home

U.S. Airstrikes On ISIS

The U.S. launched airstrikes against ISIS today outside Irbil (Erbil.) Here's a bigger version of the map above from the Washington Post.

Obama is holding firm for now that no ground troops will return to Iraq.

“I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.” [More...]

How will ISIS respond? It has always said the U.S. is not on its target list, unless it uses military force against ISIS. Surely, it planned for this contingency. Now that the U.S. has directly attacked ISIS, will ISIS retaliation be taken against U.S. interests in the Middle East, or will they use their foreign supporters to engage in suicide missions inside the U.S.? I have no idea, but a direct strike on ISIS may be a game-changer.

Developing.... I will update with reactions from ISIS, its supporters,and journalists in the area.

AP videophotographer Bram Janssen who was 100 meters from the strike is providing an account of events on Twitter.

< ISIS Slaughters Detained al Sha'etat Tribe Members | Oscar Pistorius: Closing Arguments End, Ruling 9/11 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I would put the possibility (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    of Islamic terrorists taking over this country between the odds of extremely slim to none.  

    We've got a bigger military than the rest of the world combined, what are they going to do, come here on flying carpets and bomb us with IEDs?

    LOL!


    That is just so nonsensical it is funny (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    Again, you make things up.

    I haven't claimed they will take over the country.

    How about they sneak in a nuke and level NYC??

    Would that harm us???

    Parent

    That's very unlikely (none / 0) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:35:42 AM EST
    and just another bit of fear-mongering.

    Parent
    The Iranians, being Shiite (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    won't give them a bomb.

    The only other country that might would be Pakistan, and all that would do is to guarantee that Islamabad would become the new Hiroshima.

    Building a nuclear bomb requires a terribly complex technology to create and set off, and it's unlikely that any country with such a capacity would let its weapons get into the hands of AQ and ISIS.

    Those are just the facts.  If you don't like them, there is nothing I can do about that.

    Parent

    So your standard is "unlikely?" (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    And "might?"

    And when that happened we would do what, turn Islamabad into a new Hiroshima??

    Well, I'm sure that would a comfort to the million or so of our citizens who would be dead.

    You know, your position would be laughable if it didn't insure the deaths of millions of Americans, and others.

    "unlikely?"

    "might?"

    Despicable.

    Parent

    I'm not going to repeat myself, James. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    For the second and final time:

    Where is the bomb going to come from? You don't dispute that Pakistan is the only country it could come from, correct?

    Second, why would the Pakistanis give a nuclear weapon to a bunch that even AQ distance themselves from?  Why would they think that NYC would be worth having Islamabad taken out?  Heck, in that scenario, the Indians would probably be the ones to lob one into Islamabad before we do, and it certainly wouldn't be the only city they would target.  They might decide to strike some of the population centers in the northwestern area where the AQ types are active as well.

    Please respond without references to personal traits or other insults, as per the request of the site owner who doesn't want to waste bandwidth on tired snarks and failed witticisms between any commentators here.

    Thanks again for the response.

    Parent

    Uh, have you heard of Iran??? (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:24:26 PM EST
    Do you think that Iran wouldn't give a nuke to a terrorist group to use against the US??

    You write the standard stuff from the Left. They "might."

    Of course "might" became "did" for the USS Cole and 9/11.

    And if how I find your attitude in this matter offends you I can only say that I would be less than truthful if I claimed otherwise.

    We now come to the nexus of this.

    Bush acted out of a desire to protect the country after seeing it demonstrated that the Muslim radicals would and could attack.

    He based this on the best information he could obtain from the world's intelligence agencies.

    Whether or not the agencies were correct is still not known. The number 2 man in Sadam's air force says the weapons went to Syria. And while we don't know we do know that Syria has used various chemical weapons. Where they come from we do not know although it is doubtful that Israel would have let Syria have a production facility.

    And to be fair, the UN inspectors said that they found no WMD's. Now notice that statement.

    They found no WMD's.

    That doesn't mean he didn't have them. Just as a "Not guilty" verdict doesn't mean a person is innocent.

    What the inspectors also said, in great detail here is that Saddam was planning and trying to get back into the production of WMD's and that he had rockets that exceeded the agreement he had with the UN.

    And I hope you don't feel insulted when I say that I find you to be an isolationist with a great deal of pacifistic content. Both are recognized political positions.

    As for me, I am a social liberal of the hard left type. I strive to be a realist in national defense and when some group says they are going to attack us I believe them. Our leaders didn't pay attention to the weapons terrorists can use in asymmetrical warfare and the terrorist used airlines filled with jet fuel to inflict a devastating attack on us on 9/11.

     

    Parent

    Iran. They're majority Shiite (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    Do you think that Iran wouldn't give a nuke to a terrorist group to use against the US??

    Being so close to nuclear-armed Israel, and small enough to be obliterated by the American arsenal, what would be the upside of them doing so?

    He based this on the best information he could obtain from the world's intelligence agencies.

    Wrong.  Unless you're not counting the Russians, the French, and the Germans, who warned us about Curveball.  I won't post the links, a perusal using Google will demonstrate the truth of my statement.

    Whether or not the agencies were correct is still not known. The number 2 man in Sadam's air force says the weapons went to Syria.

    And our satellite assets didn't detect that movement because?

    Also:

    I'm gonna forego comment on this one for now.

    You've also forgone a few key parts of the story.

        quote:Mr. Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops.

    He had nothing to do with the supposed transfer - some of his buddies told him.

        quote:"I know them very well. They are very good friends of mine. We trust each other. We are friends as pilots," Mr. Sada said of the two pilots. He declined to disclose their names, saying they are concerned for their safety.

    Anonymous buddies, even. Wouldn't the DoD want a chat with them ?

        quote:The pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel."

    It gets better. These buddies saw "materials" being loaded, including "barrels with skulls and crossbones". Last time I checked, there are quite a few non-WMD materials that carry said sticker.

    To recap, someone told a guy who's writing a book that something was put on a plane to Syria. And we should believe it, despite any physical evidence, because the author's former hostage says so.

    What the inspectors also said, in great detail here is that Saddam was planning and trying to get back into the production of WMD's and that he had rockets that exceeded the agreement he had with the UN.

    Yeah, I remember the centrifuge in the roses.  And trying isn't the same as actually doing, since there's no evidence that he actually produced anything.  No machinery, no people who made the stuff for him, no evidence that he went beyond the planning stage.

    And I hope you don't feel insulted when I say that I find you to be an isolationist with a great deal of pacifistic content. Both are recognized political positions.

    No, because there was nothing in what I wrote to indicate that those are my positions, unless you think that someone who believes not hitting a hornets' nest with a bat means they're a card-carrying member of PETA.

    Parent

    Because?? (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    And our satellite assets didn't detect that movement because?

    Who knows? Were they positioned to look??

    And you protest too much.

    But it makes no difference. Saddam was bent on getting into the WMD business as Kay reported. The question is, why should you be so angered that Bush nipped the problem in the bud?

    As Kay said:

    Kay clearly admires Bush, and believes he went to war in Iraq in good faith because he thought Baghdad was a threat to the American people.

