Obama Enlists 9 Allies to Help in the Battle Against ISIS

[Deadbeat Republicans]

Source: New York Times

NEWPORT, Wales — President Obama escalated the American response to the marauding Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Friday, recruiting at least nine allies to help crush the organization and offering the outlines of a coordinated military strategy that echoes the war on terror developed by his predecessor, George W. Bush, more than a decade ago.

In his most expansive comments to date about how the United States and its friends could defeat ISIS, a once-obscure group of Sunni militants that has now upended the Middle East and overshadowed Al Qaeda, Mr. Obama said the effort would rely on American airstrikes against its leaders and positions, strengthen the moderate Syrian rebel groups to reclaim ground lost to ISIS, and enlist friendly governments in the region to join the fight.

While the president’s aides maintained that he has not yet decided to authorize airstrikes in Syria — which he has already done on a limited basis in Iraq — Mr. Obama likened his developing strategy on ISIS to the American effort against Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal regions, which has relied heavily on airstrikes.

Mr. Obama has been under enormous pressure to articulate a way to counter ISIS, which has proclaimed itself an Islamic caliphate that knows no borders and has demonstrated ruthless behavior, including the videotaped beheadings of two Americans. After creating a political tempest by saying last week that his administration lacked a strategy, Mr. Obama sought on Friday to portray himself as spearheading the effort.


Read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/06/world/middleeast/us-and-allies-form-coalition-against-isis.html?_r=0

[Turborama]

1. I can't get beyond the paywall to find out who the 9 are. Anyone...?

[GeorgeGist]

2. Here ...

Mr. Obama spoke after aides had unveiled what Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called the “core coalition” to fight the ISIS militants, the outcome of a hastily organized meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit talks. Diplomats and defense officials from the United States, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark huddled to devise a two-pronged strategy: strengthening allies on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while bombing Sunni militants from the air.

[Scuba]

3. So not a single mid-east country? I thought Saudi Arabia was supposed to be our ally?

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Turkey straddles that area and would fit as a ME entity

being Islamic and bordering several ME countries.... which is why their current and previous attempts to join the EU continue to be thwarted (as Europe is loathe to consider them "Europeans&quot . The fact that >70% of Turks are Sunni is notable since ISIL represents radical Sunnis.

The Saudis and Emirates are too fat, happy, and lazy, trying to cater to "westerners" to keep the $$$ flowing in.

[Gore1FL]

6. They are just getting started

The ones doing the ground work in this are going to be the surrounding countries. The first 9 listed are pretty reliable low-hanging fruit for the U.S. to bring on board.

[Scuba]

7. Source?

[Gore1FL]

8. It depends on what you want a source on. I made several statements.

Do you need a source for the claim they are just getting started, that the 9 are low hanging fruit, or that the surrounding countries are going to be on the ground?

For the claim "they are just getting started," I direct you to the calendar as a source. It's too early to be doing anything but just getting started.

For the claim "the 9 are low-hanging-fruit" the source is me an my observation of past action together and close diplomatic ties of the United States to Britain, France, Australia, Canada, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark.

For the claim "the surrounding countries are going to be on the ground," I refer you to the original article in the OP which reads: "huddled to devise a two-pronged strategy: strengthening allies on the ground in Iraq and Syria, while bombing Sunni militants from the air." emphasis mine.

[Scuba]

10. So the "just getting started" is your opinion. Got it.

[Gore1FL]

11. Yes. June to now is not a long time in my opinion.

Also, the stated goal is to have a broad coalition. these 9 are just the core.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/us-core-coalition-fight-isis-militants-iraq-nato

Why the obnoxious and confrontational tone?

[Scuba]

13. "Obnoxious" is your sense of what I wrote. It's confrontational because ...

... you asserted "they're just getting started" despite three months of work which came up with only the usual suspects. Glaringly omitted is Saudi Arabia and other gulf states threatened by ISIS.

Why defend this pathetic effort to gain a "broad coalition" of countries to wage more war against a whack-a-mole group that poses no threat to the US?

[Gore1FL]

14. Where did I defend it?

I am using observation and logic and provided to to answer questions posed. I am not part of the administration. I don;t make it's policy. You asked a question about what they were doing. I answered. If you didn't want answers, please don't ask them and put words or opinions into my mouth hen I answer them.

