Tag Archives: Islamic State

TV shows provide Trump all he needs to know about ISIL

I almost forgot this one.

Here goes …

“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd asked Donald Trump this past weekend how he planned to fight the Islamic State. He said he’d wipe out the bad guys. Would he deploy American troops? He said “yes,” more or less.

Then came the question: Who gives you military advice?

Trump’s answer: He watches the news talk shows and that’s where he gets the information and expertise he needs to do battle with ISIL.

Interesting, yes?

I think so. Here’s why.

Because the military experts who show up on these news talk shows cannot possibly tell the TV audience all the details involved in launching military campaigns. They might or might not have access to privileged information. You know, the classified stuff that only they can know and must be kept out of the public domain.

But that doesn’t matter to Trump.

He watches TV news talk shows.

They tell him all he needs to know.

It’s reassuring, isn’t it?

 

ISIL’s rise: It’s Obama’s fault?

 

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush is trying a remarkable misdirection play as he seeks the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016.

The former Florida governor sought in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to blame former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama on the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and, I presume, in Syria as well.

Well now. Let’s look at the record for a moment.

The Iraq War began in March 2003 when President George W. Bush launched the invasion of that country, which at the time was governed by a Sunni Muslim tyrant, the late Saddam Hussein. (Hang with me for a moment; the Sunni reference is critical.)

Americans were told by those high up in the Bush chain of command that we’d defeat the Iraqis easily and we’d be welcomed as “liberators.”

Didn’t turn out that way.

Yes, we defeated the so-called “elite” Iraqi forces. We drove Saddam from power. We caught him later in that spider hole, pulled him, jailed him, put him on trial, convicted him and then hanged him.

All of this was done on Jeb’s brother’s presidential watch.

Then came the new government. Iraqis elected a Shiite leader, who formed a Shiite government.

Oh yes. The Sunnis hate the Shiites and vice versa. The Islamic State — aka ISIL — is a Sunni cult.

Thus, ISIL was born — on President Bush’s watch.

Now, though, the next Bush who wants to be president, says it’s Obama’s fault. It’s Clinton’s fault.

Why? We didn’t maintain a sufficient troop garrison in Iraq to keep ISIL in check. I ought to mention that the Bush administration set the deadline for full withdrawal from Iraq.

Jeb Bush now says he would send troops back into Iraq, in effect restarting a war that we shouldn’t have fought in the first place. Weapons of mass destruction? Hideous chemical weapons? The threat of a “mushroom cloud”? It was bogus.

I’m not yet ready to declare that the pretext for war was concocted deliberately by the Bush administration high command.

Let’s just say for now that “faulty intelligence” isn’t much of an excuse for sending thousands of American service personnel to their death in a war designed to overthrow a sovereign leader who we had kept in check through a series of tough economic sanctions.

Jeb Bush is treading on some squishy ground whenever he mentions the words “Iraq War.”

 

 

 

Jihad John on the run … where does this man hide?

Jihadi John

Mohammad Emwazi — aka Jihadi John — is on the run.

But this guy is no ordinary fugitive. He’s the individual believed to be responsible for the beheadings of Islamic State captives. He reportedly has fallen out of favor with the monstrous terrorist organization.

Oh, my. Where does this individual go now?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/jihadi-john-on-the-run-from-isis/ar-AAdvEy0?ocid=ansibt11

Emwazi has become arguably the world’s most hated man. He reportedly beheaded aid workers and journalists captured by ISIL. He’s a United Kingdom resident who was born in Kuwait but educated at the University of Westminster.

He’s now at the top of the list of the men being hunted by U.S. and other intelligence agencies for his dastardly deeds.

A former friend said this about Emwazi: “The jihadist had not been ‘a good Muslim’ and never wore the Islamic dress he has been seen wearing in the beheading videos. ‘He smoked drugs, drank and was violent towards other boys,’ said the friend, who was not named in the report. ‘The fact he portrays himself as a strict Muslim is laughable and shameful.’”

Actually, Emwazi and his former ISIL colleagues aren’t “strict Muslims.” They are Muslim perverts.

Whatever. Some analysts now believe Emwazi has become a target of ISIL and well could end up meeting the same kind of fate he delivered to so many of his victims.

Well, as the saying goes: Karma can be a bitch.

Gov. Kasich: a man to watch … and hear

I just listened to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s interview on “Meet the Press.”

Something tells me this fellow is worth watching and hearing.

