General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Support The Actions Described By President Obama Tonight, Ladies And Gentlemen
Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 12:36 PM - Edit history (1)
I think they are right and proper.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5353413
( edited to add, with thanks, a link to Ms. Cha's post below with link to video of our President's speech, and transcript of his remarks )
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)TheMick
(23 posts)....why is it ok to attack Iraq to stop ISIS, but it was wrong to attack Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein ?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)you probably should use a search engine to answer your questions.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)
first, saddam was secular, not a murderous religious fuck. he didn't try to kill everyone who didn't have the same imaginary friend.
when we attacked iraq in 2003, we killed, and caused to be killed, hundreds of thousands of people who really were just innocent bystanders. and the whole profit motivation was particularly odious.
second, ISIS are murderous religious fucks, currently threatening tens of thousands innocent bystanders. their lives can't be ended soon enough. there is at least some amount of altruism involved.
let me know if you need more
BobbyBoring
(1,965 posts)N/t
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)finally, the insane notion of arming them in Syria. THESE are some of the 'protesters' we were arming there, another WRONG decision, thank the gods the British Parliament, fearing they would be arming extremists, and they were, finally for once, did the right thing and just said 'NO'.
Cheney/Bush created this massive tragedy, a couple of nights ago the President told us that the torturers were just 'patriots' who were 'scared by 9/11.
What exactly should be done with someone who is responsible for all of this?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)When the source of your opinion hails from WorldDailyNut, Rand Paul, and/or InforWars, and is based on the rantings of the likes of J. McCain and L. Graham ... that's probably NOT an opinion that should be expressed on a Democratic/Liberal message board, without some serious vetting of sources.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/23/did-the-us-really-arm-and-train-the-isis-terrorists/
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess when one finds a narrative that fits/feeds one's rage ... it matters, not the source. 
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Who delights in making her thralls look plumb ridiculous in public....
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)familiar with these sources YOU appear to be so familiar with. THIS was the reason why the Brits, not usually shy about getting involved in our wars, refused to vote for any more assistance for the Syrian 'rebels'. Talk to them and all the others who have warned against arming those 'rebels'. I don't read right wingnut sources so wouldn't have a clue or any interest in anything they have to say. Feel free to give them clicks, I refuse to do so.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)At any rate ... your post is a nice summation of what you haven't read ... including the "not usually shy" part.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their Govt getting involved in the US's proposal to get involved militarily in Syria. Very unusual for the British Parliament to oppose their own PM, in this case, Cameron, who tried to make a case for supporting the US in its military intervention. Parliament rejected Cameron's proposal to aid the US in air strikes against Syria. Thankfully.
The British Parliament also split over arming the 'Syrian Rebels' expressing fears last year that those arms could get into the hands of 'extremists'.
Cameron Faces Serious Cabinet Split Over Arming Syrian Rebels
.....
Mark Field, the MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, said: "I'm concerned last week's EU declaration appears to bring us nearer to aiding and arming people who would be subject to 24-hour surveillance if they lived in this country."
Thank the gods for people who see the danger of arming extremists for political purposes. Looks like they were right. Same thing in Iraq, in Libya and elsewhere.
Only our old Colonial allies, the PMs of France and Britain appear to have wanted to ignore that reality. Libya and Iraq are now failed states, and the American people were forced to pay for that. But finally it looks like even the Brits have had enough.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)-typical
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)
bowens43
(16,064 posts)
lark
(23,091 posts)Sadaam wasn't a good guy, but he was not threatening us in any way. ISIS aren't good guys either, but why are we getting involved in a war with them when it's just taking sides in a civil war - Sunni's vs Shiites. Shiites are every bit as murderous as Sunni's, they just aren't reported as much because they are "our" guys.
I do not support any involvement with Iraq - period the end.
DocwillCuNow
(162 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)We predicted exactly this at the onset of Desert Storm and were ignored.
Fuck this.
gateley
(62,683 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
griloco
(832 posts)
JHB
(37,158 posts)...on why you think the situation is in any way comparable to 2001/2002/2003?
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)And NO ground troops. I'm good with that. We can help prevent this genocide, so we should.
Sometimes we can't.... or couldn't, sadly. What would be the fallout if we left those people to die on that mountain?
ripcord
(5,346 posts)you have the official ripcord seal of approval.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)targeted air strikes and no combat troops on the ground.
An excellent speech.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I agree with the humanitarian aid immensely.
I agree with airstrikes only if they keep them away from civilians, something I am not overly confident of.
rebels use this as their more successful tactics : hide among civilians ; then , when there are civilian casualties , which are mostly unavoidable , we are the bad guys . Its a no-win situation , unfortunately .
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)will only drop humanitarian bombs.....
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)be nice 
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The U.S. military made an initial airdrop of meals and water to thousands of civilians threatened by militants on Thursday. The aircraft that made the drop safely exited the region, the official said.
"Today, America is coming to help," Obama said. Innocent families face the prospect of "genocide," Obama said, justifying U.S, military action that could eventually include airstrikes.
The U.S. "cannot turn a blind eye," Obama said.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/07/iraq-christian-villages-flee/13710265/
lark
(23,091 posts)Bad move and I'm surprised by all those blindly approving Obama's actions in escalating tensions in the Middle East.
Not buying this, it is not a good move. War is rarely ever the answer and it certainly won't fix this, will just cause more problems.
TBF
(32,047 posts)humanitarian aids, no ground troops. Preventing genocide. People on a hill dying (I have not been following this story).
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and other US assets in the area.
Trying to thward and redirect Isis travel plans.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)No boots on the ground.
Logical
(22,457 posts)have such a intelligent leader who thinks before he reacts.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)TBF
(32,047 posts)I like to see resources used to help actual people. I do agree we should help if we can to avoid genocide - maybe in Gaza as well?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Genocide is a word that gets thrown around a lot, often inaccurately, but ISIS sees nothing wrong with literally committing it. Obama's response is measured, responsible and for the greater part just.. Passive non action is not a moral option when we can do something meaningful with resources readily available without injecting troops..
Response to The Magistrate (Original post)
TheNutcracker This message was self-deleted by its author.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Response to The Magistrate (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
840high
(17,196 posts)are not.
delphi72
(74 posts)Will the next person who believe a "genocide" is taking place in the middle east (as opposed to SW Asia) please pull their head out of their caboose?
And look up the word "genocide" and report back with a 1500 word paper on what it means and how it relates to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian population.
Thank you.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)pull your head out of your caboose so that you can hear the speech and be able read what genocide means. no need to write the 1500 word paper, however, since the president already wrote it for you.
1. the iraqi government requested assistance.
2. the palestinians did not.
3. how would you have proposed we stop the israeli government from perpetrating genocide on the palestinians - other than repeated efforts for ceasefires and lifiting of the blockades?
do you see how you expect the us to step into every crisis and rescue everyone even when it is not requested nor wanted? what do you want? world war 3?
moondust
(19,972 posts)K/R
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)That would be right and proper as well.
get the red out
(13,461 posts)And we all know it won't now. But hey, whatever gives you that moral superiority rush, right? Those dying people in Iraq don't matter since Israel and Hamas are killing again.
Cognitive_Resonance
(1,546 posts)sheshe2
(83,746 posts)This is right and yes, proper!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)sheshe2
(83,746 posts)I watched it on TV....
yet here it is....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
he is angry and focused on the issue.
gotta go soon~
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
President Barack Obama meets with his national security advisors in the Situation Room of the White House, Aug. 7, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama meets with advisors in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Aug. 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama meets with National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice and Tony Blinken, Deputy National Security Advisor, in the Oval Office, Aug. 1, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
He looks so tired. So much violence and killing going on at once and he's trying to stop it with the only tools he has. And still there will be death.
Am posting the video and transcript in the BOG. Gotta get some sleep. Have a good night, sweets.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Not surprising since he is doing his job and that of our do nothing congress!
Thank you...
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)how difficult the presidency is. And how it takes a toll on the man. He's aged well in 8 years, don't get me wrong. But is visibly tiring for him, imo. He's going to get a much needed rest after his presidency. And yes, it's the ReThugs who are adding to that difficulty.
mcar
(42,302 posts)A measured and compassionate response.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)accuracy and humanitarian methods kind of like how the Israelis bomb the Palestinians you know....
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Maybe we will supply them stones for honor killings if they run out up there.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning_of_Du%27a_Khalil_Aswad
Amonester
(11,541 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Iraqis tried to prosecute it as one. Guess what happened.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)I'm not talking to Iraqis, but to you...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I suggest you look into the story.
The Yazidis protested the trial and the sentences were never carried out due to their successful protest of it.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)t? Who knows? Wiki? 
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This was in the town square with hundreds of enthusiastic attendees.
If there were 40,000 people in a stadium, and 1,000 of them cheered on a murder, I don't think anyone would say there were a few bad apples at the hockey game last night.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)satisfied at the idea of knowing for certain the relatively small group of both criminal & accomplices (according to you) will get their death sentence they deserve.
Wow. So you don't care about the innocents: let them all die to be sure...
Excuse me?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But that's boring.
The real trick is going to be making sure the high caste ones get the food first. Yes, they have a caste system.
Rapillion
(51 posts)The four murderers who killed this young woman were arrested by the Kurds.
Honor killings are despicable.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I gather you have not seen the YouTube video of her killing.
It was the whole town.
And yes, four people were arrested. And then?
Rapillion
(51 posts)What exactly is your point? That these people are bloodthirsty murderers and we should do nothing while IS slaughters them?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It's not as if we lifted a finger to get any sort of medical aid to Gaza either.
There are more people sleeping in the streets tonight in this country. Nobody is rushing to a microphone with a plan to help them. They didn't make the cut.
Rapillion
(51 posts)Not shining examples. Past does not really have to be prologue, though. And we helped to create this mess in Iraq.
It is a bit Old Testament to permit 40,000 to die because an innocent woman was stoned to death seven years ago.
In my town there are lots of plans to help people sleeping in the streets. We implement a new one every few years.
I agree completely on Gaza, though.
sheshe2
(83,746 posts)Maybe we will supply them stones for honor killings if they run out up there.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)sheshe2
(83,746 posts)they may need stones for their religion? Which is ugly sick and warped.
Yet, you said...
What a sick joke at the expense of a woman's life.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I cannot imagine how that could be taken as any sort of joke.
It is an observation about how we try to pick the "good guys" and "bad guys"
Tell me. In Rwanda, were you rooting for the Hutus or the Tutsis?
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)ISIS RULES!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)A fair summary of your posts here would be that the people of this sect do not deserve help, even if faced with massacre and extinction, because they seem to countenance, or many of them do countenance, some extremely backward and brutal mores, though these are not atypical of the area they inhabit, or the time they trace their roots to. It is not much of a step, and by some lights not a very important one, to go from saying someone in mortal peril does not deserve help to wishing godspeed on the one who imperils him. As you are doubtless aware, the incident you cite as proving the propriety of leaving these people unassisted resulted in about a thousand deaths in a co-ordinated attack involving several bombings in public places. And you are doubtless aware also that these 'honor killings', vile and despicable as they are, are common coin in the region, and hardly unique to this sect.
renegade000
(2,301 posts)some truly humanist concern being expressed 
"because some women are victims of violence in this backwards culture, all the women in this culture deserve to die." that's the quality of moral reasoning that results when you're primarily concerned with making cynical political statements.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Are you suggesting that ISIS should simply be allowed to slaughter them?
Hekate
(90,645 posts)No point trying to change things
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Since the US is not proposing to harm them.
However, absent killing everyone in a corridor from where they are, back to where they were, and then presumably establishing a kill zone around them once they get there, what is the long term plan here?
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Time and time again such decisions are usually not so cut and dry...
We continue to arm a certain country with weapons that are currently being used in a like wise criminal venture, nothing to see here, look away, we are the good guys now?
What are we doing to help the ongoing genocides in present day African nations?
How easily we are led to look the other way....
Squinch
(50,949 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Did he get congress approval? or is he still using the old AUMF? I am sure that the bombs he is dropping are humanitarian bombs right?
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)That's how airdrops are generally performed.
The ones with armaments to stop attempts at genocide might be considered humanitarian, if you are one of the minorities being exterminated.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Or refuse to send Israel more bombs and money?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)he has instead decided to drop some humanitarian bombs on Iraq.... I am sure that those affected will understand and run to us with open arms as liberators......
Some people never, ever, never ever ever, never ever ever ever, learn as evidenced in this forum
840high
(17,196 posts)the people on the mountain top alone?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)The people should be free to leave the mountaintop on their own.... Maybe we should just send moses over there to guide them from the mountaintop....
Cha
(297,154 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)He's dropping humanitarian supplies to those people, the air strikes by American assests will only happen if ISIS starts to move on the people or Americans are threatened.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)This is how all of the conflicts start, I have seen this thousands of times and it always ends the same....
