikes -- which suggests that either they were wrong to begin with, or that ISIL is replacing its losses in real time. Neither is good," said committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"Indeed, this committee is disturbed by recent whistleblower allegations that officials at Central Command skewed intelligence assessments to paint an overly-positive picture of conditions on the ground," McCain said.
The Daily Beast reported several dozen intelligence analysts at Central Command, which oversees the war effort, have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and Al Qaeda's branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials.
McCain had some of the toughest criticism for Wormuth and Austin, who claimed the Islamic State's future is "dim."
"I have never seen a hearing that is more divorced from reality by outside experts," McCain said, calling the anti-ISIS effort an "abject failure."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/16/commander-admits-size-us-trained-anti-isis-fighting-force-at-4-or-5/?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Let's see if the president actually learned from his Iraq mistake.
US reportedly considers leaving thousands of troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016
Published September 25, 2015
FoxNews.com
Sept. 11, 2015: Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Gen. John Campbell, speaks during a memorial ceremony on the fourteenth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States at the headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force, in Kabul, Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
Military officials reportedly are considering keeping thousands of American troops in Afghanistan beyond the end of next year, in what would be a departure from current plans to leave only a small force of a few hundred troops behind.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Thursday that Army Gen. John Campbell, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has submitted five different recommendations for allied troop levels to the Pentagon and NATO officials in Brussels. The paper reported that the options include keeping the U.S. presence at or near 10,000 troops; reducing the number to 8,000; or continuing with the current drawdown plans.
The paper reported that the Pentagon so far has not made a formal recommendation to the White House on any changes in the troop presence, though one is expected in the coming days.
This past March, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through the end of this year in response to a request by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani The original plan called for a reduction to 5,500 troops by the end of 2015.
"Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place," Obama said at the time in explaining his decision. The president had previously pledged to leave only a small force in Afghanistan that could be based at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul by the time he left office.
NATO and the U.S. currently have a combined force of about 13,000 in Afghanistan, mostly engaged in training and support following the end of the combat mission last year. However, the Journal reports that some officials worry that too large a troop reduction could increase the pressure on Afghanistan's fledgling government from the Taliban and other militant groups, including those claiming loyalty to ISIS.
Indeed, some officials believe that the Iraqi army would have been able to fight off ISIS' surprise offensive in the summer of 2014 if the U.S. had kept several thousand advisers in Baghdad. One senior military official told the Journal that current drawdown plans raise the risk of Afghanistan's collapse to an "unacceptable level."
However, others believe that it is U.S. funding, not U.S. troops that are the key to Afghan stability and believe the U.S. could go ahead with the withdrawal plans already in place.
Any U.S. decision on troop levels would be closely watched by NATO, with some allied officials saying that a larger American presence would enable them to keep their current troop levels and keep several military bases operating around the country. Unlike the U.S., NATO has never publicly committed to any timeline for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"There are 30-plus countries ready to contribute; the question is how big the U.S. will be," one NATO official told the Journal. "Enablers give others confidence that if they get in a real pinch, the U.S. will be able to help them out. Will the U.S. provide the backbone around which NATO brings 30 more countries?"
Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/25/us-reportedly-considers-leaving-thousands-us-troops-in-afghanistan-beyond-2016/?intcmp=hpbt2
-
Afghanistan is a lost cause.....time to leave....the afghans just aren't going to fight the Taliban......we need to leave....
-
Afghanistan is a lost cause.....time to leave....the afghans just aren't going to fight the Taliban......we need to leave....
Just like Iraq. That ended well.
-
Let's see if the president actually learned from his Iraq mistake.
His iraq mistake was sticking to the Bush agreement.
Oh,. but imaginary fairies said he was secretly supposed to change it, right?
-
His iraq mistake was sticking to the Bush agreement.
Oh,. but imaginary fairies said he was secretly supposed to change it, right?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D60xnL33mvQ/SJpOjH8CwcI/AAAAAAAAADc/JcTvNBkxd20/s320/troll.gif)
-
Just like Iraq. That ended well.
At least I'm taking a stand, fencesitter.
-
Commander admits size of US-trained Syrian fighting force at ‘4 or 5’
Published September 16, 2015
FoxNews.com
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East admitted Wednesday that only "four or five" U.S.-trained fighters remain on the battlefield in Syria, leading to accusations from lawmakers that the program is a "joke" and "total failure."
Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of the U.S. Central Command, addressed the state of the so-called "train and equip" mission in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The original goal for the first year was to train roughly 5,400 fighters to take on the Islamic State. But the first group of 54 U.S.-trained fighters was attacked by a Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, which killed and captured several of them and sent others fleeing.
For the first time Wednesday, the U.S. military acknowledged hardly any remain.
"It's a small number. The ones that are in the fight ... we're talking four or five," Austin told lawmakers, admitting the military will not reach its training goal this year.
The admission inflamed criticism that's been simmering for months.
While more Syrians are in training, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., suggested it may be time for a new plan. And she challenged the Pentagon's request for $600 million for more training next year.
"We're counting on our fingers and toes at this point," she said of the trained fighters.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., suggested the Pentagon shift to supporting other countries operating in the region like Turkey.
"This four or five U.S.-trained fighters -- let's not kid ourselves, that's a joke," she said.
The witnesses acknowledged the shortcomings with the program but suggested it is salvageable.
"They will figure out a way to get the job done one way or the other," Austin said of U.S. trainers.
Christine Wormuth, under secretary of defense for policy, said the mission is part of a "broader effort" and those getting training can be "force multipliers" for other groups on the ground.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., though, said: "We have to acknowledge this was a total failure. ... I wish it weren't so, but that's a fact."
The congressional criticism of the training mission made up just part of the severe concerns lawmakers voiced about the state of the anti-ISIS fight. They grilled Austin and Wormuth about the growing refugee crisis in Europe stoked by unrest in Syria; the Russian military build-up in Syria in support of the Assad regime; and allegations that intelligence on ISIS and other militant groups in Syria was manipulated to exaggerate progress being made against them.
On the latter charge, Austin vowed Wednesday to take "appropriate action" if an investigation indicates that senior defense officials altered intelligence reports.
A Defense Department inspector general began an investigation into the matter after an intelligence officer at the Central Command lodged a complaint in July. In his first remarks about the allegations, Austin said he welcomed the inspector general's investigation, but that he could not comment directly until the review was over.
Committee members expressed concern.
"Published media reports suggest that the CIA's estimate of ISIL's manpower has remained constant, despite U.S. airstrikes -- which suggests that either they were wrong to begin with, or that ISIL is replacing its losses in real time. Neither is good," said committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"Indeed, this committee is disturbed by recent whistleblower allegations that officials at Central Command skewed intelligence assessments to paint an overly-positive picture of conditions on the ground," McCain said.
The Daily Beast reported several dozen intelligence analysts at Central Command, which oversees the war effort, have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and Al Qaeda's branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials.
McCain had some of the toughest criticism for Wormuth and Austin, who claimed the Islamic State's future is "dim."
"I have never seen a hearing that is more divorced from reality by outside experts," McCain said, calling the anti-ISIS effort an "abject failure."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/16/commander-admits-size-us-trained-anti-isis-fighting-force-at-4-or-5/?intcmp=hpbt1
whats your point?...the intelligence community is ALWAYS WRONG ANY WAY....I see nothing wrong with pushing back against thier version of events...its how you come to a proper consensus
-
At least I'm taking a stand, fencesitter.
Your stand is not supported by history.
-
whats your point?...the intelligence community is ALWAYS WRONG ANY WAY....I see nothing wrong with pushing back against thier version of events...its how you come to a proper consensus
The point of the story is obvious: we spent millions to train about 4 soldiers. An abject failure.
-
Your stand is not supported by history.
Actually it is.......better to get out than to stay in a protracted war in which your troops become cannon fodder....the other side will win anyway if you don't TOTALLY occupy the country...since we are not going to do that....better to leave...we can't keep spilling blood and treasure..we're broke and our military needs rest....
-
The point of the story is obvious: we spent millions to train about 4 soldiers. An abject failure.
oh I agree with the abject failure part,,....Obama get a ding for that, no question.....
but in terms of intelligence, we have been consistently wrong about almost all things....nothign wrong with looking at their reports and challenging them
-
Actually it is.......better to get out than to stay in a protracted war in which your troops become cannon fodder....the other side will win anyway if you don't TOTALLY occupy the country...since we are not going to do that....better to leave...we can't keep spilling blood and treasure..we're broke and our military needs rest....
History does not support you. We got out of Iraq and ISIS then overran the country. Same thing will happen if we completely pull out of Afghanistan. Don't forget that Bid Laden used that country as a terrorist training ground leading up to 9/11.
I'd love for us to leave that entire region, but that's not reality.
-
History does not support you. We got out of Iraq and ISIS then overran the country. Same thing will happen if we completely pull out of Afghanistan. Don't forget that Bid Laden used that country as a terrorist training ground leading up to 9/11.
I'd love for us to leave that entire region, but that's not reality.
you don't get what i'm saying.....history says that almost every single time that we leave, the country collapses anyway.....UNLESS we totally subjugate the country like we did with Japan, Germany, etc......we are not going to do that in this day and age....so....better to get out and spare us lives and treasure..the rest of the world doesn't have an appetite for nation building...so why should we be the army for Russia and China, who do ABSOLUTELY NOITHING
-
you don't get what i'm saying.....history says that almost every single time that we leave, the country collapses anyway.....UNLESS we totally subjugate the country like we did with Japan, Germany, etc......we are not going to do that in this day and age....so....better to get out and spare us lives and treasure..the rest of the world doesn't have an appetite for nation building...so why should we be the army for Russia and China, who do ABSOLUTELY NOITHING
I get what you are saying. I am saying you are wrong.
