Tag Archives: Iraq

International news

No, Mr. President, we aren't safer

I’d like to take issue with former President George W. Bush about whether we’re safer because we invaded Iraq in 2003.

He says we are. I contend we are not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/george-bush-saddam-hussein-iraq-war_n_6146280.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

The ex-president told National Public Radio that the world might have had a nuclear Iraq had Saddam Hussein been allowed to stay in power. Is that to be believed in its entirety? It stands as the Mother of All Hypotheticals.

One of the pretexts for going to war was that Saddam was building a nuclear arsenal. When we arrived, we found zero evidence of it, just as we found none of the weapons of mass destruction that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted were there.

We weren’t greeted as “liberators,” as Cheney had predicted. The nation erupted into violence — against Americans and against the government we helped install.

More than a decade later, and after nearly 5,000 Americans died in battle, the nation is now falling apart because of the sectarian violence that never really was extinguished.

And the former president now blames his successor, Barack Obama, for the rise of the Islamic State because we didn’t leave enough troops in the field to tamp down the terrorist threat.

I contend once again that the world isn’t safer because we invaded a sovereign country, overthrew a sovereign leader — yes, he was a very bad man — and built a nation essentially from scratch.

U.S. policy instead created a breeding ground for the kind of violence we’re now seeing because we believed a society with no history of democratic rule was able to understand fully the immensely difficult task of creating and maintaining freedom.

Are we safer because of this monumental blunder? Hardly.

 

 

military news, national news

Have a great day, fellow veterans

Younger readers of this blog might not remember this little tidbit.

There once was a time in this country when being a veteran wasn’t something to be honored or celebrated. Oh sure, many millions of Americans did honor veterans. Many millions of others, though, chose to scorn those who wore the uniform.

It happened during the turbulent decade of the 1960s. The Vietnam War was being fought. It split this country apart. Hawks vs. doves. War mongers vs. peaceniks. Conservatives vs. Liberals.

Some of us found ourselves caught in the middle of all this.

It wasn’t a pretty time. It was ugly.

Veterans Day parades drew protests from those who opposed the Vietnam War. Some of these protests turned ugly, even violent.

Perhaps the most reprehensible element of all was that Americans threw their greatest scorn at the service personnel who simply were doing their duty. They were ordered to go to war and they followed those orders, did what they were told to do and returned home to a nation that didn’t salute them. Their fellow Americans turned their backs on them.

Full disclosure. I was one of those veterans who spent some time serving my country. A little bit of that time was spent in Vietnam. I didn’t get spit on or cursed at when I returned home, as happened to some veterans. I returned and resumed a quiet life.

The good news would come later.

Americans realized the error of their ways. It happened about the time of the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. We went to war yet again to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait after the dictator Saddam Hussein invaded that country and captured its immense oil wealth. President Bush said the invasion “will not stand.” We bombed the daylights out of the Iraqis and then sent in in 500,000 or so mostly American forces to kick the Iraqis out.

The job was over in a few days.

Those returning vets came home to parades, music, banners, “Welcome Home” signs. They returned to a nation that had restored its pride in those who don the uniform.

That pride continues to this day. Even though some of us have criticized the policies that took us to war in Iraq yet again in 2003, Americans never again — I hope — will blame the warrior for doing his or her lawful duty.

This veteran is grateful that our country has learned once again to express its thanks.

International news, military news

Americans may be targets, too

Word out of Iraq is that an air strike likely has wounded a key Islamic State leader.

To whatever extent Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is injured remains unclear. I hope he dies a painful death.

http://time.com/3574879/isis-leader-airstrike-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/

Indeed, the question now ought to surface about whether Americans or other foreign nationals who’ve joined ISIL are being targeted by the air strikes led by the United States of America.

My answer? Big bleeping deal. Anyone from another country who joins this monstrous terrorist outfit and then takes some kind of secret oath to kill “infidels” from the land of their birth forfeits immediately — in my mind — their rights of citizenship.

That surely includes Americans.

The air strikes are having their desired effect on slowing ISIL. U.S. air power has accounted for most of the damage — and the casualties.

If Americans who’ve joined the fight against their own country get caught in the barrage, well, that’s the price they will pay for going to war.

International news

The enemy of my enemy …

To the president of the United States, I offer this cautionary word.

Be very careful, Mr. President, in your attempt to enlist the aid of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/politics/obama-iran-isis-letter/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Yes, I know the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Mr. President, do not consider Iran our “friend” by any definition of the word, no matter how loosely one might apply it.

The president recently sent a letter through back channels to the Iranian leadership seeking some advice and help in fighting ISIL. Indeed, Iran has some skin in this game. ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult bent on restoring the Sunnis to power in Iraq and in toppling the dictatorial government of Bashar al Assad in Syria.

