Tag Archives: ISIL

International news

Not the U.S. fight alone

President Obama said it correctly.

The fight against the Islamic State does not mean the United States wages this battle alone. ISIL presents a worldwide threat and therefore the world — or at least those nations closest to the threat — must step up.

Five of them have done so as air strikes have begun in Syria.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-says-arab-support-shows-this-is-not-americas-fight-alone

It is to the great credit of Secretary of State John Kerry that he was able to cobble together a coalition of Arab states to take part in this fight alongside American service personnel. French fighter aircraft already have joined U.S. pilots in hitting ISIL targets in neighboring Iraq.

Obama said, “America is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations. This is not America’s fight alone.”

So the fight has been joined with the Islamic State in Syria. Does this mean we’re now cozying up to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who remains an enemy of the United States? Not in the least, although U.S. commanders did alert Assad in advance that the air strikes against ISIL targets would commence.

The pressure must remain on the Arab states to stay in the fight for as long as it takes to put down these terrorist monsters, who have made it clear they intend to target Americans for future heinous acts.

Yes, the fight will take some time to complete. It must be done.

International news, national news, political news

Air strikes in Syria begin … with help

American pilots are now doing what the commander in chief said was likely: launching air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

With that news, the war against the terrorists has expanded.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My view from many thousands of miles away is this: We’d better hit them hard and keep hitting them hard for as long as it takes to render them “degraded” significantly.

I do not want U.S. “boots on the ground.” Those “boots” would be carrying Americans, which is why I have grown weary of that cliché. I remain cautiously optimistic that air strikes can do what President Obama wants them to do, which is to degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State.

No, we cannot do this alone. The Pentagon has said that partner nations are involved in the air strikes, which began with Tomahawk missiles and fighter aircraft launched from the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush.

There can be no doubt that any military operation requires friendly nations to take part. The Pentagon hasn’t been very specific on which nations are contributing to this cause, but reports indicate that Sunni Arab states have been involved. That’s an encouraging sign.

What’s the biggest worry, other than ISIL responding with some hideous execution? My guess is that it would Syria reacting badly to U.S. aircraft entering Syrian airspace. If the Syrians are smart — and I believe they are — they’ll be quietly applauding the air strikes, as the ISIL targets represent the biggest threat to that government’s survival.

Oh, boy. This fight has just gotten a whole lot more complicated.

Uncategorized

Bipartisanship returns … for a time at least

President Obama got what he asked for from Congress: authorization to train and arm Syrian rebels.

The vote in both congressional chambers crossed party lines, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans supporting his request.

Does this mean Congress is going to set aside its partisan differences among its members and with the president and start actually governing? I’m not holding my breath.

But I was struck by a comment I heard in the wake of the Senate vote from a lawmaker who said that the fact that Congress actually passed something with a bipartisan vote ought to send chills up the spines of the bad guys we’re trying to destroy in Syria and Iraq.

Indeed, the vote is a tricky one.

U.S. national security officials say they’ve identified “moderate” foes of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Those are the people who’ll get the arms and the training to use them. The Islamic State will be isolated and wiped out eventually, they contend.

Obama also said that he’s lined up a coalition of about 40 nations. France is going to start flying sorties over targets in Iraq and aiding in our bombing campaign against the Islamic State.

Great. But what about the Sunni Arab states that have pledged to aid in this effort?

They need to get in the game — quickly.

International news, national news, political news

Why so many speeches at these hearings?

This is not exactly a scoop, but I thought I’d ask it anyway: Why do members of Congress have to make speeches when they’re assembled to seek answers to questions from key government officials?

http://www.politico.com/livestream/

It’s happening as I write this brief blog post.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is quizzing Secretary of State John Kerry about the U.S. plan to defeat and destroy the Islamic State. But without fail, from senators on both sides — Democrats and Republicans — are embarking on long-winded soliloquies before getting to whatever question they want answered from the nation’s top diplomat.

Kerry, of course, knows the score. He served in the Senate for nearly three decades and engaged in some tiresome speechmaking while grilling witnesses before the very committee he once chaired.

Many of out here in the Heartland know what gives, too. Politicians by definition usually are in love with the sound of their own voices. So they want to hear themselves being heard, yes?

I’m reminded of the time during Senate confirmation hearings to decide whether Samuel Alito should join the U.S. Supreme Court. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee gave each senator 30 minutes to “ask questions” of the nominee. Then it came to Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. CNN put a clock on Biden, who then pontificated for more than 28 minutes.