We left a stabilizing force behind in Germany after WWII. We still have forces in Germany, decades later.
We left behind a stabilizing force in North Korea. We still have a division at the South/North Korean border, decades later.
We completely pulled out of Iraq and chaos ensued, which could have a detrimental impact on our national security. We are likely going to send troops back into Iraq. That's the lesson I hope the president has learned when it comes to Afghanistan.
-
Obama was just following the Bush agreement. Tough to hate on him for doing what repubs wanted.
-
Obama was just following the Bush agreement. Tough to hate on him for doing what repubs wanted.
Agreed....but unfortunately his hate for Obama is so strong he has lost perspective
-
Agreed....but unfortunately his hate for Obama is so strong he has lost perspective
maybe he should stop crying about the neighbor's lawn (dems), and think about his own lawn (repubs).
the GOP field looks like Navy Mike's front yard.
-
I have to say I am glad he apparently learned a lesson from Iraq.
Obama again delays Afghanistan troop drawdown
By Jim Acosta and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Thu October 15, 2015
"While America's combat mission in Afghanistan may be over, our commitment to Afghanistan and and its people endures," Obama said from the Roosevelt Room. "As commander in chief, I will not allow Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again."
Obama stressed that the decision to maintain 9,800 troops in Afghanistan until late 2016 came after months of discussions with Afghanistan's president, Ashraf Ghani, and the nation's chief executive officer, Abdullah Abdullah -- a nod to the fact that the U.S. is maintaining a presence in the country with the support of its leaders, unlike in Iraq, where the Obama administration could not reach an agreement with the Iraqi government on leaving a residual military force.
Ghani released a statement on Thursday afternoon welcoming Obama's announcement.
"The decision to maintain the current level of the United States' forces in Afghanistan once again shows renewal of the partnership and strengthening of relations of the United States with Afghanistan on the basis of common interests and risks," he said.
NATO also welcomed the move, saying in a statement that it "paves the way for a sustained presence" in Afghanistan for the organization and its allies.
Obama also noted that he had consulted with U.S. military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan as well as his entire national security team before deciding to maintain the current troop level.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest later told reporters that Obama chose to go with the Pentagon's greatest suggested number of troops.
"The highest recommendation that came into the President was the level that the President announced today," he said.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in a news conference Thursday that while the fight in Afghanistan "remains a difficult fight," the adjusted force numbers will ensure that the U.S. can carry out its mission and help Afghans confront the continued challenge posed by the Taliban.
"Today's decision from the president to adjust our troop presence in Afghanistan honors that sacrifice (of U.S. troops) and gives us a chance to finish what we started," Carter said at the Pentagon.
The decision comes on the heels of recent Taliban gains in Afghanistan, notably the militant group's takeover of Kunduz, the first major city to fall to Taliban hands since 2001. Two weeks later, the Taliban pulled out of the city -- but the incident sent ripples through Afghanistan and shook Washington.
Obama noted as much when he said that while Afghan forces are "taking the lead" and fighting "bravely and tenaciously," those forces "are still not as strong as they need to be."
The U.S. plan is to now maintain 5,500 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan after a drawdown set to take place in late 2016 or early 2017, more than five times the number of troops previously set to remain in the country at the start of 2017. Only about 1,000 troops had previously been set to remain in Afghanistan at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
Obama said the 5,500 troops post-drawdown would be based at the U.S. embassy and at military bases in Baghram, Jalalabad and Kandahar.
Carter said the Pentagon viewed that figure as "enough" to sustain the U.S. mission and accomplish the two-pronged goal of assisting the Afghan security forces and carrying out counterterror missions.
Though the decision clearly was a break from the game plan he had laid out and pitched to the American public, on Thursday he downplayed any suggestion that the delay in the withdrawal was a major setback.
Obama said the decision was not "disappointing" and said his mission has consistently been to "assess the situation on the ground" and make adjustments as necessary.
"This is not the first time those adjustments have been made," Obama said. "This won't probably be the last."
While Obama highlighted the sacrifices of the Afghan people and American forces who have circulated in and out of the war-torn country for more than 14 years of U.S. operations, Obama stressed that casualties are down overall and that U.S. troops will not be heading back into combat.
"The nature of the mission has not changed and the cessation of our combat role has not changed," Obama said.
Still, speaking to the American service members who will need to deploy to Afghanistan, he said: "I do not send you into harm's way lightly."
This is the second draw-down delay announced by Obama this year. In March, Obama said he planned to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan 5,500 U.S. military personnel by the end of this year, and then to an "embassy-only" presence by the end of 2016.
"The timeline for a withdrawal down to a embassy center presence, a normalization of our presence in Afghanistan, remains the end of 2016," Obama said in a joint press conference with Ghani last March.
Administration officials stressed U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan would continue to serve under two missions -- to root out remnants of al Qaeda as well as train and equip Afghan security forces. U.S. forces could also conduct counterterrorism operations against elements of ISIS in Afghanistan, should the group present a threat to the U.S. homeland, senior administration officials added.
The original White House goal was to hand over the counterterrorism side of the U.S. mission to Afghan security forces this year.
"It's in our interest to build up the Afghan security forces," said a senior administration official.
The estimated annual cost of maintaining current U.S. force levels in Afghanistan is $14.6 billion, a separate senior administration official said.
Obama had previously vowed to conclude the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan before he leaving office.
"We will bring America's longest war to a responsible end," Obama said at a Rose Garden ceremony in May 2014.
Retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona, a CNN military analyst and former intelligence officer, said Obama's decision is simply "kicking this can down the road" for the next president. Obama will be out of office by the time troops are set to be drawn down again.
"This is this administration pushing this off to the next administration because the next time they have to make this decision, it will be a different president in the White House," Francona said.
Republicans who have been seeking higher U.S. troop commitments gave a lukewarm response to Obama's announcement Thursday.
"While this new plan avoids a disaster, it is certainly not a plan for success," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry said in a statement. "Given the troubling conditions on the ground in Afghanistan and the other security problems in the region, keeping 9,800 troops there through at least 2016 is necessary to our security interests."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/afghanistan-troops-obama/index.html
-
Obama weighs sending US troops near front lines in ISIS fight, plans more airstrikes
Published October 27, 2015
FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is weighing moving U.S. troops closer to the front lines in Iraq and Syria while preparing to "intensify" the air campaign against the Islamic State, officials said Tuesday.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified on Capitol Hill Tuesday that the military plans a "higher and heavier rate of strikes" against ISIS targets.
Separately, a senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that President Obama is considering proposals to move U.S. troops closer to the front lines in the fight. The Washington Post first reported that national security advisers are proposing putting a limited number of Special Operations forces in Syria, and U.S. advisers closer to the fight in Iraq.
The changes would need approval from Obama, but the plans reflect an effort to recharge the campaign against ISIS -- particularly after a U.S. train-and-equip program to help Syrian rebels was effectively ended.
"The end state is to defeat ISIL," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, Jr., testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, acknowledging: "No one is satisfied with our progress to date."
At the same hearing, Carter described a changing approach to the fight against the Islamic State, focusing largely on Raqqa, the Islamic State-declared capital in Syria, and Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province in western Iraq.
Carter said the U.S. would intensify the air campaign against the Islamic State with additional U.S. and coalition aircraft and heavier airstrikes. His testimony came as Russia is conducting its own airstrikes in Syria, saying it aims to help the Syrian government defeat the Islamic State and other terrorists.
The U.S.-led effort "will include more strikes against IS high-value targets as our intelligence improves, and also its oil enterprise, which is a critical pillar of IS's financial infrastructure," he said.
Carter said to keep up the pressure on Raqqa, the U.S. will support moderate Syrian forces, who have made territorial gains against the Islamic State near that city.
"Some of them are within 30 miles of Raqqa today," he said.
He said the U.S. also hopes to better equip Arab forces battling the Islamic State and to further bolster Jordan, a neighbor of Iraq and Syria which is flying missions as part of the anti-IS coalition.
Carter said he was disappointed that the U.S. effort to form new moderate Syrian rebel forces to fight ISIS had failed. He said the new approach is to work with vetted leaders of groups that are already fighting the militants and also give them equipment and training and help support them with U.S. air power.
The military leaders faced tough criticism Tuesday from committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who said "killing" the earlier training program is "destroying what little trust our Syrian partners have left in us to say nothing of allies like Turkey and Jordan that invested their own money and prestige in the program."
He added, "We're still not providing sufficient support to Sunni tribes which are the center of gravity in this fight."
The new strategy would include helping the Iraqi government's effort to assemble Iraqi forces, including Sunni fighters, to fight Islamic State militants in Anbar province. Carter said that as the U.S. sees more progress in assembling motivated Iraqi forces, it will be willing to continue providing more equipment and fire support to help them succeed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/27/obama-weighs-sending-us-troops-near-front-lines-in-isis-fight-plans-more/?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Pentagon: 'We're in combat' in Iraq
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Thu October 29, 2015
Washington (CNN)—The Pentagon conceded Wednesday that U.S. troops are in combat in Iraq after days of dancing around the characterization following the first death of U.S. service member in the campaign against ISIS.