What’s the Iranian stake here? The Iranian government is run by Shiite Muslims, the arch-enemy of the Sunnis; what’s more, the Iranians have been propping up Assad’s regime with weapons and intelligence to use against the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Predictably, Republicans in the United States have been blasting the daylights out of President Obama for even talking to the Iranians. Their government hates the Great Satan and, yes, we detest their intentions as well, particularly their reported desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, though, can play a role in helping the United States rid the world of ISIL. It has substantial intelligence capabilities; it certainly has the motive to destroy ISIL.

However, does it have the will to make peace with the United States and, even more critically, with Israel if it means the end of ISIL?

Therein lies the multibillion-dollar question.

I don’t have a particular problem with an outreach such as what has taken place — but only if it is devoid of language that promises peace with a nation that first and foremost must renounce virtually its entire foreign-policy doctrine.

Tread carefully, Mr. President.

International news, military news

ISIL cannot 'hide' these jets

The great heavyweight boxing champion Joe Louis once said of challenger Billy Conn, who nearly beat the Brown Bomber in a classic 1941 title fight, “They can run but they can’t hide.”

He referred to Conn’s boxing ability that enabled him to stay away from Louis’s big punches for 12 rounds. Then Conn got cocky, decided to trade punches with Louis, and got knocked out in the 13th round.

Sports can intersect occasionally with world events, so it is with that segue that I mention a word about Islamic State fighters reportedly obtaining possession of obsolete MiG fighter jets. ISIL pilots are being trained to fly MiG 21 and 23 aircraft.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/activists-islamic-state-group-may-have-warplanes-112005.html?hp=l21

Will they turn the tide against the U.S.-led coalition that is conducting air strikes against ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq? Not a chance, according to military observers.

The question then becomes: Where will ISIL seek to hide these aircraft?

The terrorists will be unable to keep the planes away from the gaze of airborne or space-based surveillance equipment.

U.S. aviators are flying state-of-the-art high-performance jets with unmatched skill and expertise. Same can be said for our French, Australian, British, Canadian, Saudi and Jordanian allies. The ISIL “air force” is being cobbled together by former Iraqi air force pilots who reportedly are training the terrorists in using the MiGs.

Yes, the planes captured by ISIL ground forces, represent something of a moral victory for the terrorist organization.

However, let us not be duped into thinking the old aircraft pose an immediate serious threat to the air campaign.

Still, I am hopeful we’ll be able to find the planes stashed away somewhere. Then we must hit them hard.

International news, military news

Key U.S. ally needs to join the fight

Where are the Turks?

Turkey is a critical ally of the west, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, possessing a significant military apparatus and a reputation as fearsome fighters.

Yet the Turks haven’t joined the fight against the Islamic State in a meaningful way.

http://news.yahoo.com/strikes-pound-jihadists-us-led-coalition-meets-173455057.html

The U.S.-led coalition of nations is continuing its air campaign against ISIL. The Central Command contends that the strikes are beginning to have an impact on ISIL’s advance. White House press secretary Josh Earnest cautions reporters that the air campaign is still in its early stages but that it’s beginning to hurt ISIL.

Still, the Turks — whose country borders both Syria and Iraq — hasn’t yet joined the fight.

Granted, Turkey is allowing U.S. pilots to fly through its air space en route to hitting targets in Syria and Iraq. The planes are launching from U.S. bases inside Turkey. That’s good news.

However, the Turks need to join this fight and become the ally they say they are.

Other Muslim nations have become partners in this fight. Turkey no longer can just talk a good game. It needs to suit up and start hitting the enemy … hard.

International news, military news

Iraq has 'Vietnam' feel to it

Iraq is beginning to look a little like Vietnam to me.

Why? It’s the performance of the Iraqi army in the face of a relentless enemy that brings about the comparison.

It’s making me more than a tad uncomfortable.

Iraq’s army, the one trained and equipped by the United States of America under two presidential administrations, isn’t performing worth a damn on the battlefield against the Islamic State. Sound familiar? It should.

Army chief ‘somewhat’ confident Iraq can defend Baghdad

Nearly 40 years ago the United States ended its war in Vietnam, leaving the defense of South Vietnam to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. ARVN then had to face the invaders from North Vietnam, who in early 1975 launched a massive offensive against the south. By April of that year it all ended when North Vietnamese army troops rolled into Saigon, stormed the presidential palace, hoisted the communist flag and renamed Saigon after the late Uncle Ho, Ho Chi Minh City.

Fast forward to the current day and we’re seeing the Iraqi army performing badly against ISIL.

U.S.-led airstrikes reportedly are slowing ISIL’s advance a bit, but so far it hasn’t stopped taking the fight to the Iraqi forces.

Now we hear from U.S. Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno say he is “somewhat confident” the Iraqi government will beat back ISIL. Somewhat satisfied? How confident can we be in that prediction? Not very.

I’m having a flashback at this moment and it’s making me very uneasy as this desert fight continues to play itself out.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Name's the same: It's called 'war'

The “fair and balanced” network that keeps proclaiming its journalistic integrity is at it again.

The Fox News Channel is trotting out a military expert to gripe that the war against the Islamic State doesn’t have a name, as in Operation Destroy ISIL or Operation Kill the Bad Guys.