    Link

    Parent

    Practically the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:08:12 PM EST
    But it makes no difference. Saddam was bent on getting into the WMD business as Kay reported.

    Yeah - a desire to establish WMD programs is the same thing as actually having WMDs.

    Heh.

    The question is, why should you be so angered that Bush nipped the problem in the bud?

    Oh, I don't know .... Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, thousands of American servicemen (you know - those who served in combat) killed and maimed, trillions of dollars wasted.

    Yeah ... why should anyone be angry about that?!?

    Parent

    BTW and since you asked: (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    Kay also raised the possibility -- one he first discussed in a weekend interview with "The Sunday Telegraph" of London -- that clues about banned weapons programs might reside across Iraq's western border.

    "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

    But, he said, "the Syrian government there has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue."

    Link

    Parent

    Who knows (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:26:36 PM EST

    Who knows? Were they positioned to look??

    And you protest too much.

    Yes, I suppose that GWB wouldn't have bothered to check for that one.

    "You protest too much."

    Is that going to go on my permanent record that will follow me the rest of my life?

    Fortunately, you don't get to determine who does and doesn't protest too much on this blog.

    "There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved," Kay said.

    First you state that you don't know if there were satellite photos taken, then you quote Kay as saying there are some in existence showing stuff moving across the border.

    Now, if you want to parse things and say that there are probably no satellite photos that specifically show WMD being shipped to Syria, then we are in agreement on this little side issue.

    Even if we accept the premise that Saddam had WMD, despite no evidence of their construction/manufacture or people around who made them,

    and then

    accept the further premise that they were shipped to Syria, because the one thing we know about Middle Eastern despots is how much they trust each other, kinda like handing your neighbor "Fred the Terrible" your bazooka launcher so that the cops can't find it when they raid your house

    and then

    accept the further premise that having been given WMD, Assad would somehow have a lapse of judgement or otherwise let them fall into the hands of the ISIS

    and then

    the ISIS somehow getting a hold of them, they will have no trouble getting them to NYC, despite having no significant trans-oceanic air force, navy, or other way to get it there, unless you believe they have a secret force of winged camels at their disposal to fly it over there.

    Uh-huh.

    Parent

    You again claim I said things I did not (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    First you state that you don't know if there were satellite photos taken, then you quote Kay as saying there are some in existence showing stuff moving across the border.

    There's a rather obvious reason I first stated I didn't know.

    I didn't. I found Kay's information later.

    Even if we accept the premise that Saddam had WMD, despite no evidence of their construction/manufacture or people around who made them,

    There is no disagreement that Saddam had WMD's in the past. There is confirmed evidence that he used it to kill his own people.

    And then we have this:

    Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

    Link

    Let me see.... I have nothing to hide but I'll give you two million to doctor your report.....

    accept the further premise that they were shipped to Syria, because the one thing we know about Middle Eastern despots is how much they trust each other,

    I see that you continue to deny that enemies will unite against a common foe which I find totally illogical. Plus, was Syria a foe of Iraq?

    The Assad government has described itself as secular,

    snip

    Bashar al-Assad has been described as even more secular than his father, Hafez al Assad. This includes minimal references to religion in public speeches and minimal public association with religious figures

    snip

    ... accuse Assad of providing practical support to militant groups active against Israel and against opposition political groups. The latter category would include most political parties other than Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad

    Link

    Hezabollah is Shitte. Hamas is Sunni. Islamic Jihad Shitte.

    Saddam was a Sunni. 74% of the Syrian population is Sunni.

    So your point is totally rebutted.

    accept the further premise that having been given WMD, Assad would somehow have a lapse of judgement or otherwise let them fall into the hands of the ISIS

    Again you write something I did not write. I wrote:

    The number 2 man in Sadam's air force says the weapons went to Syria. And while we don't know we do know that Syria has used various chemical weapons.

    The point being, where did they come from?? As I wrote:

    Where they come from we do not know although it is doubtful that Israel would have let Syria have a production facility.

    Could ISIS seize some of these? Of course. Do I say they have? No.

    And....

    unless you believe they have a secret force of winged camels at their disposal to fly it over there.

    Again we have a slur despite Jeralyn's comment to cease.

    Now, what do I believe?? I believe that ISIS, if allowed to establish itself, will have the capability to obtain a nuclear or biological weapons from some source and will use them to attack the US and Europe.

    This will happen in the future. Perhaps as soon as within 10 years if we take no action.

    Parent

    Excuses, excuses (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:46:11 AM EST

    There's a rather obvious reason I first stated I didn't know.

    I didn't. I found Kay's information later.

    Perhaps you should have all your ducks in a row before commenting here in the future.

    According to you, I protest too much, so I'll just say that your reasoning is specious, your sources are suspect, and your attitude very patronizing towards everyone who is slightly to the left of you.

    This is your brain on Fox News.

    Any questions?

    Parent

    Unlikely and Likely (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:59:16 AM EST
    You are FOS...  But your thinking is consistent. Better safe than sorry, right?

    Supporting McCarthy just in the unlikely case that Commies were everywhere.

    Supporting McCain to bomb Iran just in the unlikely case they were planning to Nuke Israel and the rest of the non muslim world.

    Supporting BushCo to take over Iraq and remove Saddam in the unlikely case Saddam had WMD's.

    BUT denying Global Warming even though it is likely to cause catastrophic damage to our costal cities...  oops...  a ppj brain fart aka the wingnut echo chamber.

    Parent

    MMGW, or the lack of it (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    is a matter of science.

    Not politics.

    But, if you want to discuss consensus in this matter I remind you that the Senate vote was 99 to 1.

    Parent

    Oh Good (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    At least your are being honest for once.

    When you talk of the likelihood of ISIS attacking the US you are talking politics.

    As if we did not know.

    Parent

    ISIS is going to get their bomb (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    from the Shiite Muslims Iranians, in a rare display of Shia-Sunni unity against the Infidel West.

    Parent
    I see that you have never heard of (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    "An enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    Parent
    Twisted Logic (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    By your own twisted logic, that would make Iran a friend of yours.

    Parent
    Nice try, squeaky but (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:23:32 PM EST
    you can't reframe the argument.

    You should read Sun Tzu.

    Parent

    Read It (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:28:35 PM EST
    Would you like some quotes?

    Certainly Sun Tzu would not attack Saddam because he thought he was going to get some special weapon. It is a taoist text, and slaughtering millions on an imagined pretext is 180º from anything in the art of war.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:40:43 PM EST
    An enemy of my enemy is my friend

    Is one of most quoted statements ever made.

    Why?? Because it is true.

    How about?

    "Politics make strange bedfellows."

    Says the same thing.

    When you depend on your enemy to not help your enemy you are just asking for trouble.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:51:40 PM EST
    So you and Iran are strange bedfellows, no?

    Parent
    US is Reaching out to Iran (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    Washington and Tehran have started using the same language. President Obama, in his remarks on the South Lawn of the White House on Friday, said, "Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq, and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq descend into chaos." An hour later, Iran's Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, told me, by telephone, from Tehran, "It is in the interest of everybody to stabilize the government of Iraq. If the U.S. has come to realize that these groups pose a threat to the security of the region, and if the U.S. truly wants to fight terrorism and extremism, then it's a common global cause."

