Tag Archives: ISIL

International news, political news

Killing top terrorists 'won't work'

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal knows a thing or two about hunting down and killing terrorists.

So, when he says that killing the top dogs in the terrorist chain of command won’t eradicate the organization, he deserves the nation’s ear.

http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=f189696c-1d54-4eb9-8637-9c422da93289

McChrystal noted — as many others have acknowledged — that killing Osama bin Laden in May 2011 didn’t eliminate al-Qaeda. Others stepped up to replace him. Now some are saying that the terror group is stronger than before.

The general’s comments come in the wake of President Obama declaring war, in effect, against the Islamic State. The plan now is to go after ISIL’s top leadership, eliminate it, decimate the organization and then perhaps be able to declare some form of victory in this war against terror.

McChrystal is dubious of that strategy, as he said to CNN’s Erin Burnett.

I’ve sought to make the point on this blog that the anti-terror campaign is unlike any we’ve ever fought as a nation. There is no clearly defined enemy operating out of foreign capitals, funded openly by hostile governments. They operate in the shadows, seeking to keep their identity secret for as long as possible.

Yes, we know who ISIL’s leaders are, as we know the names of those who lead al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram or any other terrorist organization. If we kill every leader of every group, does that send the minions into hiding, dispirited? No. I enrages them and they find new leaders to step up.

The fight is worth waging and we must fight them with extreme prejudice.

However, as Gen. McChrystal has said correctly, killing the bad guys’ leaders isn’t enough.

International news, national news, political news

OK, it's official: We're at war

Is it war or is it a counter-terrorism campaign?

I’d thought out loud in an earlier blog post that the terminology didn’t matter. We’re going after the Islamic State with heavy weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s been to war … in Vietnam — was reluctant to use that term. Now the commander in chief, Barack Obama, says we’re “at war” with ISIL.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html

Let’s be mindful, though, of what this “war” actually means, or doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t mean we’re going to take over a foreign capital, run up the Stars and Stripes and declare victory. Nor does it mean we’re going to receive surrender papers from a foreign government aboard some warship. It won’t result in our rebuilding (I hope) some nation that we’ve blown to smithereens trying to root out and kill terrorists.

What the “war” means is that we’re going to be in this fight for perhaps well past the foreseeable future. I suspect we’ll still be fighting this “war” when Barack Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. He’ll hand the battle plans over to his successor, wish that person good luck and then the new commander in chief will be left with trying to kill all the ISIL fighters our military can find.

The war against terrorism is something we launched after 9/11. Everyone in America knew the war wouldn’t have an end date. Heck, there really wasn’t an strategy to conclude the war when President Bush declared it after the terrorists killed thousands of Americans on that terrible Tuesday morning 13 years ago.

I still don’t give a damn what we call this conflict. If it’s war, then we’re going to have to redefine how we know when it’s over.

First, though, we’ll likely have to redefine when it ends. Good luck with that.

Uncategorized

'Silver lining' showing up in Islamic State fight

President Obama sees a potential “silver lining” in the fight to eradicate the Islamic State.

It lies in capitals of Arab states that are joining the fight with the United States of America.

Obama sees ‘silver lining’ in ISIS fight

It’s time for those nations to declare war — or take hostile action of some sort — against terrorists who are perverting Islam into something that doesn’t resemble one of the world’s great religions.

The president spoke to a group of Democratic donors at a fundraiser and said, “We’re going to be able to build the kind of coalition that allows us to lead but also isn’t entirely dependent on what we do.”

Therein lies the potential silver lining.

For far too long these Islamic extremists have been declaring some kind of “holy war” against the “infidels” of the world. They have embarked on a campaign of terror in the name of Islam. Meanwhile, Sunni Arab states have been relatively quiet. They haven’t joined the fight in an active sense.

Today, just a few days after Obama announced his administration’s strategy to fight ISIL, a coalition is beginning to form and it is including Middle East nations with actual skin in this so-called game.

Yes, the United States can lead the coalition, but it cannot carry this fight all alone.

Let’s hope, therefore, that this coalition of Muslim nations not only holds up, but strengthens in its resolve to destroy terrorist groups that are harming them as much as they seek to harm The Great Satan.

International news, national news, political news

War or counter-terrorism effort?

We’re beginning now to parse the meaning of the word “war” and whether our effort to destroy the Islamic State means we’ve entered yet another armed conflict.

Secretary of State John Kerry disputed that terminology, declaring that the United States is embarking on a comprehensive “counter-terrorism” campaign to eradicate the hideous terrorists.