Please take whatever frustrations you have out on the whatever their source is rather than random internet personalities who bother to take the time to helpfully respond to your inquiries.

Have a nice day.

[Chan790]

41. How threatened are the people probably bankrolling IS really?

I don't trust the Saudis as far as I can throw a hippopotamus. Qatar only slightly more.

What gulf states are really threatened by IS? Iran? I think Tehran is more than capable of defending themselves against assholes in pickup trucks with decent but not exceptional ordinance.

[karynnj]

24. One source is the State Department briefing given by Marie Harf

MS. HARF: Well, with these countries, obviously we’re going to continue the conversation about how to do this. The Secretary and Secretary Hagel will have some onward travel. We haven’t announced the specifics yet. We’re still working through schedules, as you know happens often, to have conversations with other partners in the region about pulling together countries to build a coalition to take the fight to ISIL. We think it’s important to do this in a systematic, methodological way given the fact that we need to do this right. We are going to go after ISIS. We’ve already done it in Iraq, but we think that this deliberation allows us to do this in the right way. We think that’s important, so those conversations will continue.

QUESTION: Are you still – my colleague asked whether this is the core coalition. Are you trying to involve other countries around the world in it as well?

MS. HARF: Absolutely, and this is not just – I think people think of the word coalition as military, and certainly when you’re going after a terrorist organization, it’s not just military. There are financial tools, there are diplomatic tools, humanitarian tools we can use. We’re having conversations with countries around the world who can give any resources to help in this fight.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/09/231306.htm

Another point - Kerry and Hagel listed as a goal for the coalition, that is coming together, to have something to put before the UN in two weeks. Certainly that is engaging more countries.

Some reporter pushed the same "it's like 2003 nonsense" there as well. In fact, they were arguing Bush had a bigger coalition. This was a meeting on the sidelines of NATO - so, of course, the countries they were speaking with were our NATO allies.

A third point is to look at any (or all) the descriptions of what we are planning - it is essentially the world supporting the countries that are threatened, who are to be doing the basic on the ground fighting. Look at what has been done in Iraq to this point - which will likely be the pattern followed.

As to it being like Bush - I guess so, except that the fighting has been done (in Iraq) at the invitation of the country and in conjunction with them. In addition, Obama says, NO US boots on the ground. Not small differences - I think not.

In fact, What they seem to talking about - providing military support to countries impacted and using international intelligence, police work, looking at financing of terrorists, economic tool in addition to work with people in the region is .... far closer to the what John Kerry argued Bush should be doing. (Even George Will referred to that when intelligence prevented terrorists bombing planes out of London - I think in 2006.)

What is strange is that the media seems to be intentionally playing dumb. Ignoring that Obama has had some success on the first baby steps of this and is very visibly leading the rest of the world on this - marshaling most of his national security team and military advisers in the effort. The framework that was in the Kerry/Hagel statement augments Obama's speeches on this. Yet somehow, the NYT, the paper of record, thinks this is what Bush did in 2003!


(In fact, the closest thing I see to the early 2000s - is that I feel the same frustration I did when the media pretended not to understand when Kerry explained repeatedly that there was a version of the funding bill that paid for the wars by rolling back future tax cuts for the wealthy (which Kerry supported, but Bush said he would veto) and another, Bush's bill, that added it to the debt. Very normal Senate occurrence - that somehow most of the media found incomprehensible. )

My frustration now, is that Obama is trying to lead something that is difficult, delicate and very complicated. Look at Obama's comment which describes first limiting their space and what they can do - in large part by getting people in that region to defend themselves. This is NOT something like a McCain call to just bomb the country.

Think of what happens if this effort works. You have diverse people in the region cooperating against a dangerous force. Imagine they do this - and ISIS is largely eliminated. It could well be that the real longterm gain is not just eliminating AQ, but an area that has seen that they can cooperate and that that is better for them.

[RussBLib]

25. just imagining the outcry...

...if Obama were to act like Bush in these pictures.

[rpannier]

4. Not much of a list

Where are the Maldives, how about Mongolia, where's Samoa
You know... the alliance that dumbya built
There was an alliance that struck fear

[Chan790]

42. Well, I wouldn't f**k with the Mongols.

They did seize most of Eurasia at one point.

[cosmicone]

16. The usual "white ruled" colonialist-imperialist countries

and wannabes.