"We're in combat," Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Wednesday. "I mean, of course, this is a combat zone. There's a war going on in Iraq, if folks haven't noticed. And we're here and it's all around us."
The comments came after Master Sgt. Joshua L. Wheeler was killed last week in a raid to free hostages held by ISIS. They are in stark contrast to President Barack Obama's insistence last summer that "American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq" while announcing the decision to assist Iraqis fighting ISIS.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter also acknowledged later Wednesday that "there are American troops in combat every day" in Iraq, but he hedged his statement by saying that the overall U.S. role in Iraq is not to carry out a combat mission. Rather, he said, the U.S. mission to train and support local forces that does involve a combat aspect.
While the U.S. conducts aerial bombing raids against ISIS and sometimes carries out Special Operations ground missions, U.S. military personnel in Iraq are largely charged with training and advising Iraqi forces and are not directly embedded with those forces when they engage ISIS on the ground.
Still, Carter was unequivocal that Wheeler -- a Special Ops soldier -- died in combat.
"Of course he died in combat. That's what happened," Carter said Wednesday during a news conference.
On Friday, however, he was more equivocal, emphasizing that Wheeler's activities were not indicative of the U.S. taking on a combat stance in Iraq.
"It doesn't represent assuming a combat role. It represents a continuation of our advise-and-assist mission" for Iraqi security forces, he told reporters.
Carter has said that the American public can expect to see more Special Forces raids on the ground against ISIS.
When pressed further on his comments, Warren, the Army spokesman, was unflinching in his assessment -- noting that there's a reason why U.S. forces serving in Iraq receive imminent danger pay, combat patches and carry guns.
"You know, our aviators are conducting combat air patrols, I mean, that's the name of the mission, combat air patrol. So, of course it's combat," he said. "You know, they are conducting combat -- when you're a pilot and you strike an enemy target with thousands of pounds of bombs, that's aerial combat."
Warren added, "It's a dangerous place, you know. We've had a man killed, we've had men -- personnel wounded. That's going to continue to happen."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/iraq-isis-military-combat/index.html
-
U.S. to send Special Operations forces to Syria
By Barbara Starr and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
Fri October 30, 2015 |
Video Source: CNN
The deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces is the most significant escalation of the Americans military campaign against ISIS to date
Obama has long resisted an American military presence on the ground to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria
Washington (CNN)The United States is set to deploy troops on the ground in Syria for the first time to advise and assist rebel forces combating ISIS, multiple officials said Friday.
A senior administration official said that the U.S. would be deploying "fewer than 50" U.S. Special Operations forces to Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Syria. The American troops will help local Kurdish and Arab forces fighting ISIS with logistics and are planning to bolster their efforts.
The deployment of U.S. Special Operations forces is the most significant escalation of the American military campaign against ISIS to date.
The U.S. Special Operations forces will first be deployed to northern Syria to help coordinate local ground forces and U.S.-led coalition efforts to fight ISIS, the senior administration official said. The local forces in that area have been the most effective U.S. partners in confronting ISIS.
The U.S. will also boost its military footprint in confronting ISIS in Syria by deploying A-10 and F-15 fighter jets to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. And the U.S. is also eying the establishment of a Special Forces task force in Iraq to boost U.S. efforts to target ISIS and its leaders, the administration official said. President Barack Obama has also authorized enhancing military aid to Jordan and Lebanon to help counter ISIS.
The U.S. has bombed targets in Syria since September 2014 without stopping ISIS, and it has largely failed in a mission to recruit and train moderate rebels in Syria to take on the terror group. In recent months, the U.S. has also bolstered its aid to local forces, air-dropping weapons, ammunition and other supplies to rebel forces inside Syria.
Obama has long resisted an American military presence on the ground to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria but has reluctantly escalated U.S. involvement in that fight over time since launching the military effort in 2014.
The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq has swelled to more than 3,500 since Obama first announced the deployment of up to 300 American military advisers to Iraq in June 2014.
U.S. Special Ops have previously conducted some secretive missions on the ground in Syria as well. But the deployment marks the first permanent presence of U.S. ground troops in Syria since the U.S. began leading an international effort last year to confront ISIS, the militant Islamist group which now controls broad swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria.
The troops are set to be deployed to Syria in the coming days, according to these officials.
The decision comes on the heels of the first death of an American military service member in the fight against ISIS. Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler died last week in Iraq as he and other American Special Operations forces conducted a raid to rescue hostages held by ISIS.
The troops to be sent to Syria are not expected to serve on the front lines with rebel forces.
But they are entering a very hot combat zone and have the right to engage the enemy if they come under fire. They could also join Syrian and Kurdish forces on raids if they get explicit permission from Washington.
The Syrian Kurdish fighting force in northern Syria welcomed the decision to deploy U.S. troops to assist them but reiterated the need for more assistance and weaponry to fight ISIS.
"We have experience fighting ISIS and I think the whole world has seen as evidence of that the areas that we currently hold in Syria. We hope that this assistance will evolve from all our different friends and allies. We need all types of assistance but first and foremost weapons are primarily our most important need," said Mohamed Rasho, spokesman for the political wing of the YPG, the Syrian Kurd fighting force.
The stepped-up U.S. military involvement in Syria also comes amid a redoubling of diplomatic efforts to reach a resolution to the multi-year conflict between the Syrian government and rebel forces, which ISIS has exploited to expand its base in the country.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been holding meetings in recent days with U.S. allies in the region and recently agreed to give Iran a role in the peace talks, which also include Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Iran and Russia have supported the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad even as Assad has been accused of committing war crimes against his own people, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas.
Russia entered the military fray earlier this month by deploying forces to Syria and launching a bombing campaign that it claims has been targeting ISIS, also called ISIL. But the locations of Russian airstrikes have led U.S. military officials to say they believe the Russian effort is aimed more at bolstering Assad's hold on power than fighting ISIS.
Russia's military involvement in Syria has been greeted in Washington with a mixture of caution and criticism, with Obama warning Russia earlier this month that its airstrikes in Syria would suck it into a "quagmire."
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told CNN Thursday that he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin didn't have a long-term plan for his country's military involvement in Syria, saying he thinks "he is kind of winging this day to day."
The U.S. and Russia have in recent weeks held a series of deconfliction talks to find ways to prevent accidents or misunderstandings between U.S. and Russian jets sharing the skies over Syria.
Russian jets, though, have not been operating in the skies above northern Syria where the U.S. is now deploying ground forces.
Obama has faced steady and unrelenting criticism of his leadership in the fight against ISIS, with Republicans and even some Democrats consistently accusing him of lacking any clear strategy to fight the militant Islamist group, which has threatened attacks against the U.S.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican, gave a tempered response Obama's decision to send ground troops to Syria.
"A more serious effort against ISIS in Syria is long overdue," he said in a statement Friday. "Absent a larger coherent strategy, however, these steps may prove to be too little too late. I do not see a strategy for success, rather it seems the Administration is trying to avoid a disaster while the President runs out the clock."
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has also called for a more aggressive approach, said Friday in a statement that it is "time for the Administration to propose a unified strategy that addresses the intertwined challenges posed by ISIL and President Assad," with Friday's decision only addressing "half the problem -- ISIL, but not Assad."
Kaine also renewed his calls for Congress to vote on an authorization of the use of military force against ISIS, which it has yet to do. The U.S. has been acting in Syria and Iraq on legal grounds based in the authorization of military force against al Qaeda elements.
GOP presidential contenders have called for everything from tens of thousands of U.S. troops to be deployed to Iraq to the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria.
In an interview with CNN last week, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a GOP presidential candidate, called not just for the establishment of a no-fly zone but also a safe zone where moderate rebels "can organize, train, equip and ultimately present a credible alternative to Assad for the future of Syria."
Rubio also called for Special Operations forces to be embedded with local forces.
"Only America can convene Sunni forces from what I believe needs to be a combined Sunni force of Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, Sunnis in Iraq, Sunnis in Syria to confront a radical Sunni movement and defeat them militarily. They will need our help in convening it," Rubio told CNN's Jamie Gangel. "But it doesn't involve a full-scale U.S. invasion of Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/syria-troops-special-operations-forces/index.html
-
Fox News Poll: Voters approve of Obama plans in Syria, Afghanistan
By Dana Blanton
Published November 05, 2015
FoxNews.com
A 54-percent majority of American voters approves of President Obama’s decision to send a small number of U.S. troops to Syria to help in the fight against the Islamic extremist group ISIS.
That’s according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
In addition, by a 49-38 percent margin, voters approve of Obama’s decision to delay withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
Last week, Obama announced he was sending about 50 Special Operations forces to Syria, marking the first time U.S. boots will be on the ground there to fight ISIS. That decision came on the heels of the president reversing himself on leaving U.S. troops in Afghanistan and delaying withdrawal until after 2016.
Voter support for these military actions is buoyed by a higher level of bi-partisanship than is the norm for the administration’s policies.
Majorities of Democrats approve of Obama’s actions: 62 percent on Syria and 59 percent on Afghanistan. Among Republicans, nearly half favor both sending troops to Syria (48 percent) and leaving troops in Afghanistan (45 percent).
Overall, 45 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 50 percent disapprove. Last month, it was 42-53 percent (October 10-12, 2015).