You should be asking yourself why will this be different?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)No American troops on the ground, targeted air strikes if ISIS attempts genocide or American assests are threatened, the only air drops are those that are delivering humanitarian aid to those trapped people.
Would you rather see them wiped out by ISIS?
Response to IronGate (Reply #61)
Post removed
IronGate
(2,186 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)53. False choice....
The people should be free to leave the mountaintop on their own.... Maybe we should just send moses over there to guide them from the mountaintop....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025352741#post53
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Thanks.
Not too bright of a comment.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Guess we can wait and see
Duval
(4,280 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Last I heard there was a cease fire.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)But we don't have to air-drop it in there.
The US will provide $15m to the UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee agency, which will meet part of the organisation's $60 million appeal for assistance.
The remaining $32m will come from the US Agency for International Development, including $10 million that was already directed towards the Palestinians but will be rechanneled to meet immediate needs, the State Department said.
http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2014/07/us-promises-49m-gaza-aid-201472282419207161.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-gaza-cease-fire-kerry-announces-aid-israel-hamas
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)- snip -
Official US military aid to Israel stands at about $3 billion per year due to a 10-year, $30 billion military aid package originally signed by former President George W. Bush and upheld under President Obama.
- snip -
Falk also pointed out that the US weapons exports to Israel violate the Arms Control Act of 1976. "There's no legal, political or moral argument that would uphold the claim that Israel is acting in legitimate self-defense," Falk said. "Gaza, from an international law point of view, is not a foreign state, but an occupied territory. It's not clear that you can exercise self-defense in relation to a territory that you are responsible for administering in accordance with international humanitarian law."
Lovely.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)I trust him implicitly.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)they would be? I mean there is a range you know from Cherry to Nuclear.....
Politicub
(12,165 posts)And I'm glad you are not in charge.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)See my moses answer.... Have you even stopped to consider why the Maliki army isn't going up that mountain and escorting those people down?
How is this our business? Are some Genocides different than others? Who gets to decide? How is this our problem?
So now your ok with going to war to stop a "Genocide" if the conditions are right? Get informed please before you really hurt someone....
IronGate
(2,186 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)But I don't think authorizing the military to bomb people is the answer either.....
IronGate
(2,186 posts)The targeted air strikes would only happen if ISIS tries to move on those people or American assests.
What part of President Obama's speech didn't you understand?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)authorized the U.S. Military to do targeted air strikes, I don't understand that part, George Bush authorized the same thing in the 1990's I didn't agree with it then, Clinton authorized it in Serbia didn't agree with it then, Bush authorized it after 911 didn't agree with it then, so somehow this is different? Somehow this time it will all be ok, it will all end up just right why because Obama? Who the fuck is he? When this gets out of control, when ISIS or Al-Queda or whoever winds up killing all those people and we get dragged deepeer and deeper into the conflict what then? HOPE !
IronGate
(2,186 posts)He's authorized targeted air strikes against ISIS only if they attempt to move against those people or threaten American assests in the area.
What part of that don't you understand?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)You can be for war, you can support the slaughter of humans all you want... I don't subscribe to it under any condition and I will not cheer on any President that supports it, limited airstrikes means he authorzed the millitary to take action that is pandoras box, you may want to wrap it up in nice paper and bows and ribbons because it's Obama but sorry inside it is a pile of garbage, and you really should know that...
IronGate
(2,186 posts)BTW, as a combat vet with 2 tours, I am not for war and I don't support the slaughter of humans, that's why I support President Obama's measured response on protecting these trapped people from slaughter by a terrorist army.
mythology
(9,527 posts)It's not like they are too extreme for al-Queda or anything. Oh wait.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And please provide it before they're all starved and dehydrated to death (or worse).
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Your position is because I am against dropping bombs on some people to save some other people than I want someone to starve and dehydrate? Sure drop them some supplies I'm not against that airdrop in all the supplies you can, fly some supplies in to the country and have the iraqi army deliver them to those people. Can't you see the set up? Haven't you paid enough attention to lying politiicans to know when the NEOCONS have re-emerged and whispered into Obamas ear....
Pay attention, don't be a sucker...
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And you provided yours. Looks like that's not the option (if it was one of those proposed by 'advisors') that's been chosen.
And the 'dropping bombs' option would only be implemented if the ISISL thugs go on the offensive (for now).
IronGate
(2,186 posts)the US Air Force is 2nd to none in delivering pin point air drops.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)BKH70041
(961 posts)
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I think this is reasonable. I am still concerned about our diplomatic facilities being over run some day. We have a consulate in Erbil. We have support of Kurds. If more is to be done, it can't be us, I still can't figure out why the iraqi military still can't figure out how to fight.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)On the latter I can hardly blame them.
gateley
(62,683 posts)and I'm pretty sure those who are opposing it would be the ones complaining if we did nothing (like Pol Pot -- the favorite). Sigh.
I wish us success. It's a fluid situation and it's not cut and dried, so I have hope we'll do the best we can and save as many innocents as possible.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, however hazardous the situation.
kentuck
(111,079 posts)it's mighty damn convenient.
I'm talking about the torture memos.
And how many are in this ISIS army now? Just a few weeks ago, it was only a few thousand.
It smells to me but I have always had a conspiratorial mind.
If we get sucked back into that civil war, where does it end?
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)I was getting afraid everyone had somehow been lulled to sleep praising this move like it was helpful....
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)That said, I've decided to support the action within the scope of what the president described. Any escalation and I will be screaming!
kentuck
(111,079 posts)another news dump?
Senate will not pursue further publication of torture memos. If that happens...?
The Iraq government asked us for help? After we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on their military and trained them? How big is this ISIS army that everyone is so scared of?
What happened to the Kurdish Army?
Who are these Yazidis people? And how do we know so much about their trials and tribulations? Does FOX have a reporter over there?
And by supporting the Iraqi government, aren't we really supporting Iran?
Mighty convenient.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)I don't get the sense torture memos have been the subject of conversation among the American public this summer. That's not an endorsement of a disengaged public but rather an observation. Given that I doubt the WH feels a pressing need for a Wag the Dog moment.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And it goes on no matter whether is is a D or an R doing it.
The MIC beast must be fed...and now they have the left catering their diner.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)US military action.
I will not shed a tear for ISIS.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)the forest for the trees....Let me remind you that many thousands of good and bad people will die because of your first time support of military action.... hope you can sleep....
IronGate
(2,186 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)What targeted good people died because of targeted Israeli Airstrikes against Hamas? If ISIS is such a bad terror group you don't think they plan on going out alone do you?
IronGate
(2,186 posts)or moving against American assets and they would start long before they got close.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)IronGate
(2,186 posts)Even though we're the ones that created the conditions for this to happen?
Yeah, it is our problem, we broke it, now it's time to try to help fix it and if that means saving these people, then that's the correct course of action.
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)US involvement. The Iraqis made their choice at that time (and I support their right to do so) and get to live with the consequences. Too much US blood and treasure already wasted in Iraq.
Again, just my opinion. Your side seems to be winning the flag waiving contest tonight so get your DVR ready for some 'humanitarian' shock-and-awe! It should be peachy!
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)On Thu Aug 7, 2014, 10:53 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Obvisoulsy you have missed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5353081
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Flat out states that another DUer is helping kill thousands of other human being--because that DUer supports action to prevent genocide, like delivering water to people dying of thirst and preventing them from being slaughtered by ISIS. Rude, disruptive, over the top, and quite frankly trollish.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 7, 2014, 11:00 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Unnecessarily rude and insulting. And yes, frankly trollish.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it.
This is one of those instances where we experience what posting on a message board is all about. I'm not going to vote to hide for this. Not trollish, not out of line, just a very strong opinion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ah yes, everyone's all "anti-war" until they can find a good excuse. Well, some people are truly against war. Not just when a Republican's launching it. Not just when there are sympathetic victims on one side. Not just when there are genocidal slaughterers on the other side. No, some people are truly against war. Every. Time.
"If you ever get a war without blood and gore, I'll be the first to go."
-Phil Ochs
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)What else have you got?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I've missed nothing. ISIS are a pack of brutal murderous shitheads. Your reflex and unthinking opposition to the use of legitimate tools to stop their insane rampage, while its aims are no doubt admirable, is ridiculous, and actually smiles on more destruction and loss of life. Obviously, this is going to be your silly little hobby horse for the evening. I don't find your position interesting or serious, so I'll leave you to it.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)We'll see.
Law of untended consequences and all that.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"Over the last 90 days, Iraqi and U.S. forces have eliminated more than 80
percent of the Islamic State of Iraq's (ISI's) top leadership, including
its Egyptian chief of military operations and its Iraqi figurehead,
according to the top U.S. commander in Iraq. These personnel losses are
compounded by the fact that the al Qaeda-inspired jihadist group has been
struggling financially and is reportedly having problems getting foreign
fighters into the country. These setbacks will invariably complicate the
ISI's efforts to continue its campaign. While it is unlikely that the
ISI's propensity for violent attacks will wane, the group's diminished
leadership, operational capacity and logistics infrastructure make the
militant organization's future seem bleak."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@wikileaks: US let ISIS grow: In 2010 Syria offered to partner with US to fight groups like ISIS but US armed them instead https://t.co/ehKQrcymDT/s/G-qN
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)1. (S/NF) SUMMARY: In a surprise appearance, Syrian General
Intelligence Director (GID) General Ali Mamlouk attended a
February 18 meeting between Vice Foreign Minister Faisal
al-Miqdad and a U.S. delegation led by S/CT Coordinator
Daniel Benjamin. Miqdad explained Mamlouk had joined the
meeting at the request of President Bashar al-Asad as a
gesture following a positive meeting between U/S William
Burns and the Syrian president the previous day. Stressing
the meeting did not signal the commencement of security and
intelligence cooperation between Syria and the United States,
the Syrian side said the discussion could be a starting point
for a blueprint regarding possible cooperation in the future.
Calling Coordinator Benjamin's description of terrorist
groups operating in the region "valid," Mamlouk emphasized
the linkage between progress on political issues in
U.S.-Syrian relations and possible security and intelligence
cooperation. He identified Syrian-Iraqi border security as
an area where Syria could cooperate with the U.S., but only
after Iraqi legislative elections in March. Mamlouk added
cooperation on Syrian-Iraqi border security could lead to
security cooperation in other areas.
2. (S/NF) Mamlouk, Miqdad, and Syrian Ambassador to the U.S.
Imad Mustapha were attentive during Benjamin's presentation
on al-Qaeda, foreign fighters, and other common threats, and
reacted positively to his warnings that these issues
presented challenges to both the U.S. and Syria. Mamlouk and
Miqdad emphasized three points regarding possible security
and intelligence cooperation with the U.S.: (1) Syria must be
able to take the lead in any regional actions; (2) politics
are an integral part of combating terrorism, and a "political
umbrella" of improved U.S.-Syrian bilateral relations should
facilitate cooperation against terrorism; and (3) in order to
convince the Syrian people that cooperation with the U.S. was
benefiting them, progress must be made on issues related to
economic sanctions against Syria including spare parts for
airplanes and a plane for President Asad. "In summary,
President Asad wants cooperation, we should take the lead on
that cooperation, and don't put us on your lists," Miqdad
declared. END SUMMARY.
SURPRISE GUEST AT MIQDAD MEETING
3. (S/NF) GID Director General Ali Mamlouk was the surprise
guest at a February 18 meeting at the MFA hosted by Vice
Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad with S/CT Coordinator
Daniel Benjamin, DHS A/S David Heyman, and NEA DAS Maura
Connelly. Miqdad said Mamlouk's participation in the meeting
had come at the direction of President Asad following what
Miqdad termed a positive meeting between Asad and U/S Burns
on February 17. Syrian Ambassador to the U.S. Imad Mustapha,
who translated for Mamlouk during the meeting, stated that
Mamlouk's attendance at meetings with foreign delegations was
extraordinary and did not occur "even with friendly countries
like Britain and France." Mustapha explained President Asad
instructed Mamlouk to attend the meeting as a personal
gesture.
4. (S/NF) Benjamin, stressing that cooperation on
counter-terrorism efforts was an essential part of the
roadmap for improved bilateral relations, noted that there
were issues on which we had clear differences, such as Syrian
support for Hamas and Hizballah. The U.S., he continued,
still viewed these groups as undermining stability and the
prospects for peace in the region. Nonetheless, the two
countries should still work to cooperate on immediate threats
facing both the U.S. and Syria, including the proliferation
of takfiri groups in the region, such as al-Qaeda, and
stopping the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. The
Coordinator provided Mamlouk an overview of the threats posed
by terrorist groups operating in the region from North Africa
to Iraq to Yemen. Benjamin noted the challenge that these
groups posed to Syria as well, illustrated by the September
2008 attack on a Syrian intelligence building. He explained
the U.S. is concerned about the long-term implications of
arms smuggling to Lebanon and Iraq through Syria, and
observed that the disarray among the Palestinians could
ultimately create an opening for groups with an al-Qaeda
orientation, citing the case of Junjalat, a radical faction
in Gaza.