    Iran and the U.S.: The Enemy of My Enemy

    Parent

    Except that Sunni extremists like (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:45:24 PM EST
    ISIS hate the Shia as heretics of Islam.

    Which in their eyes is worse than being a Christian dog/infidel as they would term someone like you.

    Got any other trite cliches to trot out today? I dunno about anyone else around here, but they don't contribute much to the discussion.

    Parent

    Actually, the enemy of my enemy... (none / 0) (#142)
    by unitron on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:11:53 PM EST
    ...may prove useful, but I'm still gonna watch 'em like a hawk.

    Parent
    Jim, Mordigan and others (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 12:08:47 AM EST
    Stop the insults and name calling or you will both be in timeout. I've cleaned the thread.

    Okay I'll do my part. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:18:05 AM EST
    Here we go again (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Slado on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 01:26:57 PM EST
    First Bush Broke it.

    Then Obama abandoned it.

    Now we are back trying to keep at least the Kurds from being over run by ISIS.

    Anyone doubt that this is going to get worse before it gets better.

    Reviewing the statements of this and the last administration including MISSION ACCOMPLISHED and Biden being optimistic one can be sure this will not end well.

    Let's not forget how well our intervention in Libya turned out..

    I simply have zero confidence in this administration to handle this properly.   I feel like he's being dragged kicking and screaming into this and will not do enough to affect a positive outcome.    That said it's an awful situation and there is plenty of blame to go around but why should we trust Obama at this point?  


    Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:25:09 PM EST
    There have been people screaming at him to DO SOMETHING!!! and they bashed him right up the point where he DID SOMETHING!!! and now he's being bashed because he did.  

    After the sh!tshow that Benghazi has become, it would be a sh!tSTORM if our people in Iraq are killed or captured.  Oh, but it was Obama who sent the military advisors in, so isn't it his fault we have to protect them now?  

    Like I said: damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

    So, who DO you trust?  Who is qualified to do what noone has been able to do in this region, apparently ever?

    Come on - tell us who's going to do or not do or pivot to some other plan or stand pat, or stand on one leg and hold his or her breath while patting his tummy and rubbing his head so it will be all better and stuff?

    Yes, Bush broke it - he broke it to the trillions-of-dollars, thousands-of-lives level.  Not with good intentions or a good heart, but with lie upon lie upon lie.  While he was into breaking, he broke the economy, and all the service members broken in Iraq ran into a broken veteran's administration that his ilk didn't want to fully fund, even while they were handing out gazillion-dollar contracts to the private sector.  He used the crazy fear of 9/11 to break the Constitution and trillions more dollars went up in the smoke of the national security state.

    In the middle of this circus parade, the elephants let loose with a tsunami of sh!t that they knew they would never allow a Democratic administration to fix, because what would be the fun in that?  They've taken like 472 different positions on the same issues - sometimes in the same day - to keep anything and everything from, you know, actually working.

    Republicans don't want it to work.  Period.

    I may not always agree with Obama, but I know one thing: there's no Republican who's going to do better.  And you know that, too.

    So, really, for your sake and ours, please take this complimentary mug of STFU.  It's super delicious, I promise.  Really.  

    Parent

    Who (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:16:01 PM EST
    is damning Obama for not "doing something", and who is damning Obama for "doing something"?

    My impression is that the damning for not doing something is coming from right wing folks like McCain.

    The damning, or criticism, aimed at the president for doing something is likely to come from someone like me - someone identifying with the remnants of leftist politics.

    Personally, I am not interested in those who, like McCain, are always calling for bombs and military intervention. If Obama pays attention to those people, then he loses me as a supporter.

    Now, I'll take that suggested STFU mug you offered.

    Parent

    The answer to your question is in the (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    fact that I directly replied to Slado, who represents the damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't attitude to which I referred.

    Please understand that I do not want more war.  

    That being said, I don't know what the answer is to achieving something that no one has been able to achieve in decades.  What would you have Obama do?  Should he just pull everyone out of Iraq once and for all?  If he's going to keep advisors and some military there, shouldn't he provide them with some protection/support?  Do we need another Benghazi?

    One thing I do know - as I said - is that Republicans aren't going to fix this.  The politicians are just going to talk about it, posture for the cameras, talk big and bitch, bitch, bitch.  If Obama says "X," they'll say "27."  And they'll do it all day and all night, and the media will just clap its hands and give Graham and McCain and the rest of the chickenhawks so much airtime they'll be sleeping in their makeup.  I know many of them are fairly giddy at the possibility of diving back into this thing - as are the usual former-military-now-working-for-defense-contractor types.  Yep, there's money to be made, and that always gets them jazzed up.  It's disgusting.  All of it.

    There are a lot of smart people whose intelligence and talents could be brought to bear on this - and many other - problems, but for the fact that very few of them are working in the best interests of the country anymore - they're working for their own interests.

    I'm not exactly an Obama cheerleader, as you know, and I'm not convinced that whatever it is Obama's doing, or where it's going to go, is the right thing - I'm more than a little skeptical and nervous about it.  We're all mostly in a position of only being able to opine after the decisions are made, and without benefit of most of the information that went into making those decisions.

    I hope they turn out to be the right decisions, but honestly, my hope and the $5 I spent on lottery tickets are probably going to get me the same thing: nothing.

    We'll see.


    Parent

    Damned. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:48:20 AM EST
    One thing I do know - as I said - is that Republicans aren't going to fix this.  The politicians are just going to talk about it, posture for the cameras, talk big and bitch, bitch, bitch.

    Honestly, I don't know that bitching isn't better than bombing.

    One can speculate that if McCain were actually in power, he might do what Obama is doing, or more, or worse. But he isn't, so we have to evaluate the actions of the incumbent.

    When Obama says that we have a "strategic interest in pushing back ISIS", (without clearly explaining what that "interest" might be - is he talking about defending embassy employees?) it just sounds like the same gibberish I have been hearing from successive administrations - both republican and democrat.

    When Obama says that the USA would not become the Iraqi air force at the same moment that he is doing exactly that, my eyeballs spin in the same way they have for successive administrations.

    >I'm not exactly an Obama cheerleader, as you know, and I'm not convinced that whatever it is Obama's doing, or where it's going to go, is the right thing - I'm more than a little skeptical and nervous about it.  We're all mostly in a position of only being able to opine after the decisions are made, and without benefit of most of the information that went into making those decisions

    Yes. Once again we are without the benefit of most of the information (or corporate pressure) that went into these decisions. Transparency? Democracy? Don't think so.

    I too am skeptical and nervous. I think he is making a new and powerful and sneaky and ruthless enemy for us. And why? Obama didn't speak of the human toll of the rages of ISIS - just about our strategic interest in propping up an apparently unpopular Iraqi government.

    I hope they turn out to be the right decisions, but honestly, my hope and the $5 I spent on lottery tickets are probably going to get me the same thing: nothing.

    I don't know about right decisions. I don't think that this administration is capable of that. It is too immersed in the same old bubble which is itself immersed in a corrupt media, an enfeebled democracy and unleashed and unbridled corporate power and control over both political parties.

    But - Anne - I sincerely hope you win the lottery and am sending you my best wishes.