Kasich is the latest Republican candidate for president. He’s No. 16. There might be only one more to run. Sixteen is more than enough as it is.

Kasich seems to remind me of Donald Trump in this regard: He speaks simply and bluntly. The similarity ends right there. Unlike Trump, Kasich actually has knowledge of the complexity of government. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected as Ohio’s governor.

Kasich pledges ‘boots on the ground’ to fight ISIS

“Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd asked Kasich a question about his relationship with the union movement in Ohio. Kasich’s response was clear: When you’re on the short end of public opinion with an organization, you cut your losses and move on. He said he has a good relationship now with organized labor in Ohio.

If I had to make critical statement about Kasich, it would be his continual use during the interview of the euphemism “boots on the ground” to describe how would fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

“Boots on the ground” means sending young Americans into battle. If a President Kasich intends to send young Americans back onto the battlefield in Iraq, then he needs to say so directly, without the euphemistic reference to “boots on the ground.”

This is just a personal critique of the latest GOP candidate to enter the race. He seems like a genuine fellow.

I am going to keep listening intently to what he’s saying. John Kasich intrigues me.

Welcome to the fight, Turkey … finally!

We hear the term “game changer” from time to time.

It refer to events that might be decisive in determining the result of, say, a struggle.

I heard the term today in a National Public Radio interview about Turkey’s decision to (a) allow U.S. aircraft to fly into Syria and Iraq from Turkish air bases and (b) actually strike the Islamic State forces with its own combat aircraft.

Welcome to the fight, Turkey.

The Turks could become the most important ally the United States in this fight against the Islamic State.

It belongs to NATO. It is a military powerhouse with a sophisticated air and ground military force.

And as of a few days ago, it now has suffered grievously at the hands of ISIL forces. A suicide bomber detonated an explosive in a Turkish portion of Kurdistan, killing more than 30 victims. The Turks, therefore, now have skin in this game.

Turkey had been a reluctant ally up to this point, denying U.S. requests to use its bases to launch attacks against ISIL installations in nearby Syria and Iraq. The Turks’ agreeing to allow access to these bases gives our air power a distinct new advantage as it continues its bombing barrage against ISIL.

What’s more, the Turks have engaged ISIL themselves, sending jets on bombing sorties against ISIL strongholds.

OK, does this mean the end of ISIL is in sight, that the fight is nearly over?

No. It does mean, however, that we now have an important ally on our side willing — for the first time — to engage the enemy face to face.

Welcome aboard, Turkey. Let’s hope this development, indeed, is a game changer.

No ‘complete strategy’ against Islamic State?

President Barack Obama landed in Germany and then dropped this startling admission on the laps of the worldwide media.

“We don’t yet have a complete strategy,” the president said in describing the U.S.-led effort to fight the Islamic State.

I make no apologies for my support of President Obama, but this one floors me.

Nine months into the campaign to defeat ISIL, the president today acknowledged that he’s been winging it.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244272-obama-we-dont-yet-have-a-compete-strategy-against-isis

My advice to the president — are you paying attention, young man? — is that you need to finish working on that strategy in a serious hurry.

I don’t believe you need to mobilize The Big Red One, or the Screaming Eagles, or a Marine division to — pardon that hideous euphemism — put “boots on the ground.”

But there needs to be a “complete strategy” to fight these monstrous terrorists.

The president is in Germany attending the G-7 summit and has pledged to speed up training and arming of Iraqi forces, which have been all but cowering in the face of ISIL advances on major cities and military installations. Yes, the Iraqi military has made some gains in recent days, but they keep getting pushed back.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently said the Iraqis lack the “will to fight” ISIL. They’d better find the will if they intend to defend their own country.

As for the complete strategy that the president said is coming, time is not our friend.

Let’s get busy.

 

War of attrition under way against ISIL

Let’s call it a war of attrition.

A deputy defense secretary says the air strikes against the Islamic State have killed an estimated 10,000 ISIL fighters. Or, if the numbers calculating the actual strength of the terrorist outfit, about one-third of the fighting force has been killed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-official-airstrikes-killed-10000-islamic-state-fighters/ar-BBkDogm

Does this mean we’re winning the war?

Let me remind us all of what happened in Vietnam. American forces killed many times more enemy fighters than were lost on our side. The Vietnam War claimed about 58,000 American lives and as many as 10 times that number of Vietnamese.

Who won the war?

Well, we vacated the battlefield in 1973 and two years later, the North Vietnamese stormed into Saigon, renamed the city after Ho Chi Minh … and declared victory.