5. (S/NF) Mamlouk pointed to Syria's 30 years of experience
in battling radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood as
evidence of Syria's commitment to the fight against
terrorism. Mamlouk termed Benjamin's description of the
challenges posed by terrorist groups in the region as "valid,
despite the reasons that gave rise to them." Mamlouk
repeatedly stressed his attendance at the meeting did not
signal the commencement of security and intelligence
cooperation between Syria and the U.S., but could be a
starting point for "a blueprint for that which is not yet
started." Echoing Miqdad, Mamlouk said progress on political
issues in the Syrian-U.S. bilateral relationship was "closely
connected" to progress on possible cooperation on security
and intelligence.
MAMLOUK DESCRIBES GID'S METHODS
6. (S/NF) The GID Director said Syria had been more
successful than the U.S. and other countries in the region in
fighting terrorist groups because "we are practical and not
theoretical." He stated Syria's success is due to its
penetration of terrorist groups. "In principle, we don't
attack or kill them immediately. Instead, we embed ourselves
in them and only at the opportune moment do we move."
Describing the process of planting embeds in terrorist
organizations as "complex," Mamlouk said the result had
yielded been the detention of scores of terrorists, stamping
out terror cells, and stopping hundreds of terrorists from
entering Iraq. Mamlouk acknowledged some terrorists were
still slipping into Iraq from Syria. "By all means we will
continue to do all this, but if we start cooperation with you
it will lead to better results and we can better protect our
interests," he concluded.
7. (S/NF) According to Mamlouk, Syria's previous experience
in cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence "was not a happy
one." He stated Syria hoped any future cooperation would be
"on an equal basis." Mamlouk specified this meant Syria
should be allowed to "take the lead" on anti-terrorism
efforts. Alluding to the "wealth of information" Syria has
obtained while penetrating terrorist groups, Mamlouk declared
"we have a lot of experience and know these groups. This is
our area, and we know it. We are on the ground, and so we
should take the lead."
POSSIBLE COOPERATION ON IRAQ
8. (S/NF) Mamlouk identified Iraqi border security as an area
where Syria and the U.S. could cooperate. He described Syria
as ready to move forward on tripartite border security talks,
but added "we are at a freezing point until after the Iraqi
elections" scheduled for March. Mamlouk added that
cooperation on Iraqi border security could lead to
cooperation in other areas.
9. (S/NF) Benjamin, noting the importance of achieving a
secure and stable Iraq, stated an important measure of
progress on this subject is further success on reducing the
flow of foreign fighters and cracking down on their
facilitators. Mamlouk said the foreign fighters come from a
large number of Arab and Muslim countries and that the
Syrians detain "large numbers plus their local facilitators."
As an example, Mamlouk said he handed over 23 Saudis
detained in Syria to Saudi Prince Muqrin last year. Benjamin
commended Mamlouk on reducing the flow of foreign fighters,
while encouraging further progress. Miqdad interjected that
the issue of foreign fighters using Syrian soil is a matter
of national security for Syria. "We have zero tolerance," he
said. Miqdad said Syria needs the cooperation of other
countries, namely those from which the terrorists are coming.
"If we can close this circle - with us, you, and other
countries - we will succeed," he concluded.
10. (S/NF) Miqdad added that Syrian/Lebanese border security
is also a subject on which the SARG is making progress.
Stating "the past is behind us," Miqdad said Syria is
attempting to assist the Lebanese on security at ports and at
the border without interfering in internal Lebanese affairs.
UPDATE ON TERRORIST NAMES PROVIDED BY USG
11. (S/NF) Alluding to previous USG requests for assistance
on tracking down terrorists thought to be in Syria, the
Syrian side stressed that intelligence cooperation between
the U.S. and Syria should not be solely based on receiving
names of terrorist suspects from the USG and checking up on
those individuals. However, Mamlouk confirmed that Syria
could verify the specific whereabouts of several individuals
who had been discussed in previous meetings with SARG
officials.
MIQDAD WANTS POLITICAL UMBRELLA TO GUIDE SECURITY COOPERATION
12. (S/NF) Following Mamlouk's statements regarding possible
security and intelligence cooperation, Miqdad stated he
wanted to emphasize three points. First, Miqdad said that
because of Syria's "wealth of information" on following 30
years of facing security threats from takfiri groups, Syria
must be able to take the lead in any joint efforts. Second,
the Vice Foreign Minister said politics are an integral part
of combating terrorism and warned that listing Syria as a
state sponsor of terrorism and including Syria on the list of
14 countries for enhanced screening by the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) created a "contradiction" when
the U.S. subsequently requested cooperation with Syria
against terrorism. Miqdad stressed a "political umbrella" of
improved U.S.-Syrian bilateral relations should facilitate
counterterrorism cooperation.
13. (S/NF) Third, Miqdad stated convincing the Syrian people
to support cooperation with the U.S. would hinge on progress
on economic sanctions against Syria, including spare parts
for airplanes and a plane for President Asad. The Vice
Foreign Minister said the Syrians wanted these efforts
"accelerated." Miqdad specifically requested the USG reach
out to Lufthansa Technik and "assure them of no negative
consequences" if they cooperate with Syrian requests to have
the purchase of spare aircraft parts approved. In response,
Benjamin said the Obama administration viewed
counterterrorism as a vital concern but, unlike its
predecessor, it did not see counterterrorism as something
that was separate from the rest of U.S. foreign policy or the
sole driver of U.S. foreign policy. Rather, it was part of
the fabric of policy, and the administration recognized that
progress in bilateral relations would involve coordinated
moves in a number of areas. Benjamin added the U.S. expected
that the Syrian people would see the benefits of closer
relations.
14. (S/NF) Miqdad also encouraged the U.S. to reconsider
including Syria on the TSA's list for enhanced screening, and
praised U/S Burns for informing the SARG that the U.S. was
prepared to lift its block on Syrian accession to the World
Trade Organization. "In summary, President Asad wants
cooperation, we should take the lead on that cooperation, and
don't put us on your lists," Miqdad declared.
DHS BRIEFING
15. (S/NF) Benjamin and Heyman underscored that the TSA's
enhanced screening requirements protected travelers of all
nationalities, and that the TSA does not target Syrians but
applies to all travelers, including American citizens, coming
to the U.S. from or through the listed countries.
16. (S/NF) A/S Heyman provided the Syrians with a brief
overview of DHS's mission and activities, focusing in
particular on its expertise in the management of ports,
airports, and land borders. He noted DHS could explore with
the SARG ways to meet international security standards at
ports. This, in turn, could lead to enhanced trade and
travel between the two countries, and reduce obstacles to
shipping between the U.S. and Syria. Heyman said the Coast
Guard was prepared to send a team to Syria to work on port
security with their Syrian counterparts. This type of
activity could lead to measures that reduced costs and
lowered barriers to shipping. General Mamlouk said the SARG
would study the proposed Coast Guard visit.
UPCOMING VISITS
17. (S/NF) Highlighting the importance of continued
U.S.-Syrian dialogue on bilateral issues, Benjamin proposed a
mid-March visit to Damascus by NEA A/S Feltman and NSC Senior
Director for the Middle East and North Africa Daniel Shapiro.
Benjamin invited Miqdad to a subsequent visit to Washington
in April. Miqdad spoke at length about his fondness for A/S
Feltman, and thanked Benjamin for the invitation to visit
Washington. Benjamin added he was ready to return to
Damascus at the appropriate time. Mamlouk asked Benjamin
what the agenda of his next visit would be, and Benjamin
explained that it would depend on the outcome of the upcoming
visits.
18. (C) U.S. participants:
S/CT Coordinator Daniel Benjamin
CDA Charles Hunter
DHS A/S David Heyman
NEA DAS Maura Connelly
NSC Director for Lebanon and Syria Meaghen McDermott
S/CT Staff Patrick Worman
POL/ECON Jay Munir, notetaker
19. (C) Syrian participants:
Vice Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad
GID Director General Ali Mamlouk
Syrian Ambassador to the U.S. Imad Mustapha
MFA Americas' Director Muhammad Khafif
Miqdad Chief of Staff Husam Al'aa
20. (U) S/CT Benjamin cleared this message.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@wikileaks: Stratfor leak shows US created ISIS (ISI) leadership structure and thirst for revenge after bombing attacks in 2010 https://t.co/HkbjWyi5iP/s/irlX
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)I would be indebted to anyone who can point out to me where it states the U.S. created the I.S.I.S. leadership, in any sense which could imply support, fostering, assistance, or any of the things usually meant when that term is used. The paper describes, to my eye, serious attempts by the U.S. to break the organization. One might regret failure in that attempt, but still....
According to CENTCOM, there had been only 79 VBIED attacks and
approximately 963 deaths as of June 21, and we anticipate that the group's
lethality will continue to trend downward in the wake of the successful
operations against it in recent months.
CENTCOM refers to U.S. Central Command, but earlier in the piece we get
these sorts of details from U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM. Do we
want to attribute this to CENTCOM or should that one be STRATCOM too?
Iraq: A Bleak Future for the Jihadist ISI?
Summary
Over the last 90 days, Iraqi and U.S. forces have eliminated more than 80
percent of the Islamic State of Iraq's (ISI's) top leadership, including
its Egyptian chief of military operations and its Iraqi figurehead,
according to the top U.S. commander in Iraq. These personnel losses are
compounded by the fact that the al Qaeda-inspired jihadist group has been
struggling financially and is reportedly having problems getting foreign
fighters into the country. These setbacks will invariably complicate the
ISI's efforts to continue its campaign. While it is unlikely that the
ISI's propensity for violent attacks will wane, the group's diminished
leadership, operational capacity and logistics infrastructure make the
militant organization's future seem bleak.
Analysis
During a Pentagon press briefing on June 4, the top U.S. commander in
Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, said that over the last 90 days U.S. and Iraqi
forces had captured or killed 34 of the top 42 leaders of the Islamic
State of Iraq (ISI), the al Qaeda-inspired jihadist alliance in Iraq. This
represents roughly 80 percent of the group's identified leadership.
Commenting further on the misfortunes of the Iraqi jihadist franchise,
Odierno said, "They're clearly now attempting to reorganize themselves.
They're struggling a little bit. They've broken - they've lost connection
with [al Qaeda senior leadership] in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They will
attempt to regenerate themselves. They're finding it more difficult."
Indeed, since January, Iraqi and U.S.-led multinational forces have zeroed
in on the ISI, an effort made possible not only by the effective
exploitation of battlefield intelligence, but also by a large shift in the
way jihadists are viewed by Iraqi Sunnis. Today they simply are not given
the same type of support they enjoyed at the height of the insurgency in
2007. According to Odierno, the recent string of successes began shortly
after the ISI's headquarters in Mosul was raided in January and a number
of leaders in charge of financing, operations planning and recruiting were
arrested - and a great deal of actionable intelligence was recovered.
The Mosul operation was the beginning of a chain of intelligence-driven
operations during which the effective exploitation of intelligence gained
in one raid was used to conduct the next. Perhaps the most publicized blow
against the ISI to come out of the Mosul raid occurred in April, when
Iraqi and U.S. forces killed the group's military leader, Abu Ayyub
al-Masri (aka Abu Hamza al-Muhajir), as well as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (aka
Hamid Dawud Muhammed Khalil al-Zawi, or Abdullah Rashid Saleh
al-Baghdadi), the titular head of the ISI. In addition to taking out the
apex leadership of the ISI, these raids also provided Iraqi and U.S.
forces with a vast quantity of intelligence, including cell phones,
laptops and a number of additional documents detailing the group's
operations in Iraq as well as correspondence between the ISI and top al
Qaeda-prime leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Al-Masri, a native Egyptian and former member of Ayman al-Zawahri's
Egyptian Islamic Jihad, was the group's replacement for the former head of
al Qaeda in Iraq, the Jordanian national Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was
killed in a U.S. airstrike in June 2006. Al-Masri was considered the
operational battlefield leader of the ISI, whereas al-Baghdadi played a
more symbolic role by allowing the ISI to place an Iraqi face on the
transnational jihadist efforts that had previously been personified by the
foreign-born al-Zarqawi. From all indications, al-Masri provided the ISI
with a high level of experience, professionalism and tradecraft and was
the type of solid leader that is critical to actualizing a militant
group's intent. He was also known for his role in facilitating the
movement of foreign fighters to Iraq, providing them with training and
assimilating them in with the local ISI cadre. Because of al-Masri's
practical importance to the group, his death is considered to be a more
devastating loss to the ISI's operational capability than al-Baghdadi's.