    Parent

    Various people and organizations (none / 0) (#33)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 08:52:31 PM EST
    are criticizing Obama for not acting sooner and not doing more. It's not just right wingers. The Washington Post has a new editorial saying that Obama needs to do more to help everyone resist ISIS, including Iraqis and some groups in Syria, and saying Obama should have a coherent and comprehensive strategy. Sorry, I still haven't learned to link properly (altho I have printed copies of the instructions from some of you with me). Flip phone user.

    Parent
    Yes, Bush broke it. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    And, Obama repaired it--to the extent feasible.   Like a crystal vase left in smithereens, the job is more an imperfect clean-up than a perfect restoration.  If Bush's shock and awe was not enough, the amateur hour of the Coalition Provisional Authority paved the way for the civil war to follow.

    The US lost the war in 2003, or if you want to give Bush some slack, 2004.  But, the die was cast, at best an artificial lid could be temporarily kept on the eruption of Iraq.  And, Bush seemed to finally recognize it, hoping to end his terms of office a step ahead of what was coming.  It was mission accomplished for him, and good luck to the next guy.  

    President Obama,  if he is to be faulted, took too long to exit, not too soon.  But, exit he did (Maliki helped with his stance on US forces staying longer).  

    So, if there is plenty of "blame to go around", I would agree,  with the understanding that it would be inaccurate to ladle it out in equal dollops.   In 2011, the Iraq intervention was of one piece--the presidential disaster that got us into Iraq and the presidential achievement of getting us out.

    But, now, President Obama is in the position of initiating a new, or reversal of,  policy in Iraq that will be his to cherish (or not)-a humanitarian effort and protection of American assets and personnel with air drops and limited air strikes.

    Or, something else, something more.  Humanitarian has a universally good ring, and was used for Libyan intervention.    And, protecting assets and personnel is good, too--if they must be there.  After nine years of war and occupation in Iraq, with great US air power, US military on the ground, and $trillions spent, we failed to resolve the issues faced today.  

    Why will limited air strikes turn things around now?    Perhaps, the air strikes will help the morale of Kurds who seem to be dependent warriors.  Maybe, ISIS can be bombed back into a guerrilla group from its conventional army--probably the quickest and most mysterious transformation in the middle east.  

    Or, more likely, it will be a slippery slope, with the sled being pressured by the Miss Lindsey's and McCains of the nation.    There are already ground troops, such as those special forces, so the issue is will we add more?  We are ready to go,  no Congressional authorization needed--AUMF is still handy, and even without it, the Republicans will hold the President's coat.  And, the coats of our military.

    Parent

    And, Obama repaired it--to the extent feasible. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    No he did not.

    With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That's not true," Obama interjected. "Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Romney asked as an argument ensued. "No," Obama said. "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."

    Washington Post

    And that's the sticking point. He had no idea as to what could possibly happen. Or, he didn't care.
    Maybe both.

    Bash Bush all you want but the fact is that Obama screwed the pooch and didn't get a SOF and didn't leave troops.

    And since we were there and in charge he could have.

    All of this blood is on his hands... up to his elbows.....

    Parent

    Your take (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:54:33 PM EST
    is singularly obtuse.

    Parent
    My take is what Obama said (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    and what Obama didn't do.

    Parent
    It wasn't Obama ... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:02:57 PM EST
    ... that wouldn't sign a new SOFA.  It was the Iraqi government under pressure from its citizens that refused to sign a new SOFA.  Without a new SOFA, we had to abide by the terms of withdrawal set by your boy, GW Bush.

    Facts are inconvenient things, aren't hey?

    Parent

    Fact is that we conquered Iraq (1.00 / 4) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    and then Obama,if I believe you, caved into what the conquered wanted.

    lol

    But how typical of a Leftie. He gave away our victory despite the advice of his senior military thus making the sacrifice of every person who died worthless. Did Obama really believe that you can reform a feudal system in a few years??????

    It's as if MacArthur presented Japan's new constitution to the Japanese, who didn't like it, just threw it away and Truman pulled the troops out.

    Stupid does not even begin to describe Obama's actions. Venal comes close, except his corruption is by an ideology.

    Parent

    Those aren't "facts" (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:31:53 PM EST
    Merely silly, rightwing talking points ... as usual.

    Parent
    Interesting analogy -here is where it fails (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 07:49:42 AM EST
    There wasn't an organized insurgency in Japan after we defeated Japan. Please identify a similar point in time after Little Boots "conquered Iraq" where there was no organized insurgency. How long did this period last? 5 minutes, 5 hours? 5 days? Do tell.

    Given that "post war" Iraq is in no way comparable to post war Japan, how long should we occupy Iraq? At what cost?

    I don't really expect you to give a sensible rational answer. As Yman said, I expect right wing talking points. As Anne said, I expect you to posture, talk big and bitch, bitch, bitch.

    The right in this country are good at complaining, playing the victim card, reciting Dolchstoßlegende, and obstruction, but you guys are not good at governing (maybe because you hate government and don't believe in it), nor are you are good at finding solutions.

    Little Boots created the mess in Iraq with your cheerleading. But for you, the current situation would not exist. The blood is on your hands. You are the one crying "out out damned spot", by frantically pointing fingers at anyone but Little Boots and his cheerleaders.


    Parent

    Yes, MacArthur had opposition (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    among the Japanese population but not organized.

    Your other claims are specious.

    But if being for our troops in foreign lands is a crime I plead guilty.

    And if you had actually been paying attention you would know that I opposed "nation building" as done by Bush. We had two excellent examples, Japan and Germany, on how to do it.

    I won't requote what Obama said to Romney. You read it and know it is the truth. You elected a man with no knowledge of US history and no experience beyond trying to bluff slum lords.

    The world leaders, good and bad, have proven much tougher. The widely circulated photo of Obama bowing to a Muslim prince during his "apology tour" set the tone.

    And while you can continue to blame Bush the country is starting to notice that Obama has been around 6 plus years.

    The ME is in flames and it his fault.

    Parent

    Really (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    How is post war Iraq like post war japan?

    How long should we stay? At what cost?

    You were not in favor of the Iraq invasion? Really?

    Parent

    No Molly, I didn't say that I was not (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 01:42:34 PM EST
    in favor of the invasion. Do you read before you write??

    How long should we have stayed?

    Hard to say. Perhaps another 5 years.

    But we should not have just pulled out. That, of course, is now obvious to all Obama lovers.

    Japan was a mess. MacArthur handled it brilliantly. All of Japan's culture was anti-democratic and women had no rights. Very similar to Iraq.  

    Parent

    To sum up (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 02:42:38 PM EST
     You favored the invasion but take no responsibility for the consequences. Good to know.

    Japan was similar to Iraq except for that messy insurgent thing- maybe you should think before you post?

    You have no idea how longer should  stay , but are certain we. should. Cost neither in lives or treasure apparently is not not an issue for you.

    In short you bitch and posture but have no solution. Nonetheless you  are certain it's Obama's fault.

    I think you just validated my original post

    Parent

    Molly, you again make things up (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    The surge concluded the war. And yes, Bush made several mistakes but corrected them.

