Tag Archives: ISIL

International news, military news

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.

 

International news, military news

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!

media news

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.

 

International news

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.

 

 

 

International news

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.

 

International news, military news

Say 'no' to U.S. ground troops in Iraq

Americans have been down this road already.

We invaded a sovereign nation. Tossed out its leader. Captured him. Tried and convicted him. Then we executed him.

Americans sought to help rebuild a government in our image, with mixed results.

All the while, nearly 5,000 of our young men and women died seeking to make Iraq a beacon of freedom and light in the Middle East.

Then we pulled out.

Obama: US not losing war against ISIS

Do we need to go back into a country and put “boots on the ground” in an effort to defeat the Islamic State, which wants to claim Iraq as its own?

No. Why? The country has no more stomach for additional loss of American life. We do not want to expend one more young life in a country into which we never should have entered in the first place.

President Obama says the United States is “not losing the war” against the Islamic State. He acknowledges “tactical setbacks” with ISIL’s taking of Ramadi, a key Iraqi city. But the air campaign will continue. We’ll continue to train Iraqi soldiers to fight the enemy on the ground. We’ll continue to provide intelligence to hunt down and kill ISIL leaders when and where we find them.

This fight continues to look as though it will take a long time to conclude. That, I submit, is the very nature of this new kind of “world war” in which we’re engaged.

Do we put our troops back onto the battlefield once again? No way.

 

International news, national news, political news

Techno-terrorists elevate threat to U.S., world

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issues a stern warning.

International terrorists have become cyber-savvy and are posing a uniquely new threat to the world.

Are we on guard against these guys? And what in the world do we do to stop them?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-security-chief-warns-of-new-phase-in-terror-threat/ar-BBjy1fG

“We’re very definitely in a new environment, because of ISIL’s (IS’s) effective use of social media, the Internet, which has the ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others,” Johnson said in a TV interview this morning.

The Islamic State reportedly is recruiting heavily through the Internet. It’s also posing serious threats to cyber infrastructure.

It’s no longer just madmen with bombs strapped their chests who pose threats to human life. This global war has turned into a battle of wits.

This new threat brings to mind something that congressional leaders sought to bring to national attention. I keep waiting to hear from the Texas Panhandle’s congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry, on how we’re defending ourselves against cyber warriors.

House Speaker John Boehner tasked Thornberry some years ago to lead a congressional committee that would devise strategies to fight Internet hackers and other enemies who would seek to do serious damage to our cyber infrastructure.

When these discussions bring the news to the front pages and gobble up air times on our news networks, I always seem to miss hearing from Rep. Thornberry, who I understand to be an expert on these issues.

I trust he’s working behind the scenes. He’s also become chairman of the House Armed Services panel, which is a huge responsibility all by itself.

Still, our Homeland Security secretary no doubt can use all the help he can muster in protecting “the homeland” against cyber attacks.

Let’s hope this fight transcends the political differences that seem to divide the White House and Capitol Hill … even when it involves national security.

 

International news

Islamic state takes 'credit' for Garland attack

Bet on this: If the State Department and the spooks at the CIA prove that the Islamic State actually is responsible for the Garland shooting involving the “Muhammad cartoon contest,” we’ll hear from those who will contend that the terrorists have infiltrated the United States.

Except that the White House says it’s too early to know whether the terrorist monsters can legitimately claim credit for the shooting.

http://news.yahoo.com/claims-texas-attack-via-official-radio-station-084314386.html

This brings to mind something I consider whenever I hear such claims of credit.

Can anyone make such a claim? Just because the Islamic State says it’s responsible for something, are we supposed to assume the worst instinctively?

Two Muslims opened fire in Garland when a right-wing group sponsored a “contest” for illustrations showing the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which is offensive under Islamic tenets. The sponsoring group knew that it was offensive, but it sponsored the event anyway, provoking the two men to open fire.

Garland police shot them both to death on the spot.

The Islamic State is taking credit for it. Did the terrorist hierarchy order the men to open fire?

I prefer to wait for proof that the terrorist cult is responsible before believing what it says.

These hideous monsters are capable of saying — let alone doing — anything.

International news

Bush needs refresher on his own blunders

3 Comments

George W. Bush had followed his father’s doctrine upon leaving the presidency in January 2009.

Do not criticize the man in the office now. Be quiet and go about the business of doing other pertinent activities.

Then the 43rd president spoke to a group of Republican donors over the weekend and proceeded to rip into Barack Obama’s handling of crises in the Middle East.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/the_swaggering_idiot_returns_george_w_bush_emerges_from_artistic_exile_to_rehab_his_disastrous_legacy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

From what is known about President Bush’s remarks — they weren’t recorded visually or audibly — he apparently spoke without a hint of understanding about his own foreign policy blunders in the region and the mess he created and left for his successor.

Iraq? The war he started against Saddam Hussein because he was “certain” that the dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction? The former president made no mention, of course, of the fierce resistance our forces encountered in a country that his defense secretary and vice president said would greet us as “liberators.”

Instead, the ex-president chose to criticize the current president for seeking to negotiate a deal that rids Iran of its capability to develop a nuclear weapon. He talked about the chaos that has developed since the United States went to war against the Islamic State.

Think about this for a moment. The Islamic State has risen in Iraq because it wants to restore a Sunni government that U.S. forces evicted from power. Yes, ISIL is an evil organization, but the ex-president is showing no inclination for taking a shred of responsibility for what has developed because of what this country did on his watch in the White House.

Chaos? President Bush created enough chaos to go around when he launched the Iraq War in March 2003.

I much prefer the George W. Bush who once understood what his father still understands: He’s had his time in the hot seat, which now is occupied by someone who’s doing the best he can to protect the nation all presidents profess to love.

 

International news

End of Cold War brought disarray

Joe Scarborough asks a compelling question about the state of U.S. foreign policy.

How did it get so messed up?

The one-time Republican congressman from Florida wonders how the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power can get in such a muddled mess.

I think I have a partial answer. Or perhaps just some food for thought: The end of the Cold War.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/history-scarborough-obama-bush-isil-israel-116495.html?hp=l3_3

Geopolitical relationships have gotten incredibly complex since the days when the Soviet Union sought to control the world and the United States kept pushing back the Big Ol’ Bear.

Our adversary was a clearly defined nuclear power. It covered 8 million or so square miles of territory across two continents. They were fearsome. Then again, so were we.

Then the Berlin Wall came crashing down in 1989. Two years later, the Evil Empire imploded.

Just like that, our Enemy No. 1 was gone.

In its place a lot of other enemies have arisen to rivet our attention. Scarborough thinks two American presidents — George W. Bush and Barack Obama — have presided over this turmoil. Granted, the Soviet Union disappeared on George H.W. Bush’s watch and his successor, Bill Clinton, managed to keep the assortment of new enemies at bay.

Here’s part of what Scarborough writes: “Bush’s ideological foreign policy was tragically followed by Obama’s delusional belief that America could erase the sins of the Bush-Cheney era by simply abdicating the U.S.’s role as indispensable nation.”

I am not certain anyone quite yet is capable of juggling so many balls at the same time. President Bush took dead aim at al-Qaeda immediately after 9/11, but then expanded that effort into a war against Iraq. Then came Barack Obama — and the world has just kept on getting more unstable.

But we still haven’t yet figured out how to manage crises that keep cropping up throughout the Middle East and northern Africa. The result has been, as Scarborough notes, a vast explosion of crises involving ISIL, Syria, Turkey, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria … and even Venezuela in our own hemisphere. Let’s not forget North Korea and the immigration crisis emanating from Latin America.

We’ve got to keep our eyes on many balls all at once.