However, the death of a single, competent leader is not necessarily a
permanent and devastating blow to an organization like ISI. Indeed, at
times, new leadership can be an operational windfall, as was seen recently
in Yemen. The ISI survived the 2006 death of al-Zarqawi and actually
increased its operational tempo in 2007. This increase was likely due to
the solid organizational structure al-Zarqawi had established, which
allowed a level of operational momentum to be maintained after his death.
Nevertheless, the death of al-Masri did not happen in a vacuum. It
occurred along with the elimination of more than three-quarters of the
group's identified leadership, which, when combined with the changes in
the environment in Iraq, will undoubtedly serve as a major setback to
ISI's operations in Iraq.
The downward trajectory of the al Qaeda franchise in Saudi Arabia from
2004 to 2008 provides an excellent example of the impact this sort of
leadership depletion and environmental change can have on a jihadist
group. The Saudi franchise officially began its protracted wave of
violence in May 2003 with three coordinated car bombings in Riyadh. After
an impressive counterterrorism offensive against the Kingdom's al Qaeda
franchise, Saudi authorities were able largely stymie the momentum of al
Qaeda in Saudi Arabia in about 18 months. Key to their success was their
ability to capture or kill 22 out of 26 (roughly 85 percent) of the
group's leaders on the Saudi most-wanted list by April 2005, including
three successive military commanders in the span of about a year,
beginning in June 2004. Indeed, by January 2009, the Saudi al Qaeda
franchise was so badly damaged that the remnants of the organization were
forced to leave the Kingdom and merge with jihadists in Yemen to form al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. While the Iraqi and Saudi operating
environments are certainly different - with the former still in a de facto
state of war - the parallels in the hits against top-tier leadership are
worth noting.
In May 2010, following al-Masri and al-Baghdadi's deaths the previous
month, the ISI announced in a video message via its media outlet, the
Al-Furqan Media, that Nasser al-Din Allah Abu Suleiman would be al-Masri's
replacement as ISI "minister of war" and that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would
replace Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group's leader. Appearing in the
video, which was posted to extremist websites, Abu Suleiman threatened
that the ISI would "wage a new military campaign directed at Iraqi
security forces and the [Shia]" and that the fresh attacks would be
carried out to avenge the deaths of al-Masri and al-Baghadi.
At this point, little is known of Abu Suleiman or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
though these names are likely pseudonyms intended to protect their real
identities, and more information will probably surface once their true
names are learned. Despite the ominous nature of Abu Suleiman's message,
the new leadership of the ISI is going to have its work cut out for it in
the coming months if it is to hold the organization together and conduct
significant militant operations. The loss of 80 percent of the leadership
of any military organization is a difficult blow to overcome.
In Survival Mode
Al-Masri is gone. His replacement is a new, unknown and thus far untested
leader. STRATFOR has long noted the importance of leadership for these
types of militant organizations and how the quality of leadership directly
correlates to a group's operational ability. Although it is still too
early to accurately judge the impact al-Masri's death will have on the
ISI, the case of his predecessor provides a helpful illustration of what
can happen to a militant group under similar circumstances.
Despite his reputation for ruthlessness, which alienated a number of Iraqi
Sunnis, al-Zarqawi was still considered a charismatic and operationally
adept leader who was conducive to the group's ability to carry out scores
of terrorist attacks in Iraq - and beyond. He was also instrumental in
developing the overall operational capacity of the ISI, creating a cadre
of jihadist leaders who were able to bring in and train thousands of
recruits and then deploy them in the Iraqi jihadist theater.
Al-Zarqawi was able to capitalize on the anti-American sentiment in Iraq
and the Muslim world that arose after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This
anger resulted in calls for jihad - and for a robust flow of fighters and
financial support. Saddam Hussein's Baathist supporters and other Sunni
leaders in Iraq also saw the jihadist insurgents as convenient and zealous
proxies to use against U.S. forces. Al-Zarqawi, though, was never an al
Qaeda insider. In fact, correspondence between the al Qaeda leadership in
Pakistan and al-Zarqawi revealed serious fissures between the two
organizations. Nonetheless, al-Zarqawi saw the adoption of the al Qaeda
name as beneficial for recruiting and fundraising.
After al-Zarqawi's death in June 2006, the ISI officially named al-Masri
as the organization's new "minister of war/defense." Al-Masri was a
long-time al Qaeda insider who had been part of the Egyptian contingent
that joined the group with Ayman al-Zawahiri. Under al-Masri's leadership,
the ISI enjoyed a much closer relationship to the al Qaeda core. Despite
al-Masri's links to al Qaeda, questions arose about the Egyptian's
leadership and general competency and whether the death of the
high-profile al-Zarqawi would cripple the organization. These doubts were
largely eliminated a year later, after the ISI orchestrated a string of
violent sectarian attacks in Shiite neighborhoods around Baghdad on April
18, 2007, that claimed the lives of almost 200 people. During the course
of the year, more than 5,000 Iraqis were killed as a result of similar
bombings. According to statistics provided by the U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM), there were 1,793 attacks involving vehicle-borne improvised
explosive devices (VBIEDs) in 2007 compared to 1,409 in 2006.
However, since the spike of violence in 2007, the number of individuals
who have been killed as a result of large-scale bombings has dropped
precipitously. For instance, in 2008 the number of deaths fell by about 50
percent, from an estimated 5,000 to 2,500. The following year, this number
dropped to just over 2,000. According to STRATCOM, the number of VBIEDS
deployed by the ISI has also sharply dropped, from 1,793 in 2007 to 641 in
2008 and 330 in 2009.
Despite the drop in VBIED attacks and deaths in 2009, the run-up to the
Iraqi election saw at least four devastating and coordinated bomb attacks
claimed by the ISI. On Aug. 19, 2009, the ISI took responsibility for two
simultaneous VBIED strikes at the Iraqi Foreign Ministry and Finance
Ministry buildings that left some 100 people dead and more than 1,000
wounded. Two months later, in October 2009, the ISI claimed credit for a
pair of similar simultaneous VBIED strikes near the Ministry of Justice
building and the Baghdad Provincial Council building in downtown Baghdad
that killed more than 100 people and wounded hundreds more. Strikes on
similar targets were also carried out in central Baghdad on Dec. 8, 2009,
and Jan. 25, 2010.
During this string of attacks, the ISI demonstrated something of a
resurgence, though as the campaign progressed the group was forced to
target softer targets as security was increased around more high-profile
sites like government ministries (the group was not able to strike at
first-tier hard targets like the parliament building, the prime minister's
office or the U.S. Embassy). Nevertheless, the ISI campaign did
demonstrate that the group could still acquire ordinance, build reliable
improvised explosive devices (IEDs), gather intelligence and plan and
carry out spectacular attacks in the heart of Baghdad. Clearly, al-Masri
and his team were regaining operational momentum. Indeed, the size and
lethality of ISI's pre-election bombing campaign had not been seen since
the April 2007 sectarian attacks in Baghdad. Overall, however, the
casualty counts and the frequency of these attacks have continued to
decrease in 2010. According to U.S. Central Command, there had been only
79 VBIED attacks and approximately 963 deaths as of June 21, and we
anticipate that the group's lethality will continue to trend downward in
the wake of the successful operations against it in recent months.
The ISI will be fighting an uphill battle with the loss of so many
leaders. And this battle will not just be for increasing its operational
tempo or assuming control of Iraq. The group's No. 1 priority at the
present time is sheer survival. It needs to focus on re-establishing some
semblance of operational security so that it will have the breathing room
to recruit and train new operatives. It will also need to find a way to
pay for its continued operations, which, like those of militant
organizations elsewhere, will increasingly be funded through criminal
means.
Financial and Operational Losses
In addition to the crippling leadership losses, the ISI is also facing
financial problems and has reportedly been in contact with al Qaeda prime
in an attempt to secure more money. This is in stark contrast to July
2005, when al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri sent a letter to
al-Zarqawi asking for $100,000 because a number of al Qaeda prime's
financial lifelines had been cut off, and the Iraqi jihadist franchise was
flush with cash (mostly from overseas donors).
From all indications, this negative trend in the financial status of the
al Qaeda core group has worsened, further limiting its ability to assist
the now cash-strapped ISI. In October 2009, the U.S. assistant secretary
investigating terrorist financing at the U.S. Treasury Department said al
Qaeda "is [at] its weakest financial condition in several years." Also in
2009, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the former chief of al Qaeda's financing
committee and then head of al Qaeda's operations in Afghanistan,
repeatedly called for financial contributions to al Qaeda, saying that the
group was in desperate need of funding. To compound the financial woes,
al-Yazid was killed by a U.S. airstrike in late May. Clearly, the al Qaeda
core group is in no financial shape to support the Iraqi franchise,
leaving it up to the ISI to support itself financially.
To be sure, the expense of an individual terrorist attack can be marginal
for a group like the ISI. Obtaining the right supplies to fabricate and
employ an IED may cost a couple hundred dollars, and in a place like Iraq,
flush with military ordnance that can be purchased or stolen, it can cost
even less. However, the process of maintaining a militant network over a
long period, during and between attacks, is far more costly than just
paying for individual attacks. The sizable infrastructure required to
maintain such a network involves the costs of recruitment, travel,
weapons, wages, food, a network of safe-houses, training facilities and
materials and overhead expenses for things like fraudulent identification
documents and the bribery of security and government officials. When added
all together, these expenses require a serious financial commitment. And
these costs rose considerably when Iraq's Sunni sheikhs turned against the
movement and denied it much of the ideologically motivated support and
sanctuary it once enjoyed. The ISI is now largely forced to buy this
sanctuary.
In light of the group's financial troubles, it appears that the ISI may be
resorting to other, more criminal means of supporting itself through
things like kidnapping, extortion and robbery. Criminal activity has
always been part of the ISI method of operations since the group's
inception, and the group has long been implicated in various forms of
theft, kidnapping and smuggling in order to support its militant wing -
such is the nature of an underground militant organization. This
characteristic is commonly seen in even the most robust of militant groups
around the world. However, ISI's criminal activities have become more
exposed in recent months, and its militants have turned their weapons on
jewelers, goldsmiths, bankers, money exchangers and other merchants. The
trend can be seen across Iraq, in Baghdad as well as Basra, Kirkuk and
Fallujah. Increasingly, the ISI has to devote a larger percentage of its
manpower and operational capability to fundraising, which means it has
fewer resources to devote to terrorist attacks.
Most of these incidents go unreported, since they are considered lower
priority than the more violent terrorist attacks. Also, much of the crime
(especially the kidnapping and extortion) is carried out quietly and goes
unseen by the casual observer. This means that the scope of the criminal
activity being conducted by the ISI is likely higher than is being
reported in the press, and this is supported by information from STRATFOR
sources in Iraq. According to these sources, the ISI is particularly adept
at using pressure tactics against local businesses in operating protection
rackets. Merchants have to hand over a certain percentage of their monthly
earnings to ISI operatives in order to preserve their businesses. One
journalist in Mosul (Saad al-Mosuli) writes that some vendors pay as much
as 30 percent of their earnings.
Another area of criminal activity in Iraq is the theft and smuggling of
oil. Iraq has hundreds of oil fields crisscrossed by hundreds of miles of
pipelines carrying oil to terminals where it is either trucked or shipped
for export. Oil is vulnerable to theft at any stage in this process, and
militants in Iraq are known to tap pipelines or steal tanker trucks in
order to get their hands on the oil and sell it. All manner of criminal
activity can thrive in a country where the security environment remains
fluid and authorities have to decide whether to divert more resources to
preventing major VBIED attacks or to preventing robberies. Obviously, the
former generates more attention.
Below is a brief timeline of criminal activities either known or suspected
to be the work of ISI operatives just in the past several weeks:
The ISI is not the first militant organization to integrate criminal
activities into its method of operations. Groups such as the Farabundo
Marti Liberation Front in El Salvador, the Irish Republican Army, the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the New People's Army in
the Philippines are just a few examples of groups that started with an
ideological justification for their violent activities and turned to
criminal activity when their funding dried up (many Marxist groups lost
funding when the Soviet Union dissolved). Some of these groups, such as
the FARC, are now almost exclusivity criminal, with only a thin
ideological facade used primarily for recruiting and justifying their
activities. Other jihadist organizations have also used fraud, extortion,
kidnapping and other illegal activities to finance their operations. For
example, the jihadist cell responsible for the March 2004 Madrid train
bombings financed its operations by selling narcotics.