Here, partisanship is on full display: 84 percent of Democrats approve of Obama’s job performance, while 86 percent of Republicans disapprove.
Approval of Obama has been mostly steady for the last two years -- and voters have almost always been more likely to disapprove than approve of his job performance during that time. His approval hit a record low 38 percent in September 2014.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,230 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from November 1-3, 2015. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/05/fox-news-poll-voters-approve-obama-plans-in-syria-afghanistan/?intcmp=hpbt2
-
-
That black guy should learn never to say never in a complex world as this.
-
repubs are upset that obama did what they wanted. they'll complain about anything.
it's that kinda whiner attitude that has cost them the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. Americans are just sick of whiners.
-
US announces more special ops forces to fight ISIS, Iraqi PM says 'no need'
Published December 02, 2015
FoxNews.com
The U.S. is sending more special operations forces to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling ISIS, as well as capture or kill senior leaders of the terror network in Iraq and Syria.
A U.S. official told Fox News that approximately 200 troops would be sent to Iraq within the next few weeks part of a "specialized expeditionary targeting force" announced by Defense Secretary Ash Carter in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.
The official said the force's remit would include targeted assassinations of senior ISIS if their specific mission requires. A second U.S. official told Fox News that capturing senior ISIS leaders would also be an important component of the new assault force’s mission to learn more about the group's structure and any affiliates.
"This intel gathering mission is just as important, if not more important, than killing bad guys," said the official, who added that the number of troops "could grow" beyond 200.
House Armed Services chair says special operations deployment is not enough on 'America's Newsroom'
The U.S. military conducted similar operations in Iraq to take out senior Al Qaeda leadership, such as the mission led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal which killed Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006.
More recently, U.S. special operations troops and Iraqi forces raided a compound in northern Iraq in October, freeing about 70 Iraqi prisoners who were facing execution. One U.S. service member was killed in the raid, the first American combat death in Iraq since the U.S. began its campaign against ISIS in August 2014.
In May, a Delta Force raid in Syria killed ISIS financier Abu Sayyaf, yielding intelligence about the group's structure and finances. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi reacted to Carter's announcement with a statement saying in part, "there is no need for foreign ground combat troops" in Iraq.
Abadi's statement did call for more weapons, training and support for Iraq's military from Baghdad's international partners. He also warned that any special operations against ISIS in Iraq "can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty."
In Brussels Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters Iraq's government was briefed in advance of the U.S. announcement. He said Washington would work with Baghdad on what types of forces were deployed, where they would go and what types of missions they would conduct. He expressed "full and total respect" for al-Abadi's leadership, and said plans would go forward "in full consultation and with full consent of the Iraqi government."
"The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the Iraqi security force's own capacity," Carter said in his testimony Tuesday. "This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria."
"This is an important capability because it takes advantage of what we're good at," Carter added later. "We're good at intelligence, we're good at mobility, we're good at surprise. We have the long reach that no one else has. And it puts everybody on notice in Syria. You don't know at night who's going to be coming in the window. And that's the sensation that we want all of ISIL's leadership and followers to have."
A U.S. official familiar with the composition of special operations forces told Fox News that approximately 75 percent of the group bound for Iraq would provide support. The force includes intelligence personnel, aircraft pilots, and mechanics in addition to a quick reaction force. The official added that the group was separate from the 50 special operations forces that will be sent to Syria.
There currently are about 3,300 U.S. troops in Iraq.
At the same hearing, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised eyebrows when he said that ISIS had not been contained by the U.S.-led coalition, contrary to President Obama's assessment earlier this month.
"What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria, they'll come in, they'll leave, but you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain," Obama said in an interview with ABC, using another acronym for the group.
The remarks were aired a day before ISIS militants carried out a series of coordinated attacks in Paris, killing 130 people and injuring more than 350 others.
"We have not contained ISIL currently," Dunford said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/02/us-announces-more-special-ops-forces-to-fight-isis-iraqi-pm-says-no-need.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
US announces more special ops forces to fight ISIS, Iraqi PM says 'no need'
Published December 02, 2015
FoxNews.com
The U.S. is sending more special operations forces to help Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling ISIS, as well as capture or kill senior leaders of the terror network in Iraq and Syria.
A U.S. official told Fox News that approximately 200 troops would be sent to Iraq within the next few weeks part of a "specialized expeditionary targeting force" announced by Defense Secretary Ash Carter in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.
The official said the force's remit would include targeted assassinations of senior ISIS if their specific mission requires. A second U.S. official told Fox News that capturing senior ISIS leaders would also be an important component of the new assault force’s mission to learn more about the group's structure and any affiliates.
"This intel gathering mission is just as important, if not more important, than killing bad guys," said the official, who added that the number of troops "could grow" beyond 200.
House Armed Services chair says special operations deployment is not enough on 'America's Newsroom'
The U.S. military conducted similar operations in Iraq to take out senior Al Qaeda leadership, such as the mission led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal which killed Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006.
More recently, U.S. special operations troops and Iraqi forces raided a compound in northern Iraq in October, freeing about 70 Iraqi prisoners who were facing execution. One U.S. service member was killed in the raid, the first American combat death in Iraq since the U.S. began its campaign against ISIS in August 2014.
In May, a Delta Force raid in Syria killed ISIS financier Abu Sayyaf, yielding intelligence about the group's structure and finances. His wife, held in Iraq, has been cooperating with interrogators.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi reacted to Carter's announcement with a statement saying in part, "there is no need for foreign ground combat troops" in Iraq.
Abadi's statement did call for more weapons, training and support for Iraq's military from Baghdad's international partners. He also warned that any special operations against ISIS in Iraq "can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty."
In Brussels Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters Iraq's government was briefed in advance of the U.S. announcement. He said Washington would work with Baghdad on what types of forces were deployed, where they would go and what types of missions they would conduct. He expressed "full and total respect" for al-Abadi's leadership, and said plans would go forward "in full consultation and with full consent of the Iraqi government."
"The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the Iraqi security force's own capacity," Carter said in his testimony Tuesday. "This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria."
"This is an important capability because it takes advantage of what we're good at," Carter added later. "We're good at intelligence, we're good at mobility, we're good at surprise. We have the long reach that no one else has. And it puts everybody on notice in Syria. You don't know at night who's going to be coming in the window. And that's the sensation that we want all of ISIL's leadership and followers to have."
A U.S. official familiar with the composition of special operations forces told Fox News that approximately 75 percent of the group bound for Iraq would provide support. The force includes intelligence personnel, aircraft pilots, and mechanics in addition to a quick reaction force. The official added that the group was separate from the 50 special operations forces that will be sent to Syria.
There currently are about 3,300 U.S. troops in Iraq.
At the same hearing, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised eyebrows when he said that ISIS had not been contained by the U.S.-led coalition, contrary to President Obama's assessment earlier this month.
"What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria, they'll come in, they'll leave, but you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain," Obama said in an interview with ABC, using another acronym for the group.
The remarks were aired a day before ISIS militants carried out a series of coordinated attacks in Paris, killing 130 people and injuring more than 350 others.
"We have not contained ISIL currently," Dunford said in response to a question from Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/02/us-announces-more-special-ops-forces-to-fight-isis-iraqi-pm-says-no-need.html?intcmp=hpbt1
REALLY REALLY ODD that you keep going to FOX NEWS for your articles..ever try using articles from FAIR sources that have some credibilty????????????????
-
repubs are upset that obama did what they wanted. they'll complain about anything.
it's that kinda whiner attitude that has cost them the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. Americans are just sick of whiners.
Truth.
But instead of pointing out the valid relativity of this statement in regards to facts and logic, I will just have to call you a lying liar lying troll. There.
-
REALLY REALLY ODD that you keep going to FOX NEWS for your articles..ever try using articles from FAIR sources that have some credibilty????????????????
Lol.....Fox is a major news outlet dipshit...how about arguing the facts...oh yeah you guys never can. I'm sorry Ol fighting Joe aint bending over for Barry...us massholes have no time for shitbags like him anyway. Obama must have missed him in the purge of real soldiers/marines
-
REALLY REALLY ODD that you keep going to FOX NEWS for your articles..ever try using articles from FAIR sources that have some credibilty????????????????
I go to multiple sources for my articles. There at least two on this page from CNN, so not sure why you'd say something so blatantly false.
-
Lol.....Fox is a major news outlet dipshit...how about arguing the facts...oh yeah you guys never can. I'm sorry Ol fighting Joe aint bending over for Barry...us massholes have no time for shitbags like him anyway. Obama must have missed him in the purge of real soldiers/marines
Fuck you are stupid.
FOX is a propaganda station and a source of comedy.
-
Lol.....Fox is a major news outlet dipshit...how about arguing the facts...oh yeah you guys never can. I'm sorry Ol fighting Joe aint bending over for Barry...us massholes have no time for shitbags like him anyway. Obama must have missed him in the purge of real soldiers/marines
HOLY SHIT...YOU of all people talking about FACTS??????????..I've destroyed you on facts so often its pathetic...and everyone knows FOX is not truly news...its propaganda in the guise of news for fools who don't want to think...just react
-
Fuck you are stupid.
FOX is a propaganda station and a source of comedy.
Brilliant
-
I go to multiple sources for my articles. There at least two on this page from CNN, so not sure why you'd say something so blatantly false.