Biden eventually asked the question and Alito had less than two minutes to respond. Time ran out and the chairman called on the next senator.

I’d much rather hear what a witness has to say hear for the umpteenth time what a senator of House member thinks about this or that issue.

International news, national news, political news

Syria aid is on its way

Well, it looks as though the United States of America is going to enter the Syria conflict after all.

Congress likely will approve President Obama’s request for authorization to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels as they prepare to take on the Islamic State — and the government forces led by Bashar al-Assad.

Lawmakers: We will pass Syria aid

Yes, it will come with some complaints from both sides of the aisle.

Obama was right to ask for authorization. Congress is right to grant it.

Is it the right call to equip the rebels? That remains to be seen.

The Syrian civil war is getting complicated in the extreme. We don’t yet know fully who the “good guys” are in this fight. We’ve identified some definite evil forces — two of whom are fighting each other. ISIL is battling the government led by the dictator. We hate the dictator, but we hate ISIL even more, given the gruesome murders the terrorists have committed against two American journalists and a British aid worker.

I remain concerned deeply about whether we should send in troops while bombing the daylights out of ISIL military positions in Iraq. That discussion has been broached by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, who today said he’d consider sending in special ops forces if the need arose, pending approval by the commander in chief, Barack Obama.

Congress has a role to play here. Its members need to sign on and take ownership of a conflict that is beginning to take on the look of a new war.

Heaven help us.

International news, national news, political news

Iraqi slope getting slippery

That slope that leads into Iraq is getting more slippery all the time.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said it is “possible” that American ground troops will be brought back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-scrutinizes-obama-military-strategy-070816643–politics.html

I believe this is the kind of thing the commander in chief, President Obama, said won’t happen.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Gen. Dempsey said in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Will the president heed the advice of his top military adviser? Therein lies the stickiest of wickets possible for the president.

His critics say the United States cannot defeat the Islamic State with just air power. They also suggest that our coalition-building, which worked pretty well in advance of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, is insufficient as well.

So, does the president act on his instincts and stay the course, which means “no boots on the ground” in Iraq? Or does he follow the advice of a team of four-star military brass — all of whom have substantial combat experience — and send “advisers” in with Iraqi troops to root out ISIL terrorists?

Can you say “conundrum”?

It’s my fervent hope that whatever “boots” hit the ground in Iraq remain on the feet of advisers and not on those of infantry or other troops trained in the combat arms.

Meanwhile, keep dropping bombs on the bad guys.

International news, national news, political news, State news

Immigration crisis to re-emerge

Am I the only one who wonders how certain compelling crises get pushed so easily off the front burner when other compelling crises emerge?

The refugee crisis on our southern border is an example. Remember that one?

Thousands of young people were fleeing into the United States to escape human traffickers in their home country. We were rounding them up, putting them in detention camps and wondering out loud what we were going to do with those children.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/15/cuellar-immigration-changes-likely-coming-later-ye/

Then the crisis in Iraq and Syria erupted with a vengeance.

It’s displaced everything else we deemed critical: the kidnapping of those girls in Nigeria, Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

The refugee crisis is still boiling. It’s going to return to the public’s eye soon, says U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

It will return in the form of a continuing budget resolution, Cuellar said, according to the Texas Tribune: “Cuellar said Friday during a border legislative conference that the issue would not be part of the debate on a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded. That resolution is expected to be passed this month.” Instead, he said, it’ll come up later. “When the omnibus bill comes up in December, hopefully we can sit down and work something out on that particular aspect,” Cuellar said.

OK, but isn’t the refugee matter still a critical concern? Of course it is.

Let’s intermingle the Islamic State crisis with it as well, given that critics of President Obama’s anti-ISIL strategy keep suggesting that the terrorists are going to infiltrate the United States along its “porous” and “unprotected” southern border.

Multi-tasking is taking on a new meaning in Washington, D.C., and in Austin. Our elected leaders in both places had better stay sharp. Or else.

International news, national news, political news

Put lawsuit on hold, Mr. Speaker

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner:

You don’t know me, nor do you likely care what I have to say about how you do your job. That is the business of the voters in your Ohio congressional district. Still, I’m going to offer you some unsolicited advice from out here in Flyover Country.

That lawsuit you plan to file against the president of the United States over his alleged misuse of executive authority? Put on the farthest back burner you can find.