Currently facing financial problems, the ISI is using its highly trained
and organized manpower, along with its weapons caches - resources that
were once reserved for ideologically motivated attacks - to collect
operating funds. With ample examples of the Prophet Mohammed and his
companions raiding the caravans of the enemies of Islam, groups like the
ISI believe they have religious justification for engaging in such
activities and that they do not tarnish their reputations as Muslim
movements. This is not to say that the group's activities have any legal
precedent under Islamic law; it is more likely a reflection that its
members are willing to twist religious and legal doctrine to benefit their
operational needs. However, such activities have certainly caused many
more moderate Iraqis to become skeptical of the ISI and to distance
themselves from the group. On the other hand, government accusations of
robbery could be a tactic to discredit the ISI and must be weighed
carefully.
Nevertheless, when Iraqi authorities blame the group for an incident like
the May 25 jewelry store robbery in Baghdad that left 15 people dead, the
fact that the robbers used rocket-propelled grenades, suppressed pistols
and assault rifles lends credence to the claim, as does the speed,
accuracy and general professionalism of the operation.
Decline in Foreign Operatives
In addition to the leadership losses and financial troubles besetting ISI,
there are also indications that the group is struggling to carry out
suicide attacks as frequently as it used to. One reason could be that the
ISI is running out of foreign volunteers to participate in such attacks.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, intercepted messages
and prisoner interrogations indicate that ISI commanders are complaining
about the lack of foreigners for suicide missions. "The shortage of
suicide bombers is because Islamic fundamentalists are more interested in
Afghanistan and Pakistan these days, the Americans are withdrawing from
Iraq and al Qaeda's networks have been disrupted by ourselves and the
Americans," Zebari said in an interview with the Associated Press in late
May. While Iraqis can certainly carry out suicide attacks, a significant
percentage (estimated by the U.S. military to be as high as 80 percent) of
the suicide attacks in Iraq since the U.S. invasion have been perpetrated
by foreign-born jihadists. In 2008, we began seeing an indication that the
ISI was recruiting Iraqis who were mentally ill or addicted to drugs to
serve as suicide bombers.
There are a few possible explanations for the apparent paucity of foreign
travelers to Iraq to carry out such operations. First, as Zebari mentions,
U.S. troops are pulling out of Iraq, and many radical Muslims would rather
attack "infidel troops" than fellow Muslims. As of May 2010, there are
more American troops stationed in Afghanistan (94,000) than Iraq (92,000)
for the first time since major combat operations began in Iraq in 2003.
These numbers are only expected to continue to fall in Iraq as the Obama
administration puts a greater focus on Afghanistan. Naturally, if jihadist
operatives are eager to take the fight directly to Americans and other
Westerners, they would more likely head to an area where there are more
American and other Western troops.
It also appears that the Syrian regime has helped crack down on the
established smuggling networks that have been an instrumental gateway to
Iraq for foreign fighters. According to jihadist recruiting records found
in the Syrian border town of Sinjar by U.S. troops in 2007 and released by
the U.S. government in 2008, there were approximately 700 foreign national
who illegally entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. Indeed,
the Iraqi government claimed in 2007 that more than half of the foreign
fighters were arriving in Iraq via Syria. U.S defense officials also
remarked at the time that coalition operations helped cut the flow of
approximately 60 to 80 fighters a month in half. This reduction was at
least partly due to the death of Abu Osama al-Tunisi by U.S.-led forces in
September 2007. As his name indicates, al-Tunisi was a Tunisian member of
the ISI's inner circle who was chiefly responsible bringing foreign
fighters into Iraq.
Most of the illegal entries into Iraq, according to the Sinjar documents,
were facilitated by four members of a terrorist finance and facilitation
ring running out of Syria known as the "Abu Ghadiyah" network, named for
its leader, Badran Turki Hisham al-Mazidih (aka Abu Ghadiyah). However, on
Oct. 26, 2008, U.S. forces, reportedly with the assistance of the Syrian
government, conducted a cross-border raid against the group that resulted
in the death of Abu Ghadiyah. Because smuggling is a long-practiced trade
in Syria, a replacement for Ghadiyah has most likely stepped into place,
but the flow of fighters from Syria has clearly dropped since 2007.
Of course, the simple fact that U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to capture
or kill senior ISI members at a heretofore unseen rate has had a
noteworthy impact on the ISI's ability to recruit, train and run foreign
fighters. This success has been due not only to the increased intelligence
capability of the U.S. and Iraqi forces but also - significantly - to the
fact that a number of Iraq's Sunni sheikhs have turned against the ISI.
The group's decline has also been a result of the length of the struggle.
A large number of jihadists have been martyred in Iraq and a substantial
amount of money has been sent there over the past seven years. It is hard
to maintain that type of commitment over time - especially when the effort
is producing diminishing returns and other theaters such as the
Afghanistan/Pakistan region, Yemen and Somalia have grabbed more of the
worldwide media spotlight.
Conclusion
The year 2010 appears to be a banner year for U.S. and Iraqi troops in the
fight against the ISI. Their combined efforts, with local assistance, have
severely damaged the group's finances, leadership and ability to recruit.
To be sure, the ISI's intent to establish an Islamic caliphate in Iraq has
not diminished. But even before the most recent coalition successes, the
ability of the group to return to its 2007 glory days was seriously in
doubt, and today its overall operational capacity appears to be severely
crippled. And as U.S. and multinational troops continue their steady
withdrawal from Iraq, there will be less incentive for transnational
jihadists to travel to Iraq to fight the "far enemy." Ongoing pressure on
the ISI may also serve to fracture it into smaller disjointed entities,
which could even lead to infighting. Pressed for cash, the motivations for
violent attacks are likely to continue to devolve into political and
criminal acts, the frequency and lethality of which will depend on the
ability of Iraqi forces to handle the situation.
--
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)National Security
CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels
By Ernesto Londoño and Greg Miller September 11, 2013
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.
The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month.
The arms are being delivered as the United States is also shipping new types of nonlethal gear to rebels. That aid includes vehicles, sophisticated communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits.
U.S. officials hope that, taken together, the weapons and gear will boost the profile and prowess of rebel fighters in a conflict that started about 21 / 2 years ago.
Although the Obama administration signaled months ago that it would increase aid to Syrian rebels, the efforts have lagged because of the logistical challenges involved in delivering equipment in a war zone and officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists. Secretary of State John F. Kerry had promised in April that the nonlethal aid would start flowing “in a matter of weeks.”
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)The weapons were supplied to groups which were hostile to I.S.I.L., and were in part to be used by them against I.S.I.L., in an attempt to oust it from the coalition fighting Assad. I do not doubt some of the weapons wound up in their hands, and not just by capture but by black-market sale and defection. I know for a fact that some elements of the Free Syrian Army ave defected recently to the I.S.I.L., but that was subsequent to the actions described in your article, and not some long-planned scheme, but a reaction to the prestige of victory and the threat of failure in opposition to the emerging champion. But you might as well allege the equipment the U.S, supplied to Iraq represented 'the U.S. supplying I.S.I.S.' because a good portion of it wound up in their hands. You want to blame somebody, blame Prince Bandar, who seems, at least to outsiders, to have lost some prestige among the Saudi clan over his fostering of the I.S.I.L. faction.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)when the bombs are humanitarian!
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)hope that the bombs, where necessary, kill a good number of these rampaging assholes, and stop them from the massacres they're obviously engaging in.
For your part, you should send them a petition, or clever rejoinders.
rollin74
(1,973 posts)
kudos to President Obama
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)but if the president sticks with the parameters he discussed, I am in. The humanitarian aspect is the most important.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)Rapillion
(51 posts)Why the same consideration is not given to the Palestinians in Gaza?
It's a rhetorical question and the answer is obvious.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts) msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Rapillion
(51 posts)They know they won't get it. American politicians have been purchased at bargain prices.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)11 years ago we went to Iraq thinking we'll be greeted as liberators.
Now we think we can help a religious conflict by dropping bombs. On a group we essentially created by invading, destroying, and setting up an ineffectual puppet government in Iraq. That power vacuum created ISIS in the first place. Our meddling is responsible for this.
We never, ever, ever, ever learn. ISIS' ranks will now swell with newcomers wanting jihad against anything associated with America. The humanitarian aid is fine, the bombs... no.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)ancianita
(36,023 posts)dgauss
(882 posts)regarding foreign interventions over the last, how many? decades.
Here is a specific situation where the US could actually do some good. I believe Obama sees that possibility, but has to go through a shitstorm of political cautions from political advisers, telling him how this will be used against him. As every action he takes is.
And the cynicism has the point that no one knows where this will end but the Neocons will be trying to direct it every step of the way.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And the neocons will continue to get plenty of help from the far left as evidenced here on a daily basis.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)Hekate
(90,645 posts)And now I'm going to try to avoid reading any of the comments here from those who think this president can do no right. 
betsuni
(25,465 posts)Literally between Iraq and a hard place.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)if they aren't with us they are against us!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts)around overdosing on RT all day. 
I can't believe some of the heartless responses we're seeing on an alledgedly "progressive" website.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I don't know what the proper course of action was, or is. I think the humanitarian aid is a good start. I also think that ISIS is pretty damn evil - I'm just not sure if our air strikes or bombs will make the difference we hope for. We could be creating martyrs, increasing their numbers, empowering them. Still, were it up to me... I would fight those evil men myself. I'm just not sure what the best way to go about it is. It may ultimately have to be ground forces that take them down.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)The disintegration of Iraq and the ascendent rise of Islamic fundementalism was a direct consequence of the last administration's decision to take out the only secular leader that could hold the state together and keep the various religious/geopolitical factions in check. We have an obligation to neutralize the ISIS on their attempt to turn Iraq into a 15th Century society. I trust PBO to do the right thing on this issue.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Don't let this be an excuse to go back in... all out.
kentuck
(111,079 posts)I am not convinced.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)But I don't want it to be an excuse to go back in.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)to save lives and stop the spread of the fucking ebola virus in Africa, before it becomes a planet-wide clusterfuck?
You want an enemy? There's your enemy.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I will admit this afternoon when it was all going down (around 6pm EDT when word started trickling out,) the term "wag-the-dog" did flash thru the old noggin.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)want to believe they are right and proper, but I've been lied to so many times that I am super skeptical of everything political. I'm serious, I wish I could just trust that it isn't all bullshit again.
I have nothing to base my opinions and perceptions on but what the MSM allows me to see.
I'm sure you understand where I am coming from. Please, convince me why I should trust and believe.
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . are the Iraqi forces that we've spent billions to arm and train unable or unwilling to defend these civilians?
If they're unwilling, why are we arming them?
They've had some success against this relatively smaller number of insurgents.
August 4, 2014 - Iraqi air force comes to the aid of beleaguered Kurds
AUG. 4, 2014 - Maliki, has issued order to the Iraqi air forces to provide air support for the pesh merga against ISIS
What about other Iraqi allies? Aren't they able to help?
Russian Jets and Experts Sent to Iraq to Aid Army
What about Syria? Is U.S. government's opposition to the Syrians keeping them from providing more assistance to the beleaguered Iraqi regime in fighting back ISIS?
Syrian government warplanes have attacked a series of targets in Syria and Iraq in an attempt to weaken an Al-Qaeda splinter group, opposition activists and U.S. officials say.
On Wednesday, airstrikes on Raqqa, a Syrian city of some 500,00 that has been under control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) for more than a year, appear to be part of an intensified Syrian government campaign against the militant faction that has become a major fighting force in neighbouring Iraq in recent weeks.
The strikes come on the heels of an apparent Syrian attack on ISIS in Iraq, with U.S. officials saying there are indications that Syria launched airstrikes into western Iraq Tuesday in an attempt to slow the Al-Qaeda-inspired insurgency fighting both the Syrian and Iraqi governments.
ISIS has been fighting along with the rebels opposed to President Bashar Assad’s government and has since moved swiftly across the border into Iraq.
What about Iran? We can't let that happen because, terrorism?
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Some weeks back when the I.S.I.L. breakout commenced, I said I expected eventually to see the U.S.A.F. providing air support for al'Quds fighters, and my tongue was nowhere near my cheek. If this is contained, in Iraq as a whole, I expect Iran will do a lot of the ground work, one way or another, and without a lot of direct notice of that being paid in our media, or acknowledgement of it made by our government. We are de facto allies with Iran at present, but it serves neither party to this shotgun wedding to call much attention to it.
"Why us? Because we're here, and nobody else.'
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . I suspect there's a little Cold-War fear being whispered in the President's ear, as well. I note that this escalation began in earnest after it appeared Russia was stepping in . . . providing jets, pilots, and other military aid.
. . . that Iraq's air defenses aren't fully capable is a fair argument, but I question how sincere the U.S. effort has been in supplying them with adequate defenses - or allowing others to supply them. So many of our eyes on the ground there, for quite some time now . . . it would seem that much of our present concern is opportunistic - some of the problem in Northern Iraqi civilian's defense tied to our government's opposition to the Syrians who seem more than capable and willing to assist.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we will rationalize that the people we kill deserve it, of course except the collateral damage.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)We're only going to be bombing a few people this week.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)Good evening. Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we’re taking and why.