It would be nice to have some others taking leadership instead of the usual bullies who want to dominate the world over and over and over.

[EX500rider]

17. "the usual bullies who want to dominate the world"

Really?

Australia, Canada, Italy, Poland and Denmark bully and/or dominate who exactly?

[AnalystInParadise]

19. Of that list

Poland is the only country not bullying someone currently.

[EX500rider]

20. Who are Canada, Australia, Denmark & Italy "bullying"?

[AnalystInParadise]

22. Indigenous peoples

In Canada, Australia and Denmark (greenland) and Eritrea in the case of Italy.

[EX500rider]

23. "bullying" them or living alongside them are not the same thing.

And here's Eritrea wikki page, please point out the Italian bullying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea

[AnalystInParadise]

30. WOW

So you are stating that the governments of Canada, Denmark and Australia are not bullying their indigenous peoples? You are going to have some issues moving that argument forward on this site.

Wiki as a source, again not exactly the route you want to take around here.

[EX500rider]

32. WOW back at ya...having indigenous people and bullying same are not the same thing

Wiki mentions nothing about current Italy doing squat in east Africa...after 1941 the British expelled the Italians and took over the administration of the country. The British continued to administer the territory under a UN Mandate until 1951.

[EX500rider]

43. I am stating that Denmark isn't "bullying" squat.

In 1979, Denmark had granted home rule to Greenland, and in 2008, Greenlanders voted in favour of the Self-Government Act, which transferred more power from the Danish royal government to the local Greenlandic government. Under the new structure, in effect since 21 June 2009, Greenland can gradually assume responsibility for policing, judicial system, company law, accounting, and auditing; mineral resource activities; aviation; law of legal capacity, family law and succession law; aliens and border controls; the working environment; and financial regulation and supervision, while the Danish government retains control of foreign affairs and defense. It also retains control of monetary policy, providing an initial annual subsidy of DKK 3.4 billion, planned to diminish gradually over time as Greenland's economy is strengthened by increased income from the extraction of natural resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Oh the horror of home rule & self-governance!

(let me guess, wikki won't do but you have no sources yourself)

[cosmicone]

31. You didn't read my post fully I'm afraid

I also had a "wannabe" category there.

[EX500rider]

33. Denmark is wannabe bully? not

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. You can accept the 'Islamic State' taking leadership, if you want

They would be happy to dominate the world.

[AnalystInParadise]

18. So basically every country that sent ground troops to Iraq in 2003

minus France and Germany. Coalition of the Willing Part II?

[karynnj]

27. Except the reporter did a poor job in reporting that the State Department

already told them this was only the beginning - and in fact, they were speaking to many countries in the region and that other countries elsewhere in the world would be involved as well.

From the state department briefing:

MS. HARF: Well, with these countries, obviously we’re going to continue the conversation about how to do this. The Secretary and Secretary Hagel will have some onward travel. We haven’t announced the specifics yet. We’re still working through schedules, as you know happens often, to have conversations with other partners in the region about pulling together countries to build a coalition to take the fight to ISIL. We think it’s important to do this in a systematic, methodological way given the fact that we need to do this right. We are going to go after ISIS. We’ve already done it in Iraq, but we think that this deliberation allows us to do this in the right way. We think that’s important, so those conversations will continue.

QUESTION: Are you still – my colleague asked whether this is the core coalition. Are you trying to involve other countries around the world in it as well?

MS. HARF: Absolutely, and this is not just – I think people think of the word coalition as military, and certainly when you’re going after a terrorist organization, it’s not just military. There are financial tools, there are diplomatic tools, humanitarian tools we can use. We’re having conversations with countries around the world who can give any resources to help in this fight.


Not to mention, you can look at what the US is doing at this moment. They are working with the Kurds and Iraqis - who invited us to help. In fact, it is very likely the three biggest differences is that we will be working with, not invading countries , we will not use US ground troops, and the countries in the region will be at the heart of this strategy.

[former9thward]

35. No the countries in the region are not going to be at the heart of anything.

That is why they are not listed.

[karynnj]

39. They are not listed because they were not among the countries at the NATO summit

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Note that Kerry said that NONE of the western powers will have boots on the ground. What I meant by them being at the heart of this is that they are the countries that will be at the forefront - they are the countries surrounding ISIS and ultimately they are the ones who must prevent ISIS from returning and expanding again.