Just like Soul Crusher, you USED to be relevant, fair-minded, and thought provoking...now you simply have swallowed the anti-Obama Kool-aid and scour the internet (actually FOX NEWS website) for anti Obama articles and any negative thing you can find on Obama so as to feed your insatiable desire to see him fail....even in the face of all evidence which shows that he's ACTUALLY succeeding
STRANGE................. ................
-
Fuck you are stupid.
FOX is a propaganda station and a source of comedy.
Ok Canada...why don'y go shut the fuck up...fucking lib douche. Sorry the real world doesn't fit into naive world view...
-
Just like Soul Crusher, you USED to be relevant, fair-minded, and thought provoking...now you simply have swallowed the anti-Obama Kool-aid and scour the internet (actually FOX NEWS website) for anti Obama articles and any negative thing you can find on Obama so as to feed your insatiable desire to see him fail....even in the face of all evidence which shows that he's ACTUALLY succeeding
STRANGE................. ................
Why do any of us have to be pro Obama....explain that. I view the guy and his beliefs, his people, his world view as naive, traitorous and borderline criminal. His views are completely against everything I stand for. If cruz gets elected...I suspect you will be the same. I, atleast can understand that. You want to make it a race thing....sorry guy but its a beliefs thing.
-
Why do any of us have to be pro Obama....explain that. I view the guy and his beliefs, his people, his world view as naive, traitorous and borderline criminal. His views are completely against everything I stand for. If cruz gets elected...I suspect you will be the same. I, atleast can understand that. You want to make it a race thing....sorry guy but its a beliefs thing.
you see?..there you go with the race thing again...I never said that , yet that seems to be the premminent issue in the minds of Obama's detractors...THEN you guys accuse me of race-baiting yet YOU GUYS are the ones who usually bring it up first.....I don't want you to be pro-Obama at all...just to simply LOOK AT THE FACTS AND STATS and judge him by the evidence...you guys look at him as the father who must never do any wrong or never make mistakes...
when uE rate was 10% and gas was near 5 bucks a gallon EVERYONE BLAMED OBAMA...now we have almost full employment at 5% and gas under $2 bucks in many places and now ALL OF A SUDDEN Obama gets no credit.....HYPOCRITICAL. ..and then when I point it out, now I'm the one who is racist and a kneepadder....
you're own hatred for him is overriding your beter judgment....you're drinking the Republican Kool-aid...but name ONE accomplishment ....I guarantee you that you can't......
-
Ok Canada...why don'y go shut the fuck up...fucking lib douche. Sorry the real world doesn't fit into naive world view...
also what is it with your hatred of Liberals???...nothing wrong with Progressive thinking.....what ideas have the Tea Party and Republicans come up with to make things better???????????????????.....other than that the earth is 6000 years old???????????
-
Another example: claims were constantly being made on here that Obama was an "imperial president" ruling by executive order.......
then I did research that Obama actually has used it much much much less than other presidents historically, which destroyed that argument.....now I don't hear that claim being made any more.....so all I do is present the facts and compare Obama to other presidents using stats and history while you guys on here get emotional and present false evidence that he is doing a bad job when he is not
-
Ok Canada...why don'y go shut the fuck up...fucking lib douche. Sorry the real world doesn't fit into naive world view...
You get your "news" from FOX and yet talk about the real world.
You are a walking contradiction.
-
Gen. Odierno: We Can't 'Destroy ISIS' Without Boots on the Ground
MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
By Cathy Burke
Wednesday, 09 Dec 2015
Crushing the Islamic State is impossible without boots on the ground, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno says.
In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Odierno also said the United States has "to build trust in the Middle East," agreeing it's not there among Gulf States allies.
"I get frustrated on this thing about 'no boots on the ground.' Well, we have boots on the ground. They're special operations forces, there are soldiers, and I think we have to have a short-term plan which allows our people to get on the ground."
"You can't defeat ISIS, or destroy ISIS without having people on the ground."
"The intelligence we're missing is the intelligence you gain on the ground. We need unit intelligence," he added.
"Special ops can only do so much," he said of U.S. forces already in place. "Let the people on the ground tell you 'this is what we need.'"
Air strikes alone won't reign in the Islamic jihadists, he argues.
"It's not going to happen, it's never happened in history, it's not going to happen now," he said.
And Odierno says he's "surprised" at the lack of conversation about a coalition to fight the Islamic State.
"The Kurds are only going to do so much," Odierno said of the regional group President Barack Obama has called a partner in the war against ISIS.
"You need a plan that goes after Iraq, that goes after Syria."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ray-odierno-destroy-boots-on-the-ground/2015/12/09/id/705150/#ixzz3trhRgWaW
-
Gen. Odierno: We Can't 'Destroy ISIS' Without Boots on the Ground
MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
By Cathy Burke
Wednesday, 09 Dec 2015
Crushing the Islamic State is impossible without boots on the ground, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno says.
In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Odierno also said the United States has "to build trust in the Middle East," agreeing it's not there among Gulf States allies.
"I get frustrated on this thing about 'no boots on the ground.' Well, we have boots on the ground. They're special operations forces, there are soldiers, and I think we have to have a short-term plan which allows our people to get on the ground."
"You can't defeat ISIS, or destroy ISIS without having people on the ground."
"The intelligence we're missing is the intelligence you gain on the ground. We need unit intelligence," he added.
"Special ops can only do so much," he said of U.S. forces already in place. "Let the people on the ground tell you 'this is what we need.'"
Air strikes alone won't reign in the Islamic jihadists, he argues.
"It's not going to happen, it's never happened in history, it's not going to happen now," he said.
And Odierno says he's "surprised" at the lack of conversation about a coalition to fight the Islamic State.
"The Kurds are only going to do so much," Odierno said of the regional group President Barack Obama has called a partner in the war against ISIS.
"You need a plan that goes after Iraq, that goes after Syria."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ray-odierno-destroy-boots-on-the-ground/2015/12/09/id/705150/#ixzz3trhRgWaW
we all already know this...its just a question of WHOSE boots are going to be on the ground...NOT OURS
-
Poll: Most Americans Say US Is Losing the War on Terrorism
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=2aabd6ce-a31a-44cf-b1cd-ee85ac15bbde&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Poll: Most Americans Say US Is Losing the War on Terrorism (AP)
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Monday, 28 Dec 2015
Most Americans say they are not satisfied with how the war on terror is progressing, a new CNN/ORC poll finds, and more are now saying the terrorists are winning than at any point since the 9/11 attacks.
The poll of 1,018 adults, conducted between Dec. 17-21, found that 75 percent say they're dissatisfied following the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, CNN reports, marking a high point of 61 percent in August 2007.
However, fewer than half of Americans, or 40 percent, say the terrorists are winning. But that is still 17 points above the previous high of 23 percent that was recorded in August 2005.
In other findings:
40 percent say neither side has an advantage;
18 percent say today that the U.S. and its allies have the upper hand;
59 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with how the Obama White House fights terrorism;
79 percent of independents are dissatisfied;
86 percent of Republicans are not satisfied.
55 percent of Republicans say the terrorists are winning;
52 percent of Republicans believe neither side has an edge.
However, Americans are still holding out hope, CNN reports.
Most Americans believe the government can prevent all major attacks from happening, but 45 percent said terrorists will always find a way to launch a major attack, no matter what the government does. This number was down from about 60 percent in previous polling.
In other numbers:
53 percent of Americans polled say the U.S. can absolutely repel attacks;
58 percent of Republicans said all attacks can be prevented;
46 percent of Democrats have faith in the government's ability.
45 percent are worried they or a family member will be a victim of terrorism;
51 have at least a moderate amount of confidence in the White House's ability to protect citizens from terrorism;
17 percent say they have a great deal of confidence.
The worry and dissatisfaction is reflected in Obama's approval ratings, reports CNN, wit his ratings remaining in negative territory since late November:
52 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the presidency;
60 percent disapprove of his handling of terrorism;
64 percent disapprove of how he's handling ISIS.
Americans are still divided, meanwhile, on putting boots on the ground in Syria to fight ISIS, with 49 percent favoring ground troops, compared to 53 percent last month, just shortly after the San Bernardino attacks.
Further, Americans remain reluctant to call the U.S. engagement against ISIS a war, with 57 percent saying the U.S. is involved in a military conflict while 40 percent called it war.
The poll carried a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Americans-US-Losing-War/2015/12/28/id/707268/#ixzz3vdRrPOMe
-
Top US General in Iraq: More Ground Troops May Be Needed
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=1dfbf055-f2bd-40b3-a86f-ba343a74645c&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Top US General in Iraq: More Ground Troops May Be Needed (Getty Images)
By Cathy Burke
Monday, 01 Feb 2016
More American boots on the ground may ultimately be needed to help the Iraqi army defeat Islamic State militants, according to the top U.S. general in Iraq.
But Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland said it's President Barack Obama who will have to decide.
"Yes, there is a good potential that we will need additional capabilities, additional forces to provide those capabilities," MacFarland said in a video teleconference from Iraq, Military Times reports.
He added: "And we're looking at the right mix … in consultation with the government of Iraq and our other partners."
"We have shifted from a pure counterinsurgency focus and are now preparing the [Iraqi security forces] to conduct what we refer to as combined arms operations," he said. "Now, that doesn't necessarily equate to boots on the ground. It doesn't necessarily equate to American boots on the ground."
"The decision as to whether or not … something is on or off the table is not my decision. That's really, at the end of the day, that's my commander in chief's. So, you know, all of us in uniform are … preparing various options. The president will decide."