    I noted 5 years. As for cost, we are in a religious war in which the other Muslims in other countries are watching. Determination is important. If we cut and run, which we did, we tell them that they should not see us as allies.

    My solution?? Good grief. My solution would have been to keep enough military in place to keep the country stable. Obama unwisely chose to not do so.

    My solution now is to stop ISIS in its tracks via what ever military means necessary.

    Parent

    MacArthur was relieved of his duty (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    by President Truman after he started spouting nonsense about strategy in the Korean War greatly upsetting the Jims of that time. Oops, Jim! Bad example!
    link

    Parent
    Obama and his administration put in (none / 0) (#35)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    only half-hearted effort to get the agreement. Maliki told several US congressman, at the time and in person, that he would sign the agreement. He wanted more specific information on troop numbers from the US, which he says he never received. There are a number of people who were involved at the time that have said the recent excuse, now repeated by you, that came out of the White House was BS. Given what Jim keeps posting about what Obama said about keeping troops in Iraq--he emphatically said during the last campaign that he didn't want to--do you really think Obama and his administration put in a strong effort? While a different time, the requisite agreement was quickly negotiated 6 or 8 weeks ago. Obama ran on getting out of Iraq, and he did so. However, he didn't realize that that would cause the loss of many of the terrific gains and results of the last years of Bush and first year or so of Obama, and would contribute significantly to the current mess in Iraq (both politically and militarily). Now Obama is having to come back to Iraq to help counter a new situation, that his earlier decisions are partially responsible for.

    Parent
    Don't know, don't care (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:04:34 PM EST
    Moreover, I could care less what unsupported claims Maliki is making after-the-fact, or what claims are being made by "several (Republican) US Congressmen" (aka McCain and Graham).  I prefer facts to speculation and conjecture.

    Fact - Bush negotiated the SOFA agreement and withdrawal schedule.
    Fact - Obama was under no obligation to negotiate a new SOFA, whether you think he put in a "strong effort or not"
    Fact - A new SOFA required the consent of the Iraqi parliament
    Fact - Extending the withdrawal deadline was extremely unpopular among the Iraqi people and (consequently) the Iraqi politicians.
    Fact - The Iraqis would not grant immunity from local prosecution to US troops.
    Fact - In the absence of a new SOFA - for whatever reason - we were required to withdraw from Iraq under the agreement signed by Bush.

    Parent

    Don't know seems to describe your view (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:07:15 PM EST
    accurately. Yes, Bush negotiated the agreement. His secretary of defense said at the time that they planned to leave a small contingent of 10,000 - 20,000 troops in Iraq. Can't recall the exact amount. Obama was under no obligation, but he was the president of the US and responsible for foreign affairs and doing what's best for our country and its security. The Iraqis did not sign a new agreement, but, again, Obama didn't try hard, and it is a fact that US Congressman have said Maliki told them personally that he would sign the agreement. Please stop ignoring facts. The US wasn't required to withdraw without a SOFA, I don't believe. but it would be imprudent to stay without a SOFA. Now, Obama is having to take action to clean up a growing mess that he allowed to occur. Get used to it. The US is probably going to have to take significant action in Iraq, and maybe even Syria, to counter what Obama allow to occur in the last several years.

    Parent
    And yours, too (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:13:16 AM EST
    Your position is based on a combination of your own characterization of statements from two Republican opponents of Obama and Maliki, not facts - combined with your own speculation and sheer conjecture about how hard you feel Obama pursued a new SOFA.  Followed by this, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the facts:

    Please stop ignoring facts. The US wasn't required to withdraw without a SOFA, I don't believe. but it would be imprudent to stay without a SOFA.

    Uhhhmmmm, yes ... the US was required to withdraw without a new SOFA, whether you believe it or not.  It was widely reported at the time and was very clearly defined in the agreement.  It provide that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011:


    All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

    All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009.

    Barring a new SOFA - which (Maliki's claim notwithstanding) the Iraqis were not going to provide -  we were legally bound to withdraw from Iraq under the agreement signed by Bush.  If you have a problem with that fact, you should let him know.


    Parent

    BTW - Why do you always do that? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    You always define the people claiming that Obama didn't sufficiently pursue a new SOFA as "Congressmen" or "several US Congressmen" or " a number of people involved at the time".  Is that supposed to sound more convincing than McCain and Graham?

    Parent
    SOFA (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:51:54 AM EST
    The proposal was for 2,500 as I recall.

    There was no SOFA because Maliki would not agree to immunity for our troops.  That is a must for any such arrangement.

    You have recited this point about SOFA a number of times.   It is a  Fox News talking point.   You cite unnamed U.S. officials saying such and such.  Clearly McCain and Lindsey Graham.  I do not agree with their views.

    So, it is fact that Iraq would not agree to immunity.  It is self-serving speculation by war hawks that Obama could have had a SOFA if only he had tried harder.

    Morever, the underlying idea that we should have stayed with more troops is really quite naive or arrogant, or a little of both.  If our troops were there right now, do you really think their mere presence would ward off ISIS without engaging in combat.  I thought we learned under Reagan that putting U.S. troops in a war zone to make a symbolic point, as we did in Beirut, is a very, very bad idea.  If we had combat troops in Iraq, they would be fighting and dying and drawing us back into a protrated war.

    More fundamentally, Iraq is an artificial country, just drawn up on a map by primarily the Brits.  Yet, is perhaps the site of the dawn of civilization.  To expect this fake country to congeal just because we said so after thousands of years is the height of hubris and stupidity.  This is why occupied Iraq would never be like occupied Japan or Germany.  

    And, we wade into a strategic hothouse.   To oppose ISIS is to at least indirectly support Iran.  Netanyahu, whom I really dislike for a myriad of reasons, has said he has little concern about ISIS.  When your enemies are killing each other, he reaasons, don't stand in the way.  He is much more concerned about Iran getting nukes.

    To believe there is a third alternative--an Iraq that is neither dominated by ISIS or Iran, that is democratic, that is run by the majority Shia, that includes and respects the rights of the Sunni, and that stitches together three separate cultures that have existed for millenia into a single country--how arrogant and naive can one be?

    Biden with his three state solution is looking quite prescient.

    Parent

    Green (1.00 / 3) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:39:57 AM EST
    Yman is the Chief Water Carrier for all things Obama around here so don't expect him to do anything but parse and parse.

    lol

    Parent

    Relevant (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:45:01 AM EST

    You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.


     

    Parent
    Try reading what Obama said (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    "Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?" Romney asked as an argument ensued. "No," Obama said. "What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."


    Parent
    Try reading the actual words ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:32:14 PM EST
    ... in the SOFA.  I bet even you could understand the very simple requirements for withdrawal that your boy GW signed.

    Parent
    Mordiggian, are you old enough to (none / 0) (#65)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    remember the Chatty Cathy doll?

    Chatty Cathy spoke one of eleven phrases at random when the "chatty ring" protruding from its upper back was pulled. The ring was attached to a string connected to a simple low-fidelity phonograph record in the doll's abdomen. The record was driven by a metal coil wound by pulling the toy's string. The doll said 11 phrases when she came on the market in 1960 such as "I love you" or "Please take me with you". Seven more phrases such as, "Let's play School" or "May I have a cookie" were added to the doll's repertoire in 1963 for a total of 18 phrases. Chatty Cathy's voice unit was designed by Jack Ryan, Mattel's head of research and development; he had also been responsible for designing the Barbie doll after a German doll called Bild Lilli in 1959.