What the body count signifies in the war against the Islamic State, though, is the importance of keeping the pressure on the terrorists. We cannot let up. We cannot stop bombing them — with drones, manned aircraft … whatever it takes.

Yes, ISIL continues to recruit fighters worldwide. Also, ISIL is making advances here and there in Iraq.

However, I happen to believe that a concentrated, focused air campaign can defeat this monstrous enemy.

Will that signal the end of the worldwide terrorist threat? Hardly. As long as there are zealots living and breathing anywhere on Earth, there will be a terrorist threat.

There’s been some debate in the Pentagon about whether the body count number is relevant, given what happened to that formula during the Vietnam War.

I’ll continue to hold out hope that the more of these guys our side kills, the fewer of them will be available for recruitment.

Bombs away!

An ‘apology’ for spewing hate?

A Pennsylvania newspaper says it’s “sorry” for allowing a reader to call for President Obama’s execution.

The outraged reader took his anger to an extraordinarily hateful extreme, and the newspaper — the Sunbury (Pa.) Daily Item — in effect sanctioned the reader’s anger by publishing it on its opinion page.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/newspaper-apologizes-letter-obama-execution-118370.html?hp=l2_4

Yes, the paper apologized later after received a storm of outrage from readers.

However, it’s instructive to note the anger that boils in the hearts of some Americans over the actions of the current president of the United States.

The letter, written by W. Richard Stover of Lewisburg, Pa., blames the president for failing to defeat the Islamic State and said that in the wake of the capture by ISIL of Ramadi, it was time for “regime change” in this country. Stover’s message of hate said the only way to do was to execute the head of government by “guillotine.”

Is this what we’re coming to in some corners of the country?

The Daily Item’s apology included this statement: “The procedure at The Daily Item is for the person editing letters to review the content for offensive language and ad hominem attacks. Publication is, however, a signal that the opinion is not one we would readily suppress, which can accurately be interpreted as an endorsement of acceptability — much to our chagrin in this instance.”

Chagrin?

Shame is more like it.

 

Iraqis need the ‘will to fight’

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter appears to be a blunt speaker.

That’s a good thing. We need some of that frank talk when it involves war.

However, he’s now having to out-blunt the vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, who’s now trying to make nice with Iraq leaders angry over what Carter said about their troops’ ability to defend a key military target.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/biden-tries-to-patch-things-up-with-iraq-118265.html?hp=l2_3

Carter asserted over the weekend that Iraqis lack “the will to fight” the Islamic State terrorists, which overran the Iraqi city of Ramadi against forces that outnumbered and outgunned them. What did Carter say? “We can give them training, we can give them equipment. We obviously can’t give them the will to fight.”

Flash back 40 years. The United States fought North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops for a decade trying to save South Vietnam from a communist takeover. Our troops pulled out in 1973 after training, equipping and dying alongside South Vietnamese troops. In March 1975, North Vietnam launched its final offensive and in April claimed the entire country.

Why and how did they succeed? South Vietnam lacked “the will to fight.”

So, what’s happening in Iraq isn’t necessarily a new development.

It’s not too late to get the Iraqis ready to defend their country. But defend it they must. This must be their fight, not ours. We’ve already lost more than 4,000 precious American lives in the effort to rebuild Iraq into a free society.

 

 

 

No, senator: Obama didn't 'create' ISIS

It’s time to correct a misstatement uttered by one of the probable Republican candidates for president in 2016.

Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that the Islamic State is the creation of Barack Obama.

The creation? Yes. He said that.

Check out the link here. The statement comes at about the 2:30 mark of the 3-minute video.

http://www.msnbc.com/way-too-early/watch/is-the-us-winning-the-fight-against-isis–449161795946?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native

I believe the more accurate assessment is that the Islamic State is the creation of the failed Iraq War that was launched in March 2003 by President Bush.

ISIL comprises Sunni extremist militants — monstrous terrorists, at that — who are fighting to get rid of the Shiite government in Baghdad. Why are the Shiites in power, and not the Sunnis? Because we removed the Sunni in chief, Saddam Hussein, after we invaded his country on the false premises that (a) he possessed chemical weapons and was developing a nuclear bomb and that (b) he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

President Obama did not “create” the Islamic State. He inherited its creation from a mistaken notion that overthrowing the Iraqi government and then remaking Iraq in our image would produce a nation that stands as a bastion for the freedom and liberty we all cherish.

So, let’s cut the crap, Sen. Santorum.