There are about 3,700 U.S. troops in Iraq who provide training for the Iraqi security forces and sometimes accompany them to forward positions to support Iraqi-led combat operations.
MacFarland conceded ISIS could "revert to some sort of insurgency."
"That's a possibility and we will ensure that the holding force that is in Iraq is sufficient … to deter or defeat those types of attacks or respond to them, should they occur," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/top-general-ground-troops/2016/02/01/id/712272/#ixzz3z2w4rMKD
-
Poll: Most Americans Say US Is Losing the War on Terrorism
most americans aren't IN the war. most aren't affected in any way by the 'war on terrorism'.
most will never be affected in other way, other than fear delivered by watching their favorite news channels.
Their "analysis" of whether we're winning or losing is completely based on watching what we all consider to be lying news shows.
-
US Army Orders Hundreds Of Soldiers Back To Southern Afghanistan
Published February 11, 2016
By Jennifer Griffin, Lucas Tomlinson , Fox News
For the first time since combat operations were declared over at the end of 2014, a battalion of 500 U.S. Army infantrymen is being sent to southern Afghanistan’s volatile Helmand Province where the Taliban have made a comeback, Fox News has learned.
The decision, confirmed by defense officials, is a sign of military escalation in the country even as the Obama administration tries to draw down.
The battalion is meant to relieve a company of 150 soldiers, giving the U.S. Army nearly 350 more soldiers to prevent the Taliban from taking over volatile Helmand province. The Army’s 2-87 infantry battalion, part of the 10th Mountain Division based at Ft. Drum, N.Y., was scheduled to deploy to Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan this winter -- but instead will be sent to Helmand, according to defense officials familiar with the order.
The additional soldiers will provide increased “force protection” for a team of special operations forces training and advising the Afghan Army’s 215th Corps, which has suffered from desertions and poor leadership, according to the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/11/us-army-orders-hundreds-soldiers-back-southern-afghanistan
-
U.S. Marines report second attack on 'Firebase Bell' in northern Iraq
Andrew Tilghman, Military Times
March 21, 2016
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f5165edfa19bcf273643df7b3770f5690bca06dd/r=x404&c=534x401/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/510f3d485845c80fe11facb95875bde23349efc2/c=222-0-2778-1922/local/-/media/2016/03/21/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635941629564769109-AP-663467136660.jpg)
(Photo: Hadi Mizban/AP)
The newly established American firebase in northern Iraq came under attack again Monday just two days after a rocket attack killed a U.S. Marine staff sergeant, a defense official said.
The company of Marines at the new outpost known as “Firebase Bell” reported small-arms fire Monday morning from a “squad size” team of Islamic State fighters who likely “infiltrated” the area around the Iraqi and U.S. military facilities, said Army Col. Steve Warren, a Defense Department spokesman in Baghdad.
No American injuries were reported, Warren said.
The existence of the firebase, which was established last week, was reported publicly for the first time after Marine Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin was killed by a Katyusha rocket Saturday, the first attack on the site.
Cardin deployed to Iraq with a company of between 100 and 200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit to help set up the new firebase near the expanding Iraqi military base at Makhmour, a key staging area for the Iraqi Army’s planned assault on Mosul.
Makhmur is the location for the Iraqi's Nineveh Operations Center, a primary base from which the U.S. can support Iraqi forces when they eventually mount at attack on Mosul, which fell to the Islamic State in June 2014.
Iraqi military leaders have amassed several thousand troops in the area for the upcoming operation. It’s unclear when a full-scale invasion of Mosul might begin.
The Marines are considered “temporary” and are not counted as part of 3,800 U.S. troops that are currently authorized for full-time deployment to Iraq, Warren said. He declined to provide an total number of American boots on the ground in Iraq.
The Daily Beast reported Monday that the total number of U.S. military forces in Iraq, including the "temporary" troops, is more than 5,000.
The new firebase is about 15 to 20 kilometers from the “forward line of troops,” or FLOT, that separates the Kurdish and Iraqi controlled zone of northeastern Iraq from the Islamic State-held territory in the Tigris River valley.
The Marines at Firebase Bell are operating field artillery to boost force protection at the nearby base in Makhmour. There are no Iraqi forces at Firebase Bell, Warren said.
"This is the first time we have established a spot that is only Americans," Warren said. He said the firebase is a separate enclosed facility that is very close to the headquarters installation at Makhmour.
Warren compared the U.S. advisers at Makhmour to the Americans who were deployed to Anbar province’s al-Assad Air Base and Taqaddum Air Base providing support for Iraqis during the attack on Ramadi last year.
The Americans at Makhmour will be providing similar combat advice and support for Iraqi units planning an attack on Mosul, the largest city under Islamic State control.
The Makhmour area has been the scene of intense fighting between Kurdish troops and Islamic State militants, also known as ISIS or ISIL. ISIS has launched mustard gas attacks in that area. Kurdish fighters also stopped an attempted attack there in November when the terror group tried to use mortar rounds filled with chlorine gas.
Eight other Marines were injured in the rocket attack Saturday that killed Cardin; several were evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, an Army facility in Germany.
Cardin, a 27-year-old field artilleryman, was assigned to Battalion Landing Team, 2nd Battalion, 6th Marines.
Cardin, of Temecula, California, joined the Marine Corps in June 2006 and was based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He deployed to Iraq once before and to Afghanistan three times.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/03/21/us-marines-report-second-attack-firebase-bell-northern-iraq/82077320/
-
Mission creep. We knew this was coming.
U.S. official says Marines expanding combat role in Iraq
Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press
March 24, 2016
WASHINGTON — The American combat role in Iraq appeared to expand on Thursday as U.S. Marines operating from a small outpost provided targeting assistance and artillery fire to support Iraqi troops inching forward to retake Mosul from Islamic State militants.
A senior U.S. official said the Marines fired illumination rounds to help the Iraqi forces locate ISIS fighters, and also fired artillery rounds in support of the operation, as Iraqi troops took control of several villages on the outskirts of Makhmour, southeast of Mosul. The official was not authorized to discuss the operation publicly and requested anonymity.
Earlier this week, U.S. military officials confirmed the creation of the Marine outpost, dubbed Fire Base Bell. It's the first such base established by the U.S. since it returned forces to Iraq in 2014. But they insisted that the nearly 200 Marines were only there to provide security for Iraqi forces and U.S. advisers at the nearby Iraqi base in Makhmour.
American fighter jets also participated in Thursday's operation, launching multiple airstrikes on at least two locations, hitting enemy rocket and mortar positions, the official said. The U.S.-led coalition has routinely been launching airstrikes across Iraq against the Islamic State group.
A second U.S. official on Thursday said the Marines provided the artillery fire in response to a request from the Iraqi government and that U.S. leaders don't believe this to be an expanded combat mission. The official, who was not authorized to discuss the operation publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was considered expanded support for the Iraqis.
Army Col. Steve Warren, a spokesman for the U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad, told Pentagon reporters on Monday that Fire Base Bell should not be considered a combat outpost because it is located behind the front lines and is not initiating combat with the militants.
On Thursday, however, the use of illumination rounds and artillery to support the forward advance of the Iraqi troops appeared to expand the Marines' role from purely security to more direct combat action, although the Marines were not on the front lines with the Iraqis.
The White House has ruled out a ground combat role for the U.S. in Iraq, and is intent on avoiding the appearance of any expansion in military operations there — more than four years after President Barack Obama pulled U.S. troops out of the country.
So officials have been walking a fine line as they describe the operations of the Marine artillery unit, insisting everything is related to "force protection" of the Iraqi and U.S. forces at the Makhmour base.
The key difference Thursday was that the Marines were not firing artillery to protect Iraqis and U.S. advisers at the base but were helping the Iraqis in an offensive operation against the Islamic State militants.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter has said the U.S. is looking at a number of options to "accelerate" the fight against ISIS. Those options are still under discussion in the Pentagon and have not yet officially been submitted to the White House for approval. The range of options could include sending additional U.S. forces to Iraq, using Apache helicopters for combat missions, deploying more U.S. special operations forces or using American military advisers in Iraqi units closer to the front lines.
The White House has capped the number of U.S. forces in Iraq at about 3,870, but that total doesn't include as many as 1,000 troops who are there but exempt because of the military's personnel accounting system. For example, troops sent to Iraq for temporary, short-term assignments are exempt.
The Marines at Fire Base Bell are part of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which has been based on the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious assault ship that has been deployed in the region.
Their movement into Iraq comes as the Iraqi forces formally begin their push to retake Mosul.
Brig. Gen. Yahya Rasool, spokesman for Iraq's Joint Military Command, announced Thursday that the Iraqi forces had launched their campaign for Mosul. But U.S. officials have described it more as early operations that are aimed at clearing a path and eventually setting the stage for a Mosul offensive.
It's not clear how long it would take to recapture Mosul. U.S. military and defense leaders have declined to say when the actual move to retake the city will begin or if the ISIS militants could be ousted from the Mosul by the end of the year. The U.S. has said it will take many months to prepare Iraqi forces for such a long and complicated offensive.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/war-on-is/2016/03/24/us-official-says-marines-expanding-combat-role-iraq/82235420/
-
ISIS No. 2 killed in US special ops raid, officials say
Published March 25, 2016
FoxNews.com
A U.S. special operations team killed the Islamic State’s second-in-command in a pre-dawn raid early Thursday morning inside Syria, senior defense officials said Friday -- as Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the U.S. has taken out several key terrorists in recent days.