    Seems like all people are doing is pulling jim's "chatty ring," and getting one of his standard responses.  If he starts responding with "May I have a cookie?" I think we'll be onto something!

    Parent

    Ah yes indeed (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    I am a patriot.

    You and those like you proved who you are years and years ago.

    See what I mean (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    Anybody to the left of you means in your somewhat parochial mind that they're part of the Blame America Firsters like Andrew Sullivan wrote in the wake of 9/11:

    The middle part of the country--the great red zone that voted for Bush--is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead--and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.

    Reading this as the United States prepared to invade Afghanistan, it was impossible to avoid the literal reading that Sullivan believed anti-war dissenters were morally indistinguishable from traitors. (Sullivan recycled the smear on his Web site, referring to "the enemy within the West itself--a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead.") To suggest that Americans who opposed going to war were traitors was obviously beyond the pale. After Chatterbox called him on it, Sullivan wisely backed off:

    I have no reason to believe that even those sharp critics of this war would actually aid and abet the enemy in any more tangible ways than they have done already. And that dissent is part of what we're fighting for. By fifth column, I meant simply their ambivalence about the outcome of a war on which I believe the future of liberty hangs....

    A patriot doesn't let the lies of Fox News and the filthy leavings of Ann Coulter and the like determine who is and isn't a traitor in this country.

    Thanks for the exchange of view, James.

    Parent

    I have watched the Left in (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    action over Vietnam and now Iraq.

    You believe that the military is to be used only for "humanitarian" missions and never for defense of the country.

    Like Vietnam, it is possible that this war will be lost by the politicians of defeat.

    Parent

    But using our military to fight ISIS (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    In protection of our nation is very ineffective Jim, and the loss of life and wealth not worth chasing shadows.  And....the majority of the American people will not stand for it.

    That is a job for intel.  And...they are doing it.  Truth is many organizations issues threats to the United States.  We don't send soldiers for smack talking us.

    Parent

    Uh ISIS (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    is not shadows.

    They have taken a very large chunk of territory.

    Parent

    It is not our territory first (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:57:54 PM EST
    Second, this is a civil war

    Third, it is not our civil war

    Fourth, holding territory eats up incredible manpower and dollars and prevents terrorist orgs from having global mission assets.  That is where bin Laden was strong and ISIS is weak as a kitten.

    I am surrounded by military brains constantly assessing all this Jim.  You can disagree with me with your Fox News strategies, that is your prerogative....but I cannot take you seriously when you divorce yourself from strategic fact.  And you do that a lot :)

    Parent

    It is not a civil war (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:35:47 AM EST
    It is a war by ISIS to establish an Islamic Caliphate.

    And your military brains sound like they are fighting the last war. Something these guys are infamous for.

    And I love it when you keep on attacking Fox News as if that proved anything.

    Parent

    Then why does my in uniform (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:00:39 AM EST
    Husband call it a civil war?

    Parent
    MT, the fact your husband (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    is in the fight, and I honor his service, does not mean that he is an authority on everything.

    Parent
    He is a senior leader now (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    Serves daily with only senior leaders.  They have classified what is happening in Iraq a civil war Jim.

    Parent
    Frankly MT (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    The senior leaders he is dealing with are his senior leaders not the real senior leaders.

    ;-)

    And no matter what they say it is a Religious War. Dedicated to establishing a Islamic Caliphate by killing all they find disagreeable.

    Parent

    I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    ` I have watched the Left in (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    action over Vietnam and now Iraq.

    And it was the majority of this country that wanted out of Vietnam back then.

    As for Iraq, that you'll have to blame the majority of your fellow traitorous Americans as well.

    No wonder you act so paranoid.  You're in a political minority, you just refuse to accept that fact and blame it on Leftists instead.

    Fox News is one hell of a drug, it would seem.

    Parent

    What ever I am I write the truth. (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:11:38 AM EST
    I watched the communists, the fellow travelers and others, some sincere and some not, bluff the politicians into tying the hands of the military so that we could win every battle but lose the peace.

    Facts speak and you haven't been able to make the Big Lie stick.

    And speaking of traitors.

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.

    Link

    And the Left did the same thing during this war.

    Do you not remember the "human shields" that supposedly went to Iraq??

    And the protests here and elsewhere?? Do you not understand that this is giving aid and comfort to the people our military is fighting??

    Should they have opposition on two fronts?? Home and the foreign battlefield??

    Parent

    And then communism took over (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    Except it never did.  How awful to have had so many die or spend their lives wounded for a theory that proved to be false.

    Parent
    What was not false (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    is the thousands of US soldiers, and others, who died because the war was extended by the actions of the protesters.

    Parent
    Now you really have lost your mind :) (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    Read this (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    One Colonels perspective Jim (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    And we all rewrite history to fit our internal narratives.

    Parent
    Like no officer who participated (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:32:54 AM EST
     in a victorious war ever rewrote history to make themselves and the side they were on look better, and their opponents look worse.

    Parent
    The winner always writes the (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    Globally accepted history :)

    Parent
    I'm reminded of the Confederate officer (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    who, when asked by other ex-Confederates discussing 'who' was responsible for the results of the Battle of Gettysburg, responded:

    Personally, I think the Yankees had something to do with it.



    Parent
    And I am again reminded that you don't read (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    Like no officer who participated in a victorious war ever rewrote history to make themselves and the side they were on look better, and their opponents look worse

    1.

    Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

    2. He reports facts.

    And they match all we now know

    Parent

    That he was a turncoat (none / 0) (#122)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    doesn't mean he isn't looking back and saying what a wonderful strategy it was THAT HE AGREED WITH at the time.

    As for his 'facts', they are, AFAIK, not confirmed by any scholar or any other reliable source.

    So, yes, I did read it, but apparently you think waving him around as some sort of 'authority' means something to me or other commentators here.

    Parent

    It is not my intent to educate you (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    regarding Vietnam. But here us another quote:

    Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

    Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
    "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

    That is exactly what we did.

    At the behest of the Left.

    Parent

    I believe Mark Twain said (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    that

    Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.

    I'll let others here opine as to which of the two categories you fall into.

    Parent

    Cite some sources (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 04:02:12 PM EST
    instead of repeating his story over and over again.

    Parent
    No MT (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    It is his reported observations as a Senior Leader..

    Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda,

    Not a perspective:

    "a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.


    Parent
    Is this a senior leader consensus? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 04:52:49 AM EST
    Say like....the fact that what is occurring at this time in Iraq is accurately classified a civil war?

    Parent
    I don't know about this news source (none / 0) (#2)
    by ZtoA on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    But I saw this this morning. link.

    The Islamic State has warned the United States that it plans to attack America and raise "the flag of Allah in the White House."


    Ya know . . . (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    That's REALLY low on my list of things to worry about . . .

    Parent
    Not before I raise... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    the Steal Your Face flag, motherf8ckers.  Get in line...your caliphate west will have to wait.

