Tag Archives: Iraq

International news, national news, political news

When did ISIL become such a threat?

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant dominated the Sunday talk shows.

Why not? ISIL has been on everyone’s mind these days.

Whether it’s ISIL or ISIS — po-tay -to, po-tah-to … whatever — the group has burst into our national consciousness in a way not seen since, oh, al-Qaeda did on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/216871-obama-to-detail-nation-on-isis-threat

I’m left with this question: How does a terror organization operate under our noses and under our radar for as long as ISIL apparently has without there being some kind of forewarning?

I am quite sure I’m missing something here, but I pose the question because ISIL now has become the stuff of presidential addresses to the nation.

President Obama is going to speak to us Wednesday night and will detail a strategy for how he intends to destroy the terror organization. In a Meet the Press interview broadcast today, the president also said he will offer details on the specific threat he believes ISIL poses to Americans.

We’ve been operating in an ISIL-free environment ever since the war on terror began immediately after the 9/11 attacks. How can that have happened.

ISIL didn’t just emerge from a genie bottle overnight. It’s well-funded, well-organized, media-savvy and dedicated to the proposition that it intends to bring harm to Americans. No group just pops up from under the rocks without anyone knowing of its existence.

The same might be said of al-Qaeda. Yes, U.S. intelligence officials reportedly knew about that group before the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qaeda was responsible for the suicide attack on the USS Cole in 2000. It was known to have been involved in a bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993. President Clinton sought to kill Osama bin Laden but failed.

Did John Q. Public know about al-Qaeda then?

No. It took that horrific attack on New York and Washington to make us aware of who these monsters are what they are capable of doing.

Now it’s ISIL, the latest national threat. It’s good that ISIL is on our radar. It’s even better that it’s on the commander in chief’s radar.

I hope now that at his next news conference, someone in the White House press corps will ask: Mr. President, when did we know about ISIL and why are we only now getting revved up to fight this monstrous mob of murderers?

 

International news, national news, political news

Obama seeks to thread dangerous needle

Talk about a much-anticipated speech.

President Obama is going to speak Wednesday about his planned strategy for “degrading, defeating and destroying” the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

In that speech, the president is going to lay out a plan that will preclude American “boots on the ground.” What he will need to explain — and he’ll need to use his tremendous rhetorical skill to do so — is how this nation is going to defeat ISIL’s efforts to overthrow the government in Syria without aligning ourselves with the government that we also hate.

The president offered a hint of that strategy this morning in an interview broadcast on Meet the Press. He talked to new MTP moderator Chuck Todd about working with “moderate opposition forces” that also are fighting the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. ISIL is the new enemy on the battlefield in Syria, he said, and the United States will deploy its enormous air power to hit ISIL’s whenever and wherever we find it.

This, I submit, is where the equation gets very tricky.

Assad’s regime is as hated as any in the Middle East. He, too, is a monster who needs to go. ISIL, though, is an even worse monster. Do we take sides in this struggle, wishing for one enemy force to defeat another enemy force?

Obama said the aim ought to be to help those so-called moderates in Syria — with help from other Sunni Arab states in the region. He mentioned Saudi Arabia and Jordan, two nations that have received significant U.S. military support over the years.

It’s time, Obama said, for those nations to deploy the assets we’ve provided for them in the fight against ISIL.

The president took a lot of heat when he said recently that “we don’t have a strategy yet” in dealing with ISIL. The critics who pounded Obama over that statement forget the “yet” part of that statement.

It appears a strategy is forthcoming. I’ll wait with interest for what the president has to say.

I will be particularly interested in hearing how he plans to keep fighting Bashar al-Assad while destroying the dictator’s No. 1 enemy.

 

Uncategorized

Back to 'destroying' ISIL? Yes!

President Obama used a press conference to reintroduce the use of the “D” word in referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

It’s no longer simply “degrading” the terrorist cabal. We’re back to “destroying” it. The president did say the intent is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIL. I’ll accept the “degrade” comment in that context only.

The president was clear this morning at a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales. The United States plans to lead a coalition of nations to combat ISIL and destroy it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/president-obama-us-and-allies-united-to-defeat-isil-110635.html?hp=r4

The nations are allied against the terrorist threat, he said.

And just who is Barack Obama enlisting to join in this fight? He wants Arab nations to take up arms against ISIL. He specifically mentioned Sunni-dominated Arab nations that he believes should battle the Sunni extremists who comprise ISIL.

We’re already pounding ISIL strongholds with air power in Iraq. It appears that there is a likelihood of air strikes against ISIL in Syria, where the monsters have killed two American journalists in recent days, provoking horror and revulsion among civilized people around the world.

This fight is going to be a long one. It might never end, given the nature of the enemy.

I hope Americans no longer hear terms such as “degrading” and seeking to “manage” these threats. They need to be eliminated, destroyed and eradicated.

 

International news, national news

How do you 'manage' these monsters?

Barack Obama is mistaken if he thinks the Islamic State and the Levant can be reduced to a “manageable problem.”