It doesn’t matter one damn bit to me what we call it.

All of this harkens back to when we declared “war” on international terrorism. President Bush reacted to the 9/11 attacks by tossing out the Taliban in Afghanistan. In doing so, he said the nation would be waging a multi-front war against terrorists, hunting them down wherever they lurked or hid.

Indeed, the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York served — if you’ll pardon the use of this term — the Mother of All Wakeup Calls to this country. We’ve known about terrorists. We’ve understood intellectually they can do us harm. However, the 9/11 attacks were so brilliantly conceived and executed — and it pains me terribly to say it that way — that we were forced to ratchet up our vigilance to unprecedented levels.

So the war goes on.

Our campaign now to eradicate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant can be called a war, or it can be called a counter-terrorism offensive.

I don’t care what they call it. The strategy just announced by President Obama is a continuation of what we’ve been doing ever since the terrorists committed their heinous act 13 years ago.

It’s a new kind of conflict with a new kind of enemy. I’m still hoping to learn how in the world we’ll ever be able to declare victory.

Uncategorized

Bad guys at the gate? Hardly

The Washington Times, a leading conservative-leaning newspaper, splashed a large headline Wednesday proclaiming that Islamic State terrorists are “planning to infiltrate” our southern border.

There you have it. Panic has set in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/10/us-confirms-islamic-state-planning-infiltration-bo/

Social media is starting to churn up some dire stories about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant getting ready to invade the United States. The Washington Times story suggests, if you parse the language with just a bit of care, that ISIL is merely “making plans” to do some bad things to us.

Does that mean ISIL is at the gate? Does it mean an attack is imminent? Does it mean ISIL is all set to start exploding bombs, capturing Americans and doing terrible things to their captives?

It means nothing of the kind.

All the story really means is that ISIL wants to do all those things. Well, duh? Who doesn’t know that already?

We should do well to take a deep breath and place just a bit of trust in the national security professionals’ ability to do the job for which they are highly trained.

I’m less willing at this point to listen to politicians looking to get their names in the news by making dire assertions that to date cannot be proven.

Do we dismiss the suggestions that ISIL is “planning” to attack the United States of America? Of course not.

We shouldn’t interpret such expressions of intent as anything more than that. I’m going to continue to place my trust on the men and women who are trained to keep us safe. I’ll start to worry when they sound the alarm.

Uncategorized

'Residual force' in Iraq? No thanks

At the risk of sounding as if I’m blaming George W. Bush for today’s difficulties in Iraq, I want to offer this notion of how we got to this point.

President Bush took us to war in Iraq in March 2003 intending to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and install a government friendly to this country. He succeeded in the first part and succeed partly in the second.

What never has been accomplished is ensuring that the new government and its military infrastructure can defend itself against evil forces.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-and-jay-carney-have-a-heated-showdown-on-isis-2014-9

We’re now dealing with a government that is trying to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Remember that this is the government we wanted in power. President Bush left office in January 2009 and President Barack Obama has taken up the fight.

All this blustering and posturing about who’s responsible for the chaos in Iraq seems to ignore what we did more than a decade ago to bring this about.

Sen. John McCain and former White House spokesman Jay Carney went toe to toe on CNN, arguing over whether Obama’s latest strategy against ISIL is sufficient. McCain keeps arguing about whether the president should have kept a “residual force” in Iraq to prevent ISIL’s surge. Residual force? How many men and women should constitute such a force?

McCain knows full well that American public opinion remains in no mood to keep American forces planted squarely in harm’s way if the Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself, which has been the goal of two U.S. administrations.

Barack Obama has announced his strategy in destroying ISIL. He wants to use air power and wants to enlist regional allies to provide intelligence, technical support and arms to assist “moderate” opposition forces in Iraq and Syria.

This idea of returning to a combat role in Iraq is a non-starter. We are learning the hard way that building a democratic society from scratch is virtually impossible — especially when the people who you intend to run that society have zero knowledge of what democracy looks like.

That’s what we got when we invaded Iraq.

Uncategorized

ISIL strategy laid out … more or less

President Obama has laid it out there.

We’re going to bomb the daylights out of ISIL in Iraq and will start doing so in Syria; we’re going to enlist the aid of regional allies, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, to join in the fight; we’re going to arm and equip “moderate rebel forces” in Syria fighting against the dictator Bashar al-Assad.