First, I said in June — as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq — that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it. In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces.
To stop the advance on Erbil, I’ve directed our military to take targeted strikes against ISIL terrorist convoys should they move toward the city. We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad. We’re also providing urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against ISIL.
Second, at the request of the Iraqi government — we’ve begun operations to help save Iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain. As ISIL has marched across Iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Iraqis. And these terrorists have been especially barbaric towards religious minorities, including Christian and Yezidis, a small and ancient religious sect. Countless Iraqis have been displaced. And chilling reports describe ISIL militants rounding up families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving Yezidi women.
In recent days, Yezidi women, men and children from the area of Sinjar have fled for their lives. And thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — are now hiding high up on the mountain, with little but the clothes on their backs. They’re without food, they’re without water. People are starving. And children are dying of thirst. Meanwhile, ISIL forces below have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yezidi people, which would constitute genocide. So these innocent families are faced with a horrible choice: descend the mountain and be slaughtered, or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger.
I’ve said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there’s a crisis in the world. So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now. When we face a situation like we do on that mountain — with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help — in this case, a request from the Iraqi government — and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That’s what we’re doing on that mountain.
I’ve, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there. Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive. Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.” Well today, America is coming to help. We’re also consulting with other countries — and the United Nations — who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis.
I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.
However, we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to Iraq. So even as we carry out these two missions, we will continue to pursue a broader strategy that empowers Iraqis to confront this crisis. Iraqi leaders need to come together and forge a new government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis, and that can fight back against the threats like ISIL. Iraqis have named a new President, a new Speaker of Parliament, and are seeking consensus on a new Prime Minister. This is the progress that needs to continue in order to reverse the momentum of the terrorists who prey on Iraq’s divisions.
Once Iraq has a new government, the United States will work with it and other countries in the region to provide increased support to deal with this humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenge. None of Iraq’s neighbors have an interest in this terrible suffering or instability.
And so we’ll continue to work with our friends and allies to help refugees get the shelter and food and water they so desperately need, and to help Iraqis push back against ISIL. The several hundred American advisors that I ordered to Iraq will continue to assess what more we can do to help train, advise and support Iraqi forces going forward. And just as I consulted Congress on the decisions I made today, we will continue to do so going forward.
My fellow Americans, the world is confronted by many challenges. And while America has never been able to right every wrong, America has made the world a more secure and prosperous place. And our leadership is necessary to underwrite the global security and prosperity that our children and our grandchildren will depend upon. We do so by adhering to a set of core principles. We do whatever is necessary to protect our people. We support our allies when they’re in danger. We lead coalitions of countries to uphold international norms. And we strive to stay true to the fundamental values — the desire to live with basic freedom and dignity — that is common to human beings wherever they are. That’s why people all over the world look to the United States of America to lead. And that’s why we do it.
So let me close by assuring you that there is no decision that I take more seriously than the use of military force. Over the last several years, we have brought the vast majority of our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. And I’ve been careful to resist calls to turn time and again to our military, because America has other tools in our arsenal than our military. We can also lead with the power of our diplomacy, our economy, and our ideals.
But when the lives of American citizens are at risk, we will take action. That’s my responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. And when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. That is our responsibility as Americans. That’s a hallmark of American leadership. That’s who we are.
So tonight, we give thanks to our men and women in uniform -— especially our brave pilots and crews over Iraq who are protecting our fellow Americans and saving the lives of so many men, women and children that they will never meet. They represent American leadership at its best. As a nation, we should be proud of them, and of our country’s enduring commitment to uphold our own security and the dignity of our fellow human beings.
God bless our Armed Forces, and God bless the United States of America.
TOD
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)It was not yet available when I posted, just after the speech finished, and I had to surrender the machine to my grand-sons....
Cha
(297,154 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)...no problem. We didn't hear any speeches about that.
Where was the State Department when this was happening? Oh right, they engineered it.
And now they act surprised when people resort to violence.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2014, 02:17 PM - Edit history (2)
trying to see how much of Bush's programs he can replicate while still getting the same level of benefit of the doubt that, say Kim Jong-il or Sun Myung Moon or Prem Rawat got (from their respective followers--I hereby apologize to the baying cultists I compared to other baying cultists)
yet we still whimper that "If we knew who He was, we would crawl across America on our hands and knees to rest our heads at His feet"
conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)sheshe2
(83,746 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I don't buy anything he says or does anymore.
politicman
(710 posts)the U.S is just as guilty of committing its own genocides over the years.
Because the U.S is such a human country, huh? (sarcasm)
Its funny how everyone jumps in to support action by the U.S to stop genocide, as though the U.S is moral entity and doesn't commit genocide of its own.
The 100,000s of thousands of Iraqi's killed under Bush's 10 year invasion of Iraq doesn't constitute genocide?
The 2 million Vietnamese killed By America in the Vietnam war doesn't constitute genocide?
The thousands of innocents caught up in Obama's drone strikes doesn't constitute a 'small' genocide?
Reading everyone's comments on here one would think that the U.S is such a noble and moral country that it automatically makes it right for the U.S to use its military to stop others committing genocide, EXCEPT when the U.S itself commits genocide who will stop it?
IronGate
(2,186 posts) politicman
(710 posts)And what happens if the U.S airstrikes are not as effective as you and Obama think they will be, and Obama decides to put in a limited number of troops to stop ISIS on the ground, and then these troops start increasing and we have Iraq War III where another 100,000 more Iraqis are killed over the years?
Because if you go back throughout history, many times presidents have promised to have limited military action YET events on the ground start dictating the course of action from that point on and suddenly you have major military escalations.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)you would rather those 40,000+ people be wiped out than trying to save them.
Sure your in the right place?
politicman
(710 posts)Don't try and put words in my mouth, I never said that.
I would rather the U.S be consistent and noble with its approach to all conflicts around the world, I would rather the U.S be noble and consistent in not deciding to kill 100s of thousands and even millions with its own weapons and then acting like it wants to protect certain people that face slaughter.
What would you think if me if I went out and killed 100 people for my own gain, and then one day I decided to intervene and help some old lady from being killed by robbers, would I suddenly be transformed into a noble person in your eyes?
Will those 100 people I killed before I saved the old woman not matter anymore because I saved one person?
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Or would you just have notched up a hundred and one for a tally, and be that much the worse?
politicman
(710 posts)No I would not, but imagine of I could save that old woman by physically stopping the robbers and I could also save another old woman by verbally reprimanding another set of robbers?
If I could save both old woman but choose to only save one, would that make my actions right?
The first old woman requires me to physically intervene to stop her being killed by the robbers and I am willing to do that, and the second old woman requires me to only sternly reprimand her robbers but I refuse to do that because her robbers are my friends.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)No matter how you try and wriggle off the point, you have acknowledged that even if someone has previously done wrong or wrongs, if they refrain from doing good at some opportunity, they become only worse, not better. Even taking your revised example, one hundred two is still greater than one hundred one.
You have no case. What you have is preferences, but you cannot cleanly articulate them, and generally when this is the case, either someone has not thought a thing through, or someone is trying to hide something which clear statement would reveal. I cannot decide which is operating with you, and it is not so uncommon that both are in play at once....
"Most people would sooner die than think, and many do."
politicman
(710 posts)I may not be articulating my point clearly but I believe that if someone has done something wrong in the past and wants to use his power for god when he can, then he should not choose which good to use it for.
Obama has the ability to help both the Yazidis and the Palestinians, YET he is deliberately choosing to only help the Yazidis and leaving the Palestinians on their own.
Even worse is that helping the Yazidis most likely will require airstrikes and Obama is willing to do that, BUT at the very same time he has the ability to help the Paletinians not through airstrikes but something much simpler, 'diplomatic pressure' and is deliberately refusing to do that.
So yeah, I don't agree that who does bad and then wants to turn around and only do one good when they are capable of doing 2 goods should be applauded.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)What you were not willing to clearly state is that you align with 'Team Palestine' against 'Team Israel', and consider the succor or victory of Arab Palestine to be the preeminent interest in the Near East, and resent anything else being dealt with before it is. If anyone is going to be helped, you say, let it be the people I have adopted as a cause, they should come first! Why your preference should guide anyone else is, of course, none too clear.
That is what muddles up your reasoning regarding a person who has done wrong before choosing to do a good. You say such a person should not chose among goods available to him to do. But that is simply nonesense. It is said a Buddhist monk must eat whatever is dropped into his begging bowl, as his portion in life that day ( which has led to some grim tales indeed ), but humans are hardly required to chart their course among available actions by that same code. If a person who has done nothing but good were faced with the same choice, between two possible goods, you could not state he is required to do both --- he is free to choose evil, in either or both instances, just as he is free to choose good, in either or both instances. The same choices are there for someone who has done previous wrong. He can choose to do both goods or one of the two goods, and if the latter, he has still done less wrong than if he had chosen to do both wrongs.
"Simple arithmetic is the beginning of wisdom."
politicman
(710 posts)Are you really not capable of reading and understand what you read?
I said that Obama is capable of helping both sets of people, not that I want him to help the Palestinians over the Yazidis.
Obama can easily keep his policy of intervening on behalf of the Yazidis militarily, AND also put diplomatic pressure on Israel to help the Palestinians.
The fact that Obama wants to adopt a military option to help the Yazidis because they might be slaughtered on masse by bad guys and refuses to put diplomatic pressure to help the Palestinians because they are being slaughtered by his friends, shows just how hypocritical he is.
He CAN help both sets of people, yet he chooses to help one with the harder actions, AND refuses to help the other with easier actions.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)You want U.S. policy regarding Israel v. Palestine to change and view every event in the Near East as an opportunity to try and convince people it should. For some reason, though, you got kittenish, and would not say so directly, and instead tried to argue on the plane of abstract moral philosophy, setting up something you thought was sure to put an opponent in a position where he would have no choice but to agree, when you brought it back to real world cases, with your view that the U.S. government must move to curb Israel and aid Arab Palestine. But your abstract problem does not solve in your favor, and so the thing squibbed off and left you high and dry. Now you are reduced to trying to argue policy, like an ordinary mortal, without much room for appeal to emotion, and put bluntly, I do not much care what your views on Near East policy are, and care even less what your views of the rights and wrongs of Israel v. Palestine might be, and if you put two caraway seeds and a banker's heart in the navel of a flea, there would still be room for how much I care whether the leader or government of a world power looks hypocritical or not, to you or anyone else.
"States have neither enemies nor friends, only interests.""
politicman
(710 posts)Its funny, because you say you don't care about what I think YET it was you that responded to my original comment.
You may be happy or content that Obama and his administration choose which people to help and which people to not help, BUT thank god most people are not as selfish as you.
You may be happy or content that the U.S commits crimes against humanity multiple times over the years and then acts all noble when it wants to intervene in crimes against humanity that others commit, but I don't give Obama or the U.S any credit what so ever for choosing to intervene and forget its own crimes.
I can't be bothered debating with someone that looks at the Yazidi peoples predicament in horror, YET looks at the Palestinian people predicament like it is nothing.
Unlike you, I want the U.S to either stay the f.u.c.k out of all conflicts in the world OR help in all the conflicts that it can help in.
Seeing as how the I/P conflict would need nothing more than Obama placing diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop slaughtering Palestinians, it is not a stretch in my mind that Obama can adopt his policy to militarily help the Yazidis AND at the same time help the Palestinians by pressuring Israel to stop its slaughter.
But then again, you have your cause which is anyone but the Palestinians, so no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that choosing to help one peoples and choosing not to help another peoples when you have the ability to help both peoples at the same time is not noble, you will never understand.
Your hatred for anything that doesn't kneel at the feet of the Israelis and pledge to accept their crimes makes you blind to the fact that Obama and the U.S are always noble with anything they do as long as they stand by or even support the Israeli crimes.
Goodbye.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Just a friendly hint towards future trials --- it really is best to leave out 'kneel at the feet of the Israelis' rhetoric, it gives several games away at once, to people of any discernment, and knowledge of the darker demimondes....
politicman
(710 posts)I engaged in this discussion with you because I thought I might be engaging with someone who can discuss an issue rationally.
But now that you have shown yourself to be an Israeli apologist, I refuse to keep the discussion going with you.
My experience with Israeli apologists is that they have sympathy for everyone in the world except the Palestinians and just keep repeating the same propaganda that they have been tasked with repeating.
And this discussion is the perfect example of this:
I chide the U.S for being in a situation to help both sets of people but only choosing to help the Yazidis because they are being slaughtered by guys that the U.S is not friends with, and you being a typical Israeli apologist cannot even agree with this, no the typical Israeli apologist position is that you couldn't give a crap whether America shows its hypocrisy because that hypocrisy is benefitting your mates in Israel.
Anyway, as its useless to discuss with an apologists, Ill let you get back to thinking the Palestinians don't deserve help while the Yazidi do. Ciao.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And yet here you are, scratching at the door for another dose.