"We are systematically eliminating ISIL's cabinet," Carter said.
Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli, also known as Abu Ala al-Afri, had a $7 million bounty on his head by the U.S. government.
Carter, speaking alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, Jr., confirmed the death at a press conference Friday without going into the details of the operation.
Carter referred to the target by another nickname, Haji Imam, describing him as the ISIS finance minister. But the terror leader also was considered the man most likely to take over for ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, if he were captured or killed.
“The removal of this ISIL leader will hamper the organization’s ability to conduct operations both inside and outside of Iraq and Syria," Carter said, describing the target as responsible for funding ISIS operations and involved in some external affairs and plots.
He said this was the second senior leader successfully targeted this month, in addition to the group’s “minister of war” Omar al-Shishani, or “Omar the Chechen,” killed in a recent U.S. airstrike.
A U.S. official told Fox News that the Brussels terror attack earlier this week prompted the raid in Syria.
Al-Afri is a former physics professor from Iraq who originally joined Al Qaeda in 2004. After spending time in an Iraqi prison, he was released in 2012 and traveled to Syria to join up with what is now ISIS.
On May 14, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated him as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” for his role with ISIS.
The announcement comes as Secretary of State John Kerry meets with allies in Brussels, the site of the deadly terror attack earlier this week, for which ISIS claimed responsibility. It was confirmed that at least two Americans were killed in those twin bombings.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/25/official-carter-to-announce-killing-senior-isis-leader.html?intcmp=trending
-
All these repubs begged for boots on th ground in Iraq. You got it.
Obama isn't getting results? Just killed #2 in Isis. You got it.
-
U.S. to send 200 more troops, Apache helicopters, to Iraq
Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press
April 18, 2016
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f5165edfa19bcf273643df7b3770f5690bca06dd/r=x404&c=534x401/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/fcd812a01e5712722e5fa413c93254aecd81a927/c=154-0-3045-2174/local/-/media/2016/04/18/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635965722033332875-Apache.jpg)
An apache helicopter provides air support
(Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images)
BAGHDAD — The U.S. has agreed to deploy more than 200 additional troops to Iraq and to send Apache helicopters for the first time into the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq, U.S. defense officials said Monday.
The decisions reflect weeks of discussions with commanders and Iraqi leaders, and a decision by President Obama to increase the authorized troop level in Iraq by 217 forces — or from 3,870 to 4,087.
The new plan, expected for weeks, would mark the first major increase in U.S. forces in nearly a year. Last June, the Obama administration announced that hundreds of troops would be deployed to help the Iraqis retake Ramadi — a goal they accomplished at the end of the year.
Of the additional troops, most would be Army special forces, who have been used all along to advise and assist the Iraqis. The remainder would include some trainers, security forces for the advisers and more maintenance teams for the Apaches.
The increased military support comes as the U.S.-led coalition looks to better enable local Iraqi and Syrian forces to retake the key cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.
The advise-and-assist teams — made up of about a dozen troops each — would embed with Iraqi brigades and battalions, putting them closer to the fight, and at greater risk from mortars and rocket fire. They would have security forces with them.
Putting the U.S. teams with Iraqi forces closer to the battlefront will allow them to provide more tactical combat advice as the Iraqi units move toward Mosul, the country's second-largest city. Until now, U.S. advisers have worked with the Iraqis at the headquarters level, well back from the front lines.
The Apaches are considered a significant aid to any attack on Mosul, providing precision fires in the fight.
Last December, U.S. officials were trying to carefully negotiate new American assistance with Iraqi leaders who often have a different idea of how to wage war. At that time, the Iraqis turned down a U.S. offer to provide Apache helicopters for the battle to retake Ramadi.
Speaking to U.S. troops at the airport in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Ash Carter also said he will send an additional rocket-assisted artillery system to Iraq. The system is likely to be used by U.S. Army soldiers.
U.S. officials had said previously that the number of special operations forces in Syria would be increased at some point, but Carter did not mention that in his comments. Officials spoke about the plan on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Carter's announcement Monday came after several meetings with his commanders and Iraqi leaders about how the U.S. can best help Iraqi forces retake Mosul.
He met with Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, the top U.S. military commander for the fight against ISIS, as well as a number of Iraqi leaders including Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Iraq's Minister of Defense Khalid al-Obeidi.
He also spoke by phone with the president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani
Late last month, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that he and Carter believed there would be an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks.
Later this week, Obama will be in Saudi Arabia to meet with Gulf leaders and talk about the fight against ISIS.
Carter has said the U.S. wants Gulf nations to help Iraq rebuild its cities once ISIS militants are defeated.
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/67369be21bfc317600b9ceb00317be696572fe35/r=x408&c=540x405/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/f5dd455ff79ab71f5edfcfb125d004cfc7aee998/c=44-0-5151-3840/local/-/media/2016/04/18/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635965727847527415-Mosul.jpg)
A member of Iraq's elite counterterrorism forces helps women and children fleeing their homes during clashes between Iraqi security forces and the Islamic State group in Hit, 85 miles west of Baghdad, on April 4. (Photo: Khalid Mohammed/AP)
U.S. military and defense officials also have made it clear that winning back Mosul is critical, but will be challenging, because the insurgents are dug in and have likely peppered the landscape with roadside bombs and other traps for any advancing military.
A senior defense official told reporters traveling with Carter that while Iraqi leaders have been reluctant to have a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq, they also need certain capabilities that only more American or coalition forces can provide.
Iraqi leaders, said the official, back the addition of more U.S. troops if they directly coincide with specific capabilities that Iraq forces need to fight ISIS and take back Mosul. The official was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.
U.S. leaders have also made it clear that ongoing political disarray and economic problems must be dealt with in order for Iraq to move forward.
This week, the country has been struggling with a political crisis, as efforts to oust the speaker of parliament failed. Al-Abadi's efforts to get a new cabinet in place met resistance, and influential Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr issued a deadline, giving parliament 72 hours to vote in a new Cabinet.
At the same time, the costs of the war against ISIS, along with the plunge in the price of oil — which accounts for 95 percent of Iraq's revenues — have caused an economic crisis, adding fresh urgency to calls for reform. Iraqi officials predict a budget deficit of more than $30 billion this year.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/war-on-is/2016/04/18/us-troops-iraq-apache-helicopters-carter/83181292/
-
US Navy SEAL killed by ISIS during intense Iraq firefight
Published May 03, 2016
FoxNews.com
Islamic State fighters shot and killed a Navy SEAL during an "extremely heavy, extremely intense" firefight with U.S. forces and Kurdish Peshmerga troops in northern Iraq Tuesday, military officials and a trainer who witnessed the fighting told Fox News.
The unnamed service member was advising Peshmerga forces but was less than 2 miles behind the front lines in the town of Tel Askuf, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a statement. A defense official told Fox News the service member was killed by small arms fire, likely from an AK-47 rifle.
"The Peshmerga were trying to hold the line, but Navy SEALS – at least 20 – came in and pounded the s--- out of ISIS," military trainer Matthew Van Dyke told Fox News, saying that "scores" of Islamic State militants died. Van Dyke and three U.S. veterans were training Assyrian Christian forces battling ISIS in the region.
"ISIS kept sending in suicide bombers, SEALs pounded them and the [U.S.] airstrikes did a lot to help. Bullets flying everywhere, machine gun fire from ISIS, really intense firefight," Van Dyke added. He said three Christian fighters and several Peshmerga were also hurt.
Navy SEALs joined the fight roughly an hour after it started, "heroically" beating back ISIS, according to Van Dyke. He said the SEALs kept fighting until ammunition ran low.
"It is a combat death, of course. And a very sad loss," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, referring to the Navy SEAL. Carter was speaking in Stuttgart, Germany, where he was attending a ceremony installing a new commander of U.S. European Command. "It shows you the serious fight that we have to wage in Iraq."
The town of Tel Askuf is located about 20 miles north of ISIS' Iraqi hub of Mosul. Despite a push from the Obama administration to accelerate the fight against ISIS, senior defense officials say they do not believe Mosul will fall this year.
Still, Van Dyke says he believes ISIS "won’t be able to sustain continued losses like that."
Three U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq as part of the ground fight against the ISIS terror group. The last American death happened in March, when U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin was killed in a rocket attack on a firebase in northern Iraq.
This past October, Delta Force Master Sgt. Josh Wheeler was killed during a rescue mission that freed as many as 70 ISIS hostages.
The latest death came following the deployment of a 200-person special operations task force to Irbil, southeast of Mosul, which Carter first announced in December. Last week, President Obama approved the deployment of 450 additional U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria.
Vice President Joe Biden visited Baghdad last week to exhort leaders of the government in Iraq to resolve internal political strife and concentrate on the effort to defeat ISIS.
Carter, likewise, visited Baghdad recently. The Obama administration has been pressing the effort against ISIS, which has been slowed down in its quest to overrun Iraq.
There are now roughly 5,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/03/us-navy-seal-killed-by-isis-during-intense-iraq-firefight.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
you mothertruckers wanted boots on the ground.
now you should yell about how obama is fcking this up.
-
The JV Team using chemical weapons?
First on CNN: ISIS suspected of mustard attack against US and Iraqi troops
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
Wed September 21, 2016
Washington (CNN) — ISIS is suspected of firing a shell with mustard agent that landed at the Qayyara air base in Iraq Tuesday where US and Iraqi troops are operating, according to several US officials.