What I didn’t hear tonight from President Obama was how we’re going to know when we’ve defeated the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-to-launch-airstrikes-in-syria-for-first-time

Ever since the war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, the United States never has set a standard for declaring victory. We cannot ever actually win this war. The president tonight noted that it is impossible for the United States to root out every single individual who terrorizes others. Therefore, I believe, the war against terror will continue probably forever, for as long as people coalesce into groups with the intention of committing terrorist acts.

I heard a commander in chief dedicated to keeping us safe from evil. I saw in his face precisely the same level of determination I’ve seen, say, in President George W. Bush when he announced his intention to go after the “axis of evil.” I heard Barack Obama declare his immense pride in our military personnel.

Can we defeat ISIL with air power alone? Barack Obama believes we can, if we’re smart and if we work diligently with our allies in the region to hunt ISIL fighters down and destroy them.

Although it might be impossible to declare ultimate victory against ISIL or any other terror group that seeks to harm us, it isn’t too much to hope that there might be a day when we can declare the imminent threat to America has been eliminated.

The fight, though, must go on.

 

Uncategorized

ISIL guessing game has commenced

What precisely is President Obama going to say about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?

The guessing game has begun in advance of the president’s speech.

What should he say?

In my view, he needs to announce:

* A regional coalition of nations that will join the United States in its fight against ISIL.

* More intensive air strikes against targets in Iraq.

* Intentions to ask Congress to for authorization to start air strikes in Syria.

* An intensive manhunt for the individual who beheaded the two American journalists.

* Americans must expect a response from the terrorists.

* That this new campaign is expected to last years, just as the war on terror has gone on ever since 9/11.

I’m not one of those who believes we need to put “boots on the ground” back in Iraq or in Syria.

Can we destroy ISIL only with air power? I don’t know.

I do know that we have tremendous firepower that we can bring to bear on military targets. Barack Obama has demonstrated time and again a willingness to use it with extreme effectiveness.

Yes, there have been missteps in recent weeks. The president’s rhetoric has been clumsy at times. He has talked about “destroying” ISIL, then talked about turning ISIL into a “manageable” situation, then gone back to destroying the monstrous organization.

He should stick with the destruction goal.

An anxious nation awaits.

 

International news

Arab states must join the fight agains ISIL

A 10-nation coalition of nations is forming to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

One key element is missing, however, from that “core” group of nations: Arab states.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/world/meast/isis-mideast-nations/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Indeed, among the nations listed in that roster of allies, Turkey — which borders Syria, and is a member of NATO — is the only nation with skin in the game.

President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel now need to enlist Arab states, particularly Sunni Muslim Arab states, to join this fight.

The president is going to lay out his strategy for fighting ISIL in a speech to the nation Wednesday night. He still has time before he issues the “Good evening, my fellow Americans” greeting to bring some key Arab allies into this fight.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Yemen are just six states that need to bring their own intelligence and military assets to bear against ISIL.

Of course, don’t think for a moment that the United States isn’t asking its most dependable Middle East ally — Israel — to lend its own immense intelligence capability to hunt down and destroy ISIL fighters wherever we can find them.

I’m going to await with interest to hear what the president will say Wednesday. One of my hopes will be that we can rally behind the commander in chief and dispense with the second-guessing, carping and partisan posturing that undermines the effort that needs to take place to destroy these monsters.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

President gets it … finally: 'Optics' matter

It took a little while, but President Obama has acknowledged something many of us out here knew already.

Visual images — the “optics,” if you please — matter to those who are watching the commander in chief’s every move.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/07/politics/obama-golfing-optics/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Obama said on Meet the Press this past Sunday that he should anticipated how the image would look as he headed for the golf course immediately after making a heartfelt statement condemning the gruesome assassination of an American journalist by Syrian terrorists.

The White House defended the juxtaposition of those events as it happened. It turns out the president has had some second thoughts about the sequence of events and their proximity to each other.

Obama told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd that James Foley’s murder moved nearly to tears as he spoke with the young man’s family. I believe him when he acknowledges how these events affect him emotionally. “I think everybody who knows me — including, I suspect, the press — understands that … you take this stuff in. And it’s serious business. And you care about it deeply,” he said.

He added that he understands that “optics” is important. “It matters. And I’m mindful of that.”

As a matter of substance, these things ought not to matter. However, the cliché about “perception becoming reality” in the eyes of those who see things also is important. His teeing off immediately after delivering such a statement offered the perception of a president who doesn’t care. He said that’s untrue and likely unfair.

Perhaps this brief tempest will have delivered a lesson to a president who’s trying right now to manage several international crises. Be mindful, Mr. President, of how your every move is being watched by the public — for whom you work.