Obama's War(s)

[Soul Crusher]

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/

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/

[blacken700]

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

[Necrosis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

Yeah.  Terrorists just need jobs.  And a hug. 

[Necrosis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[240 is Back]

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. 

[Necrosis]

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.

 

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Straw Man]

I always love the threads where Bum talks to himself

He's his own personal echo chamber...always agreeing with himself

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

ISIS Seizes Important Ancient City from Syrian Forces

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

[andreisdaman]

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??

[240 is Back]

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.

[andreisdaman]

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.....