The shell was categorized by officials as either a rocket or artillery shell. After it landed on the base, just south of Mosul, US troops tested it and received an initial reading for a chemical agent they believe is mustard.
No US troops were hurt or have displayed symptoms of exposure to mustard agent.
One official said the agent had "low purity" and was "poorly weaponized." A second official called it "ineffective."
A US defense official said troops had gone out to look at the ordnance after it landed. Based on seeing what they thought was a suspect substance, two field tests were conducted.
The first test was positive and the second was negative, the official said. The substance is now being sent to a lab for further examination.
US troops involved in the incident went through decontamination showers as a precaution. No troops have shown any symptoms of exposure, such as skin blistering. CNN has reported on previous instances where ISIS has fired rounds with mustard agents in Iraq and Syria.
The officials said they "had expected" that ISIS might try use chemical weapons as US and Iraqi forces push towards Mosul in an effort to take the city back from ISIS. Several hundred US troops are using the base as a staging area for supporting Iraqi forces.
All of this has led the Pentagon to assess on a preliminary basis that it was ISIS that fired at the base, since the terror group has been making mustard agent for some time.
In the course of its air campaign against ISIS, US airstrikes have hit several locations the US believes are production sites for mustard agent.
US officials emphasized that mustard agent is relatively easy to produce, and they continue to hit suspected manufacturing sites when they find them. US troops are routinely outfitted with protective gear in the event of a chemical weapons attack.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/politics/mustard-gas-us-troops/
-
Report: US to Send 'Around 600' More Troops to Iraq
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=004ba84c-8dc6-4c42-baba-9f290e1ac27a&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Report: US to Send 'Around 600' More Troops to Iraq
(Getty Images)
Wednesday, 28 Sep 2016
The United States is ready to send around 600 troops to Iraq to train local forces for an upcoming offensive on the Islamic State group stronghold of Mosul, US officials told AFP on Wednesday.
IS seized Mosul along with other areas in June 2014, but the country's forces have since regained significant ground from the jihadists and are readying for a drive to retake Iraq's second city.
Speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement, the officials said the troops would mainly be deployed to Qayyarah, a strategically vital air base south of Mosul that will help funnel supplies and troops toward the city.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was due to make an announcement later Wednesday while on a work trip to Albuquerque, New Mexico.
"In consultation with the government of Iraq, the United States is prepared to provide additional US military personnel to train and advise the Iraqis as the planning for the Mosul campaign intensifies," another US official said, again speaking on condition of anonymity.
A US-led coalition is carrying out air strikes against IS in Iraq, and Washington has authorized the deployment of more than 4,600 military personnel to the country.
Most are in advisory or training roles, working with Iraqi and Kurdish peshmerga forces, but some American troops have fought IS on the ground, and three members of the US military have been killed by the jihadists in Iraq.
Earlier Wednesday, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's office indicated it has requested "a final increase in the number of American trainers and advisers" to support Iraqi troops in the northern city.
The statement from Abadi's office noted that American forces are helping Iraq in its battle against the jihadists, but their presence remains extremely politically sensitive due to the nine-year war the United States fought in the country.
The statement said the number of trainers and advisers would start to be reduced as soon as Mosul is retaken from IS, and also asserted that no American troops had fought alongside Iraqi troops.
In reality, American special forces have fought IS alongside Iraqi Kurdish forces on several occasions that have been made public, and likely in other operations that have not come to light.
Speaking in New Mexico on Tuesday, Carter said he expected the Mosul offensive to begin in the coming weeks, but stressed the decision was an Iraqi one.
"The plan is quite elaborate," he said. "All of this is under the command of Prime Minister Abadi."
The United Nations warned that military operations there could cause up to a million people to be displaced.
Last week, US President Barack Obama said US-backed Iraqi troops could be in a position "fairly rapidly" to liberate Mosul, though he warned "this is going to be hard, this is going to be challenging."
Separately, the US military concluded Tuesday that a rocket fired earlier this month at the Qayyarah air base, which houses hundreds of US troops, contained no mustard agent, as initially suspected.
In neighboring Syria, hundreds of US forces are deployed alongside Kurdish and rebel fighters to battle IS, which is also facing air raids by the international coalition.
The Pentagon has expressed concern IS fighters could use mustard gas to defend Mosul.
Even after Mosul is retaken, the war against IS will be far from over.
The jihadists are likely to revert to insurgent tactics, such as bombings of civilians and hit-and-run attacks on security forces, following the demise of their "state" in Iraq.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Military-Mosul-Battle-Iraq/2016/09/28/id/750566/#ixzz4LZgxmVGG
-
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fd0fbcd09be746708be34c1b0bb95ed4/once-lauded-peacemaker-obamas-tenure-fraught-war
-
An ‘eroding stalemate’ in Afghanistan as Taliban widens its offensive
By Thomas Gibbons-Neff
October 14, 2016
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2016/10/Sized-IMG_0256-1024x683.jpg&w=1484)
Col. D.A. Sims looks out over Helmand Province on his way back to Camp Shorab following a security mission in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, on Oct. 4, 2016.
(Thomas Gibbons-Neff/ The Washington Post)
With winter approaching in Afghanistan, Taliban militants there seem more determined than ever to expand their influence across the country.
On Friday, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan announced that it was sending Western advisers to Farah province, a rural area just northwest of Helmand Province, to buoy Afghan soldiers there battling the insurgent group.
The newfound Western presence in Farah comes roughly a week after Taliban fighters began making concerted efforts to seize the city of Farah, the capital of the province. Around the same time, the Taliban began offensives near Helmand’s provincial capital of Lashkar Gah and also managed to enter the northern city of Kunduz before being pushed back to the city’s outskirts after more than a week of heavy fighting.
“What we believe we’re seeing right now is the Taliban trying to make an effort before the end of the year to achieve their 2016 strategic objective of capturing a provincial capital,” said Brig. Gen. Charles Cleveland, the spokesman for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, in an email.
It is unclear how many advisers are heading to Farah, but Resolute Support, the name of the NATO-led Afghanistan mission, tweeted that it had sent an “expeditionary advisory package,” or group of soldiers and advisers, to the embattled province.
There are currently such groups deployed to Lashkar Gah and Tarin Kowt, the capital of Uruzgan Province. In Lashkar Gah, the team includes roughly 50 soldiers and a small contingent of advisers. While military officials bill the advisory packages as a means to assist embattled Afghan security forces with on-the-ground guidance, the U.S. troops provide more of a “placebo effect,” said one U.S. adviser.
U.S. forces have also been propping up Afghan security forces with hundreds of airstrikes against the Taliban. In June, the Obama administration granted expanded authorities for airstrikes in Afghanistan, allowing U.S. forces to target the Taliban to provide “strategic effects” on the battlefield. In reality, the effects have done just enough to keep the Taliban from holding key territory — such as a district center — for an extended amount of time. Before the summer decision, U.S. air power had been relegated to going after terrorist targets and supporting the defense of U.S. Special Operations forces throughout the country.
Though unannounced at the time, the new strike permissions were meant to be a temporary boost for the Afghan security forces as they fought into the fall, however, according to senior military and administration officials, the airstrikes will continue into the future.
“The “strategic effects” authority remains in place to provide Gen. [John W.] Nicholson additional flexibility to support conventional [Afghan security forces] and has been used to good effect to allow for more proactive combat enabling and tactical advising, increasing our opportunities to support the [Afghan security forces] in their responsibility for the security of Afghanistan,” said Adam Stump, a Pentagon spokesman, in an emailed statement.
Despite the widening of U.S. air support, the White House believes that the war in Afghanistan is tipping in the Taliban’s favor. Speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about Afghanistan’s deteriorating security situation, a senior administration official called the situation in the country an “eroding stalemate.”
In 2017, U.S. forces will draw down from 9,800 troops to approximately 8,400. With little mention in the recent presidential debates, it is unclear how the next administration will handle the next stage of the United States’ war in Afghanistan.
Greg Jaffe contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/10/14/an-eroding-stalemate-in-afghanistan-as-taliban-widens-its-offensive/
-
Army announces Iraq deployment for 500 soldiers
By: Staff report, October 14, 2016
About 500 soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division headquarters will deploy this fall to Iraq, the Army announced Friday.
The soldiers, who are stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas, will support Operation Inherent Resolve. Once in-country, they will assume the role of Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command-Iraq, replacing soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division headquarters who have been deployed since February.
As the combined joint forces land component command, the 1st Infantry Division soldiers will provide command and control of coalition troops training, advising and assisting Iraqi Security Forces.
"Our Big Red One soldiers are well-trained and ready to continue the tremendous support the 101st Airborne Division and the coalition are providing to our Iraqi allies," said Maj. Gen. Joseph Martin, incoming commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division. "We will assist in training Iraqi commanders, staffs, soldiers and police officers as they plan and conduct counter-ISIL operations in both the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys, with a central focus on the City of Mosul."
Martin was named the commander of the 1st Infantry Division on Sept. 29 after Maj. Gen. Wayne Grigsby was relieved of command. The Army has not said why Grigsby was relieved, with officials citing an ongoing investigation. Officials would only say Grigsby was fired because of a "loss of confidence."
Martin, who most recently led the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, was quickly named as Grigsby's replacement to lead the division headquarters to Iraq.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army-announces-iraq-deployment-for-500-soldiers