You know this already, Mr. Speaker, but the country is going to war — again. The enemy this time is the Islamic State. They’ve beheaded two American journalists and a British aid worker. They mean business. They’re the nastiest of the nasty elements of society.

President Obama is trying mightily to craft an international coalition of nations — including Sunni Arab states in the Middle East — to join the United States in this fight to destroy ISIL. You, sir, should join the fight as well.

The lawsuit you said you want to file is a mere distraction at a time of national crisis. It smacks of partisan petulance. A lot of us out here in the heartland know what gives with the suit. You want to fire up the Republican Party base in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. You want your party to take control of the Senate. That likely will happen no matter what you do regarding that silly lawsuit. I can grasp your anger over the president’s use of executive authority to tinker with the Affordable Care Act. Given the international stakes, though, it all seems so damn petty.

To file suit now would serve as the Mother of All Distractions. It would take the president’s eyes off the ball he needs to watch, which is the one involving the protection of Americans. That’s his No. 1 duty as president and commander in chief. You agree with that, right?

As for your own job as speaker of the House, you’ve got to rally the entire body — not just Republicans — to some form of unity behind the president as he undertakes the task of fighting this despicable enemy.

Picking a court fight now, with the nation’s attention turning to ISIL, disserves the country you say you love.

I believe you do love America, Mr. Speaker. So do I.

So, from one patriotic American to another: Let go of that goofy lawsuit idea.

International news, national news

Coalition building … then and now

James Baker III is a great American who’s served with honor over many years as secretary of state, secretary of commerce and White House chief of staff.

It was his job at the State Department that has brought him into the discussion over how President Obama should handle the fight against the Islamic State.

Baker appeared today on Meet the Press and expressed — no surprise there — misgivings about Obama’s plan to fight ISIL. Specifically, Baker questioned the ability of the president to gather the coalition needed to destroy the terrorists. He compared the latest coalition-building plan to the effort launched in 1990 in the run-up to the Persian Gulf War.

I have great respect for Baker, but the comparison isn’t entirely apt.

Baker was tasked with recruiting nations to aid in the ousting of Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait, the oil-rich emirate. The mission was clear and simple: Oust the Iraqis from Kuwait using maximum military force.

President George H.W. Bush ordered the deployment of 500,000 American troops. Baker persuaded allies to send in another 200,000 troops. The allies — including the British, French and, oh yes, the Syrians — sent troops into combat to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces.

The task before Barack Obama, according to Baker, is to persuade Sunni Muslim nations to actually aid in a fight that hasn’t yet been defined. The president won’t commit ground troops; Baker believes we need to send special operations forces into Syria and Iraq to aid in locating targets for the air campaign that Obama has planned.

My point here is that the enemy isn’t nearly as clearly defined as the enemy was in Kuwait. Baker knows that as well. The Muslim nations need to have a clear mission, as do Americans who are weary of sending young warriors back into battle.

The conflict we’re entering now is infinitely more complicated than the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis.

Can it be done? Yes. With great care.

International news, national news, political news

Did we abandon an ISIL captive?

My heart breaks for Diane Foley, whose son James was beheaded by Islamist terrorists.

Accordingly, I can understand her bitterness that the U.S. government perhaps could have done more to save her son’s life.

Perhaps.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/us/james-foley-mother-us-response/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Is it fair, though, so soon after this terrible tragedy to suggest the government failed to do all it could do to secure the journalist’s release?

It’s been revealed that in July the U.S. sent a Special Forces team into Syria to rescue Foley. It failed. The team arrived at where it thought Foley was being held but discovered only an empty building.

Diane Foley now alleges that national security officials threatened her with prosecution if she continued to raise money to pay a ransom for her son. Indeed, U.S. law now prohibits the government from negotiating with terrorists. It’s unclear — to me at least — just how Ms. Foley intended to pay the money if she was able to raise the amount the terrorists demanded.

Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s in Turkey seeking to build an international coalition to fight ISIL — adamantly denies any personal knowledge of a prosecution threat. Kerry told reporters: “I can tell you that I am totally unaware and would not condone anybody that I know of within the State Department making such statements.”

Quite clearly nothing can bring James Foley back. As for U.S. law prohibiting negotiating with terrorists, it needs to stay on the books.

A mother’s grief is overwhelming. A nation still mourns her son’s gruesome death. But let’s not overlay that grief with an understanding of what the government did — or couldn’t do under the law — to secure her son’s freedom.

Let’s concentrate instead on finding the murderers and administering battlefield “justice,” which is what the president and secretary of state already have vowed to do.