The expert, whose name escapes me at the moment, was complaining that the Obama administration’s campaign to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State needs a catchy name to rally the nation, to give the mission a sense of purpose, to send a message to the Middle East terrorist monsters that, by God, we mean business.

Then he went on to suggest that absent a name President Obama is engaging in some form of denial about the severity of the heinous organization with which we’re dealing in Syria and Iraq.

Sigh …

Someone has to tell me in language I understand precisely why we need to call this campaign something catchy.

I heard the Fox expert prattle on about national purpose and unity. However, if memory serves, Operation Iraqi Freedom — which is what the Bush administration called its March 2003 invasion of Iraq — didn’t exactly gin up a whole lot of national unity simply because we hung a label on it.

The only thing that produces such unity is battlefield success. Yes, the United States succeeded on the battlefield. Our forces defeated Saddam Hussein’s overhyped army with ease — just as we did in 1991 when we liberated Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm.

However, we weren’t greeted as “liberators,” as then-Vice President Cheney predicted would happen. Then that unity thing kind of fell apart as public opinion began to sour on our continued occupation of Iraq.

Did the name chosen produce the sense of mission and national esprit de corps envisioned at the time?

Hardly.

Let’s get back to debating the merits of the air campaign against ISIL. I hasten to note, incidentally, that more nations are taking part. We aren’t alone in this fight.

Thus, it would be helpful if critics here at home — such as the Fox News “experts” — would cease carping on these side issues.

They serve only as a distraction from the bigger fight.

International news, local news, military news, national news

Waiting to hear from chairman-to-be Thornberry

Lame-duck House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., has weighed in on President Obama’s strategy to destroy the Islamic State.

He says the president needs to rethink the bombing strategy and possibly bring in ground troops to fight ISIL terrorists face to face.

That’s fine, Chairman McKeon.

However, he’s leaving office in January. The new Armed Services Committee chairman is going to be Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, Texas. He’s my congressman. He represents the sprawling 13th Congressional District, which includes the Texas Panhandle.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/220157-house-gop-urges-obama-to-rethink-isis-strategy

What does the chairman-in-waiting think ought to happen?

Thornberry’s been fairly quiet while the Middle East has been erupting in flames. As head of one-half of Congress’s key committee on military matters — the other half does business in the Senate — he’s going to be a critical player in this on-going discussion.

Thus, Rep.Thornberry is likely to be stepping outside of his comfort zone, as I have come to understand it. He’s going to be asked regularly to appear on those Sunday news talk shows. He’ll be grilled intently by journalists who’ll want to know where he stands on this critical question of the U.S. response to the ISIL threat.

Until now, Thornberry has been content to serve as a back-bench member of the House. He doesn’t act particularly starved for attention by the news networks, although he does acquit himself well on those occasions he has appeared. (I recall one interview he had on MSNBC with Chris Matthews. I reminded Thornberry that I once met Matthews “before he was ‘Chris Matthews.'”)

I appreciate where Chairman McKeon is coming from on this issue of ISIL and our response to it. Sadly, he’s rapidly become “old news.” I’m waiting for the new guy — Mac Thornberry — to step up.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Take ownership of this failure, Mr. President

It pains me to say this, but President Obama’s response to the question of how the U.S. got “surprised” by the rise of the Islamic State is disappointing — to say the very least.

I’ve noted before how the president likes to use the first-person singular pronoun references to his presidency. He’s particularly fond of using it when they involved success.

When Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” asked him the other day how he could have been surprised by ISIL’s emergence, the president said: “Well I think, our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.”

There it is: “they underestimated …”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/isis-sweep-into-iraq-was-no-surprise-to-anyone-paying-attention.html/

I’m not going to join the right-wing mainstream media chorus in saying Barack Obama has thrown Clapper “under the bus.” But as the blog from the Dallas Morning News notes correctly, ISIL’s emergence wasn’t a surprise to those intelligence officials who were paying attention.

Furthermore, as commander in chief, the chief executive of one branch of the U.S. government, the head of state and government, it falls directly on the president of the United States to be aware fully of these matters in real time, as they are happening.

The president did receive a letter signed by senators from both parties that warned him about ISIL. It was sent to the White House nearly 11 months ago, long before those gruesome beheadings captured the nation’s attention. Now we know what’s stake, yes?

Well, apparently, some legislators had more than an inkling nearly a year ago and warned the White House of the impending danger.

As the Morning News’s Tod Robberson notes in his blog: “Okay, let’s assume that Obama disregarded the letter as partisan hyperbole from the same ol’ critics, namely McCain and Graham. That doesn’t account for the contribution from Levin and Menendez. Let’s assume that Obama was reluctant to react because he didn’t trust the mercurial whims of al-Maliki. How does any of that explain his failure to respond when ISIS clearly was sweeping into Iraq’s Anbar Province in January?”

Well, the president is responding now. I’m grateful for that.

I do wish, though, he would take as much ownership of the setbacks as he does of the triumphs.