I expect the point where most people reading your last two posts will find it hard not grin is where you proclaim you find me incapable of discussing an issue rationally, before going on to describe me as having 'been tasked with repeating' propaganda, and continuing on from there in a most florid, indeed, a positively purple vein of billingsgate.
After which, of course, you bid me adieu again....
"So which is it? In or out? Don't think I'm going to stand here all day holding this door open."
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)The word 'genocide' gets bandied about, so frequently, and with so little precision, that one could be forgiven for imagining it will not be too long before it refers to making your little sister cry.
Genocide is the crime of attempting the extermination of a people. Standard definition will include the phrase 'whole or in part', but the 'in part' does not refer to simply killing some people identified as part of a group, but rather to a situation where only part of a group is in your power to kill, and you are endeavoring to kill all of them. The meaning of extermination can include some forms of destruction short of death, such as forced conversion on pain of death, or forced sterilization, and the form in which death is inflicted does not have to be direct killing by weapon, but can be from conditions of famine or disease and destitution created for the purpose.
The situation described regarding the Yazidi in northern Iraq is a classic, clearly defined threat of genocide, albeit on a fairly small scale. The presently dominant military power in the region has declared as official policy that members of this sect must either convert to Islam or be killed, with some provision for women of the sect being assigned as wives to its soldiers after the killing of unconverted menfolk. What is envisioned is extermination of believers in the sect, and no bones are made about it.
The items you mention, though indeed a good many people were killed in them, do not come close to the definition of genocide: no intent to exterminate the people of Iraq or of Viet Nam guided policy and the action of the soldiery, nor does any intent to exterminate guide the aerial bombardments carried out at present by remote control in the Tribal Territories or in Yemen.
If you had contented yourself with saying 'after all, the United States has killed a great many people in wars who were not combatants' then you would have had a point, on some level, anyway. But by reaching for the brass wing of crying 'Genocide!' you slipped and fell down from the heights into a pit of failure and obvious propagandizing of the lowest boiler-plate style.
And of course, the idea that only people with 'clean hands' can do anything to prevent wrong-doing is at bottom an extremely silly one, that collapses immediately it is looked at seriously. For one thing, clean hands do not exist among powers capable of projecting military force any distance in strength. And for another, people who have kept their hands clean are most unlikely to have any idea what to do with them in a fight....
politicman
(710 posts)So you are arguing that the U.S even though it has committed multiple crimes against humanity with its invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, should act when it sees someone else committing or threatening to commit crimes of humanity?
We have to trust that an immoral nation wants to intervene to stop a potential crime against humanity when that immoral nation has no qualms about committing its own crime against humanity when it is in their interest?
Here's another question for you?
If the U.S conducts airstrikes against ISIS, I can guarantee you that there will be innocent sunni civilians who will become 'collateral damage' in these airstrikes, so I ask you, do these 'collateral damage' matter less than those that Obama says he wants to help?
40,000 Yazidi potentially being slaughtered is bad, but if this escalates as nearly all military adventures do, will you still be on these boards defending this military adventure after 40,000 or more Iraqis have died as a result of a protracted war yet again?
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)I would probably not even have bothered to reply; as you may have noticed, a fair portion of replies to my note do not agree with my view, in varying degrees and on varying grounds. Yours was the first ( the first I noticed, anyway ) that took up the shrill shriek of genocide by the United States within the last half century, and so you drew a response.
That response dealt adequately with the revised line you are attempting, in its final paragraph. I see no reason to repeat myself at any length. No one has clean hands, who has any power to intervene in this situation, so any intervention will be carried out by some government which is morally compromised by the standards you wish to employ. Of course, many would consider it placed someone in a morally compromised situation to watch cruelty done which it might be in your power to prevent if you moved forcefully to intervene, so if you are urging no intervention be made, you could well be urging a course which is itself immoral, and would render the power that chose it morally compromised, and so unfit to do anything to intervene in future potential atrocities. It gets confusing, I know, but such are the difficulties associated with trying to apply morality to real world situations in search of emotional arguments that will jibe with the positions one is pre-disposed to by ideologic conviction.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)"No turn left un-stoned."
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)Again, they can never pay me enough to be a president. O has his hands full between this, Ukraine, Africa, the Central American immigration situation, and the Republicans. No matter what action he takes, he won't please everyone--apparently not even everyone on his side of the aisle. No wonder his hair turned gray!
minivan2
(214 posts)My reaction to this initially was "Oh my gosh, he's turning into W." I mean doesn't this mean that we're going back into Iraq?
Cha
(297,154 posts)TheObamaDiary.com @TheObamaDiary
Follow
To summarize:
Bush/Cheney invade Iraq for oil.
MSM: USA!! USA!!
PBO intervenes for humanitarian purposes.
MSM: TYYYYYRUNT!1!1!
5:38 PM - 7 Aug 2014 31 Retweets 13 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2014/08/07/the-presidents-statement-on-iraq/
I watched my local news about it and they almost told me that Obama is like Bush. But after looking at your link, I will never watch the lame stream media ever again.
Cha
(297,154 posts)minivan2
(214 posts)But seriously, corporate media has gotten out of control.
Cha
(297,154 posts)I never looked back or gave them anymore consideration.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't know what the member nations of the UN are thinking right now, but it seems they have been doing a lot of thumb twiddling over a lot of recent horrific events lately.
We're on the verge of witnessing a large massacre, and yet they don't want to break out some guns or aid for the people stuck on the mountain?
That's shameful.
Rhiannon12866
(205,202 posts)I was out all day, so I'm just catching up, but I support the president's actions completely. 
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)lest someone else does first, at this point they'll take friends where they can get them
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Almost like fly paper...
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Whole heatedly.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)have any crystal balls to look into the future to determine how this will work out. What kind of situation will we find ourselves in a few years down the road? We just don't know. I will withhold any criticism for the time being anyway and hope and pray that it all works out for the best.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And make no pretense of certainty nothing will wrong, either in short or long term. But I think our President made a good case for the actions he committed the country, and like you, I am willing to wait and see how things work out.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... as much as I want to get away from Iraq, the USA holds a lot of responsibility for this situation and we are obligated to not just walk away.
riqster
(13,986 posts) to the Prexy.Gothmog
(145,130 posts)The President's actions are necessary
mopinko
(70,078 posts)and not an easy decision.
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)The GOP say air strikes are useless...
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)ISIS is a scary bunch of fanatics. We can point fingers and complain later.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Thank you.
justaddh2o
(69 posts)supporting capital punishment?
By that I mean, if one supports bombing people when they commit acts of murder, then doesn't that also mean supporting the death penalty for convicted murderers?
OTOH, if one believes that no person should die at the hand of another, then it would seem to follow that one should not support these air strikes.
It's a horrible decision to have to make. But I believe that responding violently to violence only begets more violence.
Peace.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)trying to kill other people.
Regrettable to be sure, but not like capital punishment.
justaddh2o
(69 posts)Your example describes the need for an immediate reaction -- the police officer must shoot right then to save lives, a split second decision (and even then, it might be possible to avoid deadly force). However, in this case, there has been time for discussion and, one would hope, additional time to review other options rather than resorting to violence.
Peace.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)How, when people invoke 'review of other options than resorting to violence', there seems generally to be an unstated assumption such a review will always result in deciding to refrain from violence. It seems to be assumed that such a review could never lead people to the conclusion that, yes, in this situation, violence is the necessary and proper response. If one does not admit that is a possible outcome, why bother reviewing options other than resort to violence? Why not just state at the outset violence is not an option, is never an option, and proceed forthrightly to try select the best available non-violent option? Why pretend to consider it, when you intend it always to be rejected in favor of something else?
justaddh2o
(69 posts)I agree wholeheartedly. Just imagine if we only considered non-violent options to resolving conflict. Perhaps we will evolve to that at some point, if we don't annihilate ourselves first.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And someone who rules it out from that start, in all situations, will end up doing considerable harm.
And do please remember, that when you say in future ' haven't they considered all options besides resort to violence?' what you really mean is, 'they should never even consider resorting to violence'. It is not only more honest, it is shorter and more direct. No need to pretend to have an open mind when in fact you do not.
justaddh2o
(69 posts)I would suggest that your opinion about non-violent action leading to harm is a matter of perspective. Gandhi chose peace over violent revolt and yes, there was harm done by the British in the short term in his country. But I think you might agree that in the longer perspective he gained a much greater good.
And when I suggested that others (who don't share my perspective on peace) should consider other options, I meant that sincerely. I recognize that others (including you), feel that violence is justified in certain circumstances. I was speaking about those folks, not myself. I'm not pretending, merely suggesting that others consider alternatives.
By even if one takes violence off the table, that doesn't mean there aren't other options to consider. There are many paths to peace. I was also suggesting that there could be many novel ways to end conflict, which don't involve military action.
Yes, you're correct. I, personally, wouldn't need to consider violent options. I believe that there is always a non-violent way to end conflict. But that doesn't mean that I'm so narrow-minded as to think that all other people think the same way... although I do think that if others considered non-violent action first, it would make the world a better place.
Thanks.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)But the English dealt with him because many others chose violence, and he would not have gotten the concessions he did except that English had the wit to see that by dealing with him, they could lessen the scope available to the violent.
But the tipping point which convinced the English they could not hold India was a tremendous spasm of mob violence occurring after arrest of Congress leaders as the Japanese were advancing in Burma. It was only barely contained, and the military authorities recognized they probably could not do it again, particularly if a larger portion of people participated, as seemed likely would be the case in a repetition.
Beyond the particular case, it is observable fact that there are times when pacific detachment is effectively siding with an aggressor engaged in atrocity. Gandhi's advice to Jews under Nazi rule, you may recall, was for them all to commit suicide, and while he may have conceived this as being a vast and powerful spiritual rebuke to evil, its end result in practical terms would have been indistinguishable from success in an exterminationist project....
Akira Watts
(53 posts)Humanitarian aid is great. Full stop.
But what is the goal of airstrikes? Are we simply defending Americans located within Kurdish territory? Are we actually attempting to degrade ISIS or IS our whatever the fuck they are calling themselves these days? Do limited airstrikes accomplish either? If not, how much further do we go? And, even giving that IS are genocidal fuckfaces, are we ready for Gulf War 3.0?
JEB
(4,748 posts)It's what we do.
Akira Watts
(53 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)I'd bet it's another money grubbing scheme rather than some altruistic move to help some goofballs being persecuted by radicals. actully plenty of that going on in the world that we are just fine with.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Chickenhawks everywhere.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Rote noises people convince themselves constitute trenchant argument, but in fact only reveal the person employing them has nothing to say worth hearing.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Pretty simple.
Stop advocating for war unless you are willing to go fight yourself.
Not hard to understand, pretty sure most folks get it.
Need it further explained?
Imagine how quickly these stupid, futile, imperialistic wars would end if those who cheered for them actually had to fight them...
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And followed by more sacred chants recited by rote, which communicate only that you like to make noise, and do not approve of something, and can imagine nothing more telling as a means to press your dislike than disparagement of persons disagreeing with you.
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Or keep making it more and more obvious you have nothing to say beyond 'neener neener neener'....
Fix The Stupid
(947 posts)Why not?
Please, no more evasions, just answer the question.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)That would be a charitable explanation, and one that might perhaps be remedied.
Here is how it works.
Someone will suggest a policy, let us say, having the older grand-children take the younger ones to the park.
Someone else will say, perhaps, that is a good idea, it will make it easier to get some housework done, and make for an easier bed-time.
Yet another someone might say, that is not such a good idea, the younger ones don't always want to come home when the older ones say, and you can hear it all the way down the block when that happens.
Now both of these are actual reasons for supporting or opposing the policy suggested, one pointing to an expected benefit, one to a possible difficulty. Further discussion might weigh whether getting the kitchen floor washed without a lot of chatter and bother about tracking over it to get juice is worth the possibility of complaints big brother is a meanie and the small sabotages that can follow. Suggestions for how these objections to either course might be minimized may be suggested, and thoughts about whether these could actually be made to work might be introduced, and considered, in deciding whether there is going to be such an expedition or not.
Now, if one of the older grand-children were to say hey, you think it's such a good idea, you take 'em to the park, that would not be considered part of discussing whether the older ones taking the younger ones to the park was a good idea. The best that could be said about it would be that it was off to one side of the discussing the merits of the matter. Discussion of whether the park expedition will come off would proceed as if it had not been said at all....
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Most particularly when it is spewed in favor of bloodshed and authoritarianism. You seem to display all of those traits in full bloom.
Your opinion means less than nothing.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)It will be hard, nothing so devastating has ever been inflicted on me, but, still....
"What people think of me is none of my damn business."