Note that several military people have said this is not something that can have an American military solution. They have also said that it could not be won by air power alone. Note that in Iraq, it has been their people fighting on the ground - not the European powers. Not to mention, according to the State Department, Kerry is speaking to many countries in the region, the coalition is in the process of being formed, and they plan to have it complete by the time Obama heads a UN session in about 2 weeks. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/06/world/meast/coalition-isis-us-partners/ )

How do you reconcile statements that it can not be won by air power alone and statements that no Western power will put boots on the ground?

[former9thward]

44. None of the Arab states will provide boots on the ground.

It would create instability at home. How do I reconcile those statements? I don't believe Kerry.

[karynnj]

46. Iraq, an Arab state already has

President Obama said the same things today - no US boots on the ground. He repeated it several times in the MTP talk show.

[former9thward]

48. Iraq is no longer a state.

ISIS controls a large amount of its territory. The Kurds are effectively independent. The Iraqi so-called army has fled whenever confronted by ISIS.

[karynnj]

49. How cavalier of you! I didn't know that we can declare states not states

Even accepting that ISIS controls one area and the Kurds are independent, there still is land they control. If you think this of Iraq, do you think the same of Syria, where ISIS similarly controls a large part of the country? Does it matter if the Arab League itself endorses the plan?

What exactly do you think the world (not just the US) should do here?

[former9thward]

50. The Arab League is all talk and no action.

Always has been. Yes, Syria will never be what it was before. Many experts have said that but believe what you will. The world --that being primarily the U.S. -- should but out. Almost all the world has already done that. We can do no good there. Let the people of the region determine their borders and their governments.

[rug]

47. There's Poland again.

[underpants]

9. HE created the "political tempest"?

[AngryAmish]

12. So they are willing to join the coalition?

We need a catchy name for that?

Any ideas?

[flamingdem]

26. Jihad

Not!

Must pronounce like a Valley Girl

[blm]

15. Smart, relentless diplomacy by Kerry/Biden/Obama = 'dithering' to GOP morons

and their moron stenographers in the Corporate media.

Kerry's quiet efforts in bringing Iran, Iraq and Syria to focus squarely on ISIS has received little coverage - - perhaps that is best, since GOP hawks and corpmedia always distort reality so LOUDLY that they usually manage to EFF something up. GOP congress would try to pass onerous sanctions right in the middle of negotiating process.

[karynnj]

29. Absolutely

They are, in fact, mostly blasting Kerry for having both gone out on his boat (they didn't get a picture of him on it, but it was out to sea) and kite boarding one day in Nantucket. All this while the world was still in chaos.

Personally, I think if the worst thing they can attack him for is taking a well deserved two week vacation, during which he did some work, quietly enjoying the lovely island where he and Teresa have a home, he is leading a very good life. It is beyond strange that they think people will think badly of a 70 year old guy having the physical fitness and skill to kiteboard.

[former9thward]

36. Kerry has zero influence with Iran and Syria.

"Assad must go." What's left of Iraq is simply trying to retain what little power they have and preserve their lives long enough to establish safe havens abroad.

[blm]

40. You haven't a clue what's been going on thanks to corporate media.

Don't blame you for NOT knowing what's been going on, but, you really do only hear as much as corporate media wants catapulted.

Anyone familiar with the Kerry's efforts behind the scenes know a whole different scenario has been forming, despite what corporate media wants to convey.

You are welcome to see events through the eyes of the DC villagers - I'll take a pass on that.

[former9thward]

45. And you of course are right on the scene.

Maybe you are Kerry's secretary posting on DU! It certainly is frustrating when no one knows the truth but you!

[babylonsister]

28. Iran 'backs US military contacts' to fight Islamic State

Sounds like possible cooperation to me...


Iran 'backs US military contacts' to fight Islamic State

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29079052


*****************************
https://twitter.com/camanpour/status/507869342625984512

Christiane AmanpourVerified account ?@camanpour

BBC reports Iran Supreme Leader approved cooperation w US against ISIS. Iraq Pres told me yday it’s already happening http://cnn.it/1uCfGHt

[freshwest]

34. That last link of Iran vs ISIS... Now McCain is going off on Iran again.

We know who John likes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025497859#post5

[babylonsister]

37. FUCK McSame. He bores me. nt

[freshwest]

38. He's an international terrorist, if you ask me~