    All quiet on the Northeastern shore as of 2:44pm EST, any activity on the Northwestern shore ZtoA?  Southwest nycstray?  Southeast fishcamp? Outer Pacific Donald?  Alaska Mrs. Palin?
    Thought so...

    I guess we're just lucky we didn't leave any aircraft carriers in Iraq for ISIS to loot...just all them small arms, tanks, missiles, and all that cash.  

    Parent

    The flag of Allah (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:40:17 PM EST
    because the creator of infinite multiverses is very concerned over what color and pattern of cloth lunatics wave around here on earth.

    Parent
    Dude is a micro-manager... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    so sayeth the prophet.

    Parent
    Which is why I never use the flag (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:44:08 PM EST
    of Allah for anything improper.

    I keep it put away only for special occasions.

    Parent

    Dude! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    I am so not in the SW!!!

    I will personally go patrol wine country though ;)

    Parent

    My bad... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    Oakland Port Patrol!

    Parent
    No insults to the religion (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    allowed here, or to their flags, symbols or beliefs.

    Parent
    Or their (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:45:45 AM EST
    soups!

    Parent
    Like Rick Blaine said in Casablanca (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 09:34:47 AM EST

    Well there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.



    Parent
    Laughing and disrespecting (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    people who have sworn to kill you, have plenty of money and have a promise of Paradise if they do is not the smartest thing to do.

    Ask the widows and orphans of 9/11.... and the Boston Marathon...

     

    please stay on topic of strikes on ISIS (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    not Boston

    Parent
    ISIS responded to the air strikes (none / 0) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    with a comment we all might remember, "Bring it on."

    They have moved with uncanny speed, recruited high level volunteers, even outside the M.E. Region. They have stolen over one billion dollars from banks, and, captured an incredible amount of weapons and ammunition.....including bullet hardened Humvees and Abram tanks.

    If the U.S. air strikes speeds up their announced intention to commit terrorist acts within the U.S, then I think Jim's comment about 9/11 and the Boston Marathon are completely appropriate.

    Parent

    Shooter, they don't need (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    your permission. Or mine. Or airstrikes. To do what they said they will do.

    We can set and wait with our heads bowed and neck bared waiting for the sword or we can take steps to defend ourselves.

    Whether we like it or not we are in a religious war being fought on many fronts by many groups in many ways. Some military. Some PR. Some cultural.

    Parent

    "Religious war" (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 06:18:47 PM EST
    Implies that all sides are motivated primarily by their religious beliefs. That's an inaccurate, lurid, and demagogic characterization of the reality.

    Boilerplate right-wing christian stuff.

    Parent

    I'm glad the airstrikes have finally begun (none / 0) (#10)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    Better late than never. That region needs US military assistance to help fend off ISIS.  The criticism in Baghdad is all over the place. US assistance should have been sooner.  US is only coming to help the Kurds and Christians, and not all of the Iraqi people. US should stay out, and Iraq will rely on its true friends from Iran and Russia.

    ISIS was always going to come after US/West interests, as soon as it made more progress on its immediate tasks in the region, in my view. The debate over this subtopic is merely rhetoric, in my view.

    Couldn't help but notice that the attacking US jets came from the carrier: George HW Bush.

    Do you think they have been (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    planning strikes since June 14 when the US sent the Bush to the region?

    How long does it take to plan one of these airstrikes? I have no idea.

    Parent

    The military always has a plan Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    It always comes down to what the President and State Department decides they get to do until Congressional approval is needed.

    It is the military, they are our pit bull on a chain.  The day they pulled in they began putting the finishing touches on this scenario and several others, and are using intel coming in from joint special operations.

    That is how they roll always Jeralyn.  There is a military plan for just about everything, and if they don't have one yet it is only because nobody thought about that possible scenario.  It is all they do :)

    Parent

    Don't know and don't know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    I assume the military often starts early planning for various contingencies. My former Ranger son, who went to DU law by the way, will be home on vacation tonight. I will ask him what he thinks.
    He still follows Iraq fairly closely and has access to various Ranger, former military-type and Triple Canopy (a better and more professional Blackwater organization) sites/information.

    Parent
    I assume the command structure made all (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:14:32 PM EST
    kinds of plans based on various situations. The real issue is where and who we want to strike.

    And given our technical abilities with satellites and drones that can't be a problem.

    All that was needed was for Obama to say go.

    He waited far too long.

    Parent

    Unless you know all that (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    went into the decision-making, you can't make that kind of assessment with any pretense to authority on the matter.

    With all due respect to your service, it didn't make you a latter-day Billy Mitchell for today.

    Parent

    If you want to assume that the command (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 10:16:25 AM EST
    structure doesn't have plans for all contingencies be my guest.

    And my service has nothing to do with that. Planning for contingencies is just basic stuff for the various staffs.

     

    Parent

    Never said that, and (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    I don't know what is going on, either.

    That's the difference between you and I.

    I state my ignorance, you make yours into a virtue.

    Parent

    I didn't claim to know (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    anything. I said I assume the command structure made all kinds of plans.

    And, for once, MT and I are on the same page.

    Parent

    A stopped clock is right twice a day. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    And I agree, there are a lot of things you don't know about, but people usually try not to be blatant about that fact.

    As I said, you don't know what the military told the President, MT doesn't, and I don't, so none of us are in a position to state whether or not Obama waited too long to act here.

    Parent

    Oh please, stop making things up (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    I haven't claimed to know what he was told.

    Just that the military has lots and lots of plans for lots and lots of contingencies.

    Parent

    Listen, James (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 09:42:59 PM EST
    This is what you wrote:

    All that was needed was for Obama to say go.

    He waited far too long.

    I didn't make it up.  You wrote it, own it.


    Parent

    Mordiggian88, that has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:32:25 AM EST
    anything.

    And it is 100% correct.

    But nice try at changing the subject.

    Parent

    Sorry, James (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    but you wrote what you wrote.

    Again, unless know what the military told the Kenyan Usurper and how he responded, you have no basis on which to state that the KU acted too late in this matter.

    Parent

    My husband is home for our son's surgery (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    But as soon as child is stable he must immediately return to Korea for the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian exercise.  When possible scenarios become more of a possibility, then instead of just planning the military creates an exercise, a practice run.  I am very grateful to my husband's command for allowing him to come home at the beginning of this exercise.  When he goes back he goes back as it is underway and will hit the ground on the runway running.

    Before he left Korea, he of course extensively prepped himself to be able to do that.

    Parent

    Some information from various reading today (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    Airstrikes with F-18 jets and drones, using laser guided missiles generally. Attacked various sites, including artillery launchers and a convoy of 7 vehicles. Kurds are saying the strikes have been devastating to ISIS positions. Kurd morale up and Kurds say they will re-take territory now. US beefed up its consulate in Erbil (Kurd capital) after downsizing in Baghdad. Thus, US "assets" to protect there. White House has said the US will protect its assets in Erbil and Baghdad. US has about 100 military advisers in Erbil. The Yazidis are Christian. Erbil is also spelled Irbil and Arbil in various articles. FAA has banned US airlines from flying over Iraqi air space. Maybe the airlines should start posting the countries are flying over, so we can decide whether to fly that route. I see that Russia is banning flights over its airspace including Siberia, which is used by many US flights to Asia.