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)banging the drums for another war. And all it took was a leader you identify with, sucker. Pathetic.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Most here value The Magistrate's opinions and will continue to do so despite your proclamation.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)We have a whole lotta deep thinkers around here.....
IronGate
(2,186 posts)Much deeper thinkers than........
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)You just keep screaming about why we should support this military intervention. You're being played, sucker, just like before, and you're too f*king stupid to know it.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)
Sorry dude/dudette, actually been there, done that.
And I do support President Obama's goals to protect those people being slaughtered by these terrorists.
Aristus
(66,316 posts)Unlike Dub-yah, who offered as justification for the invasion of Iraq: "Don't fergit, this is th'guy that tried ta kill mah Daddy!"
potone
(1,701 posts)I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning, but I do think that we have a moral obligation to help them if we can. This is a clear case of a potential genocide, and if we can prevent it, we should. Obama was careful to state that we will not send in ground forces so this won't drag us back into a war. I hope that our efforts are successful. IS is a bunch of fanatical terrorists who will kill anyone, Yazidi, Christian, Shia and even Sunni, who does not submit to their brutal and tyrannical rule.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I have very low expectations because there are no good options.
The last good option was not to invade back in March of 2003. Once that was hosed, so were we and so was the region.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)"Politics is not the art of the possible: it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Doing nothing and letting ISIS kill and rape 40,000 people is uncivilized and barbaric.
We have probably chosen the least unpalatable among many options, many of which would be disastrous, per your metaphor.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)If they are so eager to see nothing done on their behalf....
"But that would be wrong...."
Akira Watts
(53 posts)Are the limited airstrikes going to be enough to accomplish much of anything? More to the point, is the goal to prevent genocide? To protect US forces in Kurdish territory? How much further do we need to go and, more importantly, will the resources and international support be there for further escalation?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Which option do you think is better?
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)in halting any advance. It also would produce a line in the sand so to speak.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Don't forget Poppa Bush, Clinton, Albright....
The US waged war on Iraq for 20+ solid years. The first Iraq War, followed by monthly/weekly bombing to enforce no fly zones for a decade, then Baby Bush's War.
It was inevitable that bloody chaos would follow the departure of US troops. It will be bloody chaos in Afghanistan once US troops leave there, too, whether it be next year or a decade from now.
I'm old enough to remember the Kurds on mountaintops fleeing Saddam's troops at the end of the first US War on Iraq, which led to the decade-long no fly zones. Now the Yezidis (a Kurdish minority religious group) are back on those same mountains. Deja vu all over again.
I do believe we've proven that US military force won't solve any problems in Iraq. Such a tragedy for the people of the region. I'm ashamed of my country's actions in Iraq; I wish our protest marches had been able to prevent 2 decades of war.
I agree with you, they are all bad options now. I support the humanitarian airdrops to the Yezidis, but I wish the US would just withdraw our people from Erbil rather than drops bombs to 'protect' them.
Such a bloody farce -- ISIS is driving US-made HumVees that the US left behind to 'help' the Iraqis.
All very bad options now.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)International law, and for good reason.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And the campaign from Baghdad against the Kurds long pre-dated the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
I would adjust that date up to 2003....
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The US did not just kick Iraq out of Kuwait. The US devestated the Iraqi military. There really was no reason for us to stick around afterward.
We had ten years to pull out of there. The Twin Towers would still be standing.
That said, it has nothing to do with the current situation. While 9/11 made it easy for W to go into Iraq, he really didn't need it. Anyone who thinks Americans don't love a jolly little war from time to time hasn't been paying much attention. They wanted this war and were going to get it come hell or high water.
Here in liberal Chicago the most common statement I heard in 2003 wasn't "this war is immoral" but rather "this war is stupid." Even the Republicans around here were saying that. Yes, Hussein is a monster. But he was our monster (sometimes). Everyone predicted this result.
For that matter, I believe that was the most common sentiment right here on DU at the time as well. The pacifist crowd saw us on their side, but don't seem to have paid attention to our reasons.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)There was no good reason for the 1991 war. It was never in the US interest to restore the emir of Kuwait to his solid gold throne.
And that war did create a humanitarian crisis in Kurdistan, just like today. Endless war to 'fix' problems caused by endless war.....
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Either you are against the war crime of an unprovoked war of aggression, or you aren't.
I am against them in all instances, for example:
a- Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait
b- the US 2003 invasion of Iraq
c- The 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea
Glossing over Iraq's 1990 war crime in order to try to make your point doesn't get you where you would like to be.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)These things are best thought of as recitations of a liturgy, or going along the stations of the cross on the road to salvation. If one is skipped, the believer feels a chill, apprehends that the thing is being done wrong, and fears it will not prove efficacious, or even open a chink for demons to penetrate and do all sorts of mischief.
So the recitation of the incubators must be performed. No exceptions. Part of the ritual.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)I don't see the US invading the Crimea to wrest it from Russia to hand to the neo-fascists in Kiev.
Obviously, nations make choices as to whether an invasion to counter an act of aggression is wise.
I don't believe the First Bush War on Iraq was a wise choice. 23 years after the fact, it is unlikely we will change each other's minds on this topic, so I suggest we agree to disagree.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Are you asking me if I supported Reagan's foreign policies? Surely you know the answer to that question without asking.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)The US did not invade Afghanistan to kick out the Russian Bear.
My point was simply that the US chooses when and where and how to respond to military aggression by a country against its neighbor on the other side of the world. Sorry if the point wasn't clear.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)President Obama makes all the tough decisions that have to be made. I have no sympathy for ISIS and the wholesale execution of prisoners.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)jump.
Being dubious as can be that our actions for long can be so limited, I continue to prefer get out and stay out, there are too many moving parts and too many opportunities to use the same rationale for continuing involvement, if this was not the desired outcome the why did we go in over there in the first place because this became destiny and we are wholly incapable of getting the toothpaste back in the tube now.
It is terrible but sometimes the bell cannot be unrung, I can only advise we stop funding and arming these same fucks in Syria so they collapse instead of shooting ourselves in the foot with our pissing contest with Putin there. I advised against destabilizing Lydia as well but we went ahead with our "mercy mission" there and have made matters much worse while further increasing radical elements and helped further nurture the wider hard line, violently theocratic movement in the region.
We do not know what to we are doing in the region, as far as I can tell to date we have royally screwed the pooch and have inflamed radicalism seemingly beyond our comprehension in a very broad fashion all over the middle east.
I'm sure there are ways to potentially fix the situation but because of a combination of our values, the interests and aspirations of our dominant ruling class, and finite resources we are not up to the task and that what actions we do take tend heavily toward being wasteful and counterproductive.
I don't make the calls so I can only hope for the best but to pretend it is unreasonable to expect the worst is flat out absurd in context of history.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And I agree we are a bit green behind the ears in for the Near East.
It is far from a fact, though, that the United States funded or armed the I.S.I.L. faction.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)operative difference and the borders we see are of little never mind to these groups.
There is no winning on semantics here, the angels are too crowded on the pen head to dance at all. We took stress off one of their fronts, at bare minimum. The hard headed and stupid actions in Libya set torch to another and set yahoos and villains on the march from that quarter too.
If we are not completely clueless and bumbling around then the only other option is devilish intents because nothing has transpired that should be surprise to anyone. May as well turn on the lawn sprinklers and then come out expressing shock that the grass is wet.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Is like someone saying, of Spain in '37, that aid to an Anarchist formation was aid to a Communist formation. Both opposed France, but were bitterly hostile to one another as well.
In Syria, we have given some aid to factions of the rebellion against Assad, and these factions we have supported have expressed hostility to the I.S.I.L., and in some cases fought pitched battles against it. That there has been black-market corruption, and occasions of defeat and even defection, does not alter this.
This is not a question of semantics, let alone scholastics in theological debate; it is placing a matter in its actual context with knowledge of parties and factors involved.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)What possible aid to regional stability would it be to topple Assad at this juncture? None, in fact way less than zero that is the context.
Iron Man
(183 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)All you have done is engaged in a ritual chant, without point or meaning.
Iron Man
(183 posts)If that makes me a ritual chanter, so be it.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)It is one of the more humorous conceits of poor debating that to personalize matters makes a point, so that to say 'easy to support something when you aren't there' is imagined as constituting a telling point, when of course it is nothing of the kind. People will necessarily have views on many things they do not personally experience, and to say 'well, this does not involve you, so what you think is not valid' established nothing about whether the view is correct or otherwise, reasonable or irrational, sound or stupid or frivolous.
If you have something to say about the policy, by all means, say it; put it to the test of public expression and the possibility of public refutation as well as popular support.
I considered it necessary to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in '91, opposed invading Iraq in '03, and support the policies regarding military action in Iraq announced by President Obama last night.
Iron Man
(183 posts)Most of us didn't support bombing Iraq in 2003. Now, many are supporting it.
I find that...interesting.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)"Enquiring minds want to know!"
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Most of us opposed that in 2003 because we did not want to have to this today. "This war is stupid" far outnumbered "this war is immoral" at DU back in 2003.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Game over.
Someone with self awareness would know when they are beat.
dilby
(2,273 posts)This has nothing to do with helping the people of Iraq. Thousands of people will die just so some guy can watch his stock portfolio increase by 1%.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)of those who support humnitarian aid for the benefit of their portfolio?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,233 posts) dilby
(2,273 posts)If Iraq gets taken by ISIS they loose all the money they have put in, if America steps in they continue to make money. America does not care if civilians are dying the government only cares if their backers are losing money.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/world/story/2011-12-28/foreign-business-quadruples-iraq-2011/52260544/1
Cha
(297,154 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
kjones
(1,053 posts)Or maybe I'm just paying more attention now.
My opinion on the matter (based on what I know, which is limited)
is that it is a reasonable response to a difficult situation. The risks
of inaction are pretty clear, and the commitment (and public
pressure) to keep actions limited is there - assuming you believe it.
If you don't, that's a different matter.
Nobody wants a war, and I can understand reticence to make even
minor moves after our habitual forays into the region, but I can't
really understand doing nothing.There are times for action.
I mean, (scale aside) what if we had said "You know, we were just
in Europe for WWI, maybe we should stay out of WWII." I suppose
Japan didn't give us much of a choice, but as I understand it, prior
to PH, we were sitting on inaction.
As you've said several times I've seen, what we've done in the past
shouldn't prevent us from doing good in the future. If people view it
as a way for the US to somehow gain back status or humanitarian
image, well, I don't think they are looking at it with a humanitarian
eye. You don't do right to gain praise or redeem past actions, you
do right because it's right.
Based on what I know, it seems like a case and a time to do right.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Thank you.
kjones
(1,053 posts)It usually leaves me thinking.
Tace
(6,800 posts)I don't agree with your sophistry. --Tace
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)... so glad he's only dropping those humanitarian bombs, you know, the ones the Israelis didn't want...
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)doesn't make it right.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Has a familiar ring to it, and I didn't agree last time I heard it but I guess I'm supposed to now.
ISIS came out of nowhere and we are told now is a huge threat to the region, maybe beyond.
It all comes across a bit scripted to me.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)They were one of the jihadi groups in the west of Iraq, dodging back and forth across the Syrian border, while we still occupied Iraq.
They became a rising faction in the fighting against Assad, with considerable backing from a Saudi prince and nabobs of the Gulf emirates.
Around the start of this year, various rebel factions in Syria began to fight against them, in part as a condition of aid from the U.S., and in part because, while their battlefield performance was useful indeed, they serious alienated the populace of areas under rebel control.
The group, in response, moved back across the border into Iraq, where the policies of Maliki in Baghdad over the last few years had wholly alienated the Sunni region. A good deal of the apparently explosive expansion was pre-arranged by co-operation with local tribal leadership and Sunni resistance groups active against the Baghdad government. The fact is, they have not got much beyond the area in which Sunni Arabs greatly predominate in Iraq.
I expect their turning north against the Kurds stems from two considerations. First, that Baghdad is likely to be a very tough nut to crack, and the Kurds are more isolated and have oil fields directly in reach, without having to battle through a good deal of Shia territory to get to the southern portion of the country; war requires funds, and these people do seem to like putting things on a paying basis. Second, they certainly have aspirations towards the Mediterranean coast, and when they move west to gratify them, the Kurds would be a standing menace to their rear if left unsubdued.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Somebody always knew for years that kid was gonna be a star....
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)
flvegan
(64,407 posts)TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Isn't it amazing that all it takes to get so many "progressives" to act just like neo-cons is a leader they love?
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)"Scorecards! Get'cher scorecards here! Can't tell the players without a scorecard!"
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)I heard it from someone claiming to be a Democrat so it must be true.
Suckers.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)Mere noise, without the slightest meaning conveyed, or the slightest comprehension of a situation displayed.
Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)It has risks but there are just not very many "bads" that seem worse than ISIS overrunning Kurdistan and having totally free reign in northern Iraq.