    The Yezadis (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 06:27:38 PM EST
    are not Christian. There are elements of Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrian in it. It is a very ancient religion.

    They are monotheistic and  believe in one G-d, who is helped by 7 angels. The most important angel is Melek Ta'us, or Tawsi Melek, called the peacock angel.

    ISIS doesn't like them because it believes they are not a "people of the book", meaning they don't have a sacred revealed scripture like the   Koran or Bible at the center of their religion.

    The other reason is that they say another name for Melek Taus is Shai'tan or Shaytan, which in the Koran means the devil, and ISIS claims they worship the devil.

    Parent

    Must have misread one of the articles (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 06:55:22 PM EST
    I was skimming. Was surprised to see that, as I hadn't read that previously. Thanks for the correction.

    Parent
    I believe I read (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    that at least 1000 of the people fleeing to safety (and starvation, exposure)are Christians.

    Parent
    that's correct (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    There are Christians and Yazidis who are fleeing. The largest Christian town in the area with around 50,000 Christians is  Qaraqosh, south-east of Mosul. The Yezadis are mostly in Sinjar. There are also Turkmen in the area who have been threatened by ISIS.


    Parent
    ISIS Supporters (none / 0) (#22)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:14:25 PM EST
    Who are they?  Do they have means to attack the US?  I haven't heard of any vocal ones besides some bloggers.  If they really are getting support from rich people in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, why aren't those governments taking action against that support?  Also, can ISIS really believe that we are  currently fans of Maliki and Assad?

    This is the 64,000-Dollar Question (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 12:59:46 AM EST
    According to Bennis (?) of the Institute for Policy Studies, who gave an extended report and interview Friday night on Democracy Now!, several facts are important to understand:

    • First, former Sunni Baathists are holding off on fighting/opposing ISIS because they want Maliki out;

    •  They, along with many other Iraqis, particularly the non-Shiites, all want Maliki out of the government because he is not only corrupt but has operated a sectarian government that punishes all but the Shiites;

    •  By bombing, the US is supporting the continuation of Maliki in power -- we are essentially thereby maintaining him in power;

    • If Maliki were to be forced out of power, the Baathists would fight ISIS;

    • THe claim of protection of American citizens is a cover for not asking for Congressional authority to carry out the bombing, as the 100 or fewer Americans in question could be air-lifted out,

    • As for the aim of providing humanitarian aide, the U.N and other are far more qualified to do so. For example, when we bombed in Afghanistan in 2001, we dropped food packs for displaced civilians in bright yellow packages; the problem is that cluster bombs were used that are also packed in yellow, so civilians probably set off cluster bombs thinking they were picking up food;

    These seem to me to be far more important issues right now than the history of the Iraq war; before watching this report, I did not understand what was going on in Iraq and whether U.S. military strikes would contribute to any meaningful, i.e., long-term change for the better or worse in Iraq.

    Your thoughts.....

    Parent

    ISIS doesn't care what (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    we think of Maliki and Assad. Their intent is to kill Jews, Christians and all other none Sunni types in their zeal to set up an Islamic Caliphate.

    And yes, I know it sounds silly.

    But all little snakes grow large if not killed.

    Parent

    Live in fear (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 08:11:53 AM EST
    Drawn up, indoors, paralyzed and verklempt then.  I don't care :). It's a free country.  You have a right to allow every shadow scare you to death if you want to.

    Parent
    It just seems to me that (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 05:43:52 PM EST
    while Mr. Obama is saying,
    "I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq."

    he is actively engaged in doing just that - dragging the United States into another war in Iraq.

    The big question:

    How will ISIS respond? It has always said the U.S. is not on its target list, unless it uses military force against ISIS. Surely, it planned for this contingency.

    If we were not on ISIS's target list before, we have a good chance of being put there now.

    Just what we need.

    Recent Obama comments (none / 0) (#36)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:02:25 PM EST
    "President Obama said Friday that he was open to supporting a sustained effort to drive Sunni militants out of Iraq if Iraqi leaders form a more inclusive government, even as he vowed that the United States had no intention of "being the Iraqi air force."

    "But he insisted that the United States has a "strategic interest in pushing back" ISIS, suggesting a potentially broader mission than the one he described in Thursday's White House address: to protect American personnel and prevent mass killings of religious minorities."

    "We're not going to let them create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq," the president said in an hourlong interview with Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, as American planes and drones began dropping bombs in Iraq."

    NY Times, 8/9/14, on p. 6 in article entitled "While Offering Support, Obama Warns that U.S. Won't be 'Iraqi Air Force'." Same title online.

    WH wants new government in Iraq (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 08, 2014 at 10:31:43 PM EST
    In a press conference today White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House was looking for a new government in Iraq that could unite and integrate the country as well as inspire confidence in the national military. It was a not-so-subtle announcement that President Obama wants a different Prime Minister than Nouri Al-Maliki to work with and may make the use of US military power contingent on who is in charge when it comes to the national army -  Earnest said the White House had already "increased the flow of arms and assistance" to the Kurdish security forces known as the Peshmerga.

    [snip]

    Earnest also disclosed there was "no end date" nor time frame for US military action in Iraq. The one limitation Earnest did offer was that  President Obama was clear that no ground troops would be used. Whether that pledge holds is hard to say given the immensity of the announced objectives - thwarting ISIS in Kurdistan and stopping a genocide against the Yazidis.

    The White House said it will be complying with the War Powers Act and is currently consulting with Congress. Earnest said the Obama Administration plans to file notification requirements but was unable to say whether or not the White House planned to go to Congress after 60 days to seek authorization for action in Iraq. There is some question as to whether the Bush-era Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) is still in effect vis-à-vis Iraq.

    Link

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 01:01:50 AM EST
    in light of the Institute for Policy Studies report I describe above.  

    Parent
    Air Strikes (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 12:00:51 AM EST
    to try and fiddle tactically with what is happening on the ground is fine.

    Keep our troops out though.

    The Iranians have troops in Iraq now to fight ISIS....

    We need to be careful to not end up running sorties to help the Iranians....

    HRC on ISIS and Middle-East (none / 0) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    Hillary's skepticism of the "overly cautious" approach of BHO to war always makes me a little nervous about her. link

    Jeffery Goldberg (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 10, 2014 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    Glenn Greenwald called Goldberg, "One of the leading media cheerleaders for the attack on Iraq, he compiled a record of humiliating falsehood-dissemination in the run-up to the war that rivaled Judy Miller's both in terms of recklessness and destructive impact."[3]

    Here is his Milleresque article fanning the flames for the Iraq war:

    The Great Terror

    Just saying' ....  yes Hillary is a Hawk but reading Hillary through Goldberg's eyes is a mistake.  He has an agenda.

    His opening line reveals his agenda:

    President Obama has long-ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups--like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today--from seizing control of the rebellion.

    It is interesting that as the article progresses, (I did not read the whole thing) he positions Hillary as ridiculing Obama... not the other way around..

    Personally I do not remember Obama ridiculing Clinton about her plan to arm the syrian rebels. He quashed the plan but did he ridicule her?

    Parent