Yet that’s what the president of the United States said today in a news conference at the start of a NATO meeting in Estonia.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/mitch-mcconnell-isil-110566.html?hp=l4

Uh, Mr. President? ISIL needs to be destroyed. Wiped out. Eliminated. Obliterated. Exterminated.

I’m sure I can find some more active verbs here, but you get the point.

Should we go to war, as in a ground war, with troops, tanks and trucks? No. Air power, and lots of it, is needed here. We have it. We should use it.

ISIL has shown that it cannot be “managed.” It cannot be contained and made insignificant. It is a well-funded, well-armed, sophisticated, media savvy organization that must be dealt with in the harshest manner possible — with extreme prejudice.

I get why the president won’t commit to a ground war in Syria and/or Iraq to fight these monsters. We’ve installed a government in Iraq that now must defend itself. As for Syria, fighting ISIL house to house would in effect put us shoulder to shoulder with troops loyal to another bad seed, Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who’s gassed his own people.

The president’s rhetoric, though, today took a startling turn toward the bland.

He’d declared the U.S. intention to destroy ISIL after it beheaded Stephen Sotloff. Today, he talked of reducing ISIL to a manageable size.

Destruction, Mr. President, is the only option.

International news, political news

Time for a strategy, Mr. President

President Obama made a startling acknowledgment today while talking about a range of issues.

He said the United States does not yet have a strategy to deal with ISIL.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/white-house-isil-russia-ukraine-110426.html?hp=t1

Well, there you have it. It’s time to craft a strategy, Mr. President, to combat an organization that does present a serious threat that extends far beyond the region it is seeking to control.

ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is a seriously evil organization capable of doing anything — and I mean anything — to make whatever point it seeks to make.

They’ve beheaded an American journalist, threatened to strike the United States, and vowed to wage all-out war on non-Sunni Muslims, Jews and Christians.

I’m of the view that the president needs to develop a comprehensive strategy immediately and to implement whatever it takes to take ISIL out.

Are we going back into Iraq with ground troops? Obama says no. I hope he means what he says. Count me as one American who’s become war-weary in the extreme. Are we going to send troops into Syria? By all means no. What we have in Syria is a battle between forces that are anathema to our national and international interests. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is hardly better than the ISIL forces seeking to topple him.

ISIL needs to be the target, Mr. President.

I appreciated today hearing you acknowledge the lack of a strategy. Now, though, is time to assemble that national security team to develop one. Now.

 

International news, national news, political news

Ready, set, bombs away!

Back and forth we go.

Congressional Republicans are so angry at President Obama that they want to sue him for taking on too much executive authority to get things done. Now comes a report that the White House is considering air strikes against targets in Syria.

The response from Congress, from Democrats and Republicans? Ask us for authorization, Mr. President, before you unleash our air power.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215962-corker-congress-must-authorize-airstrikes-in-syria

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., says the president should seek congressional approval. So has Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. Others on both sides of the aisle say the same thing.

They’re likely correct to request congressional approval. Recall that Obama earlier decided to seek congressional authorization after he threatened to hit the Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons on its people. Then the Russians intervened and brokered a deal to get the Syrians to surrender the WMD; they did and the weapons have been destroyed.

Congressional approval is likely the prudent course, given that the president has so few allies on Capitol Hill upon whom he can depend.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether senators like Corker and Kaine are going to stand with the commander in chief when the vote comes. If they’re going to demand congressional approval, then I hope they don’t double-cross Barack Obama with a “no” vote.

Obama reportedly wants to hit ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. He’s already authorized the use of surveillance aircraft to look for targets. I continue to hold out concern about where all this might lead.

I’ll say this next part slowly: I do not want my country to go to war … again. I’ve had enough. I do not want ground troops sent back to Iraq, where we’ve bled too heavily already.

But if we can lend our considerable and deadly air power to the struggle to rid the world of ISIS, then let’s get the job done.

 

International news, national news

U.S.-born ISIS fighter is dead

All the hand-wringing over the use of drones to target terrorists who might be American citizens makes me angry.

U.S. airpower struck at a U.S. citizen who had been working with al-Qaeda in Yemen. Our ordnance killed him and civil libertarians and others lamented the lack of “due process” given to the young man before the missile blew him away.

Too bad for that.

Now comes word that another young American, someone named Douglas McCain, was killed in a battle among terror groups in Syria. McCain had been recruited by ISIS, which is fighting governments in Syria and Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Will there more hand-wringing over this one? Probably not, given that he died at the hands of another extremist group. Suppose, though, he’d been killed by U.S. forces. Suppose further that those forces knew that an American was shooting back at him and that he intended to kill whoever he could hit.

Would we have legal and moral standing to kill someone who had renounced his country and taken up arms with the enemy?

Absolutely.

I’m as progressive as anyone on many issues. When it comes, however, to “protecting the rights” of Americans who turn on their country, all bets are off.

My curiosity goes only so far as to wonder what drives Americans to join forces with enemy combatants.

I don’t know the first thing about Douglas McCain and what lured him into the embrace of a hideous terrorist organization. To be honest, I don’t particularly care to know.

What’s left to ponder only is that someone who had declared himself to be an enemy of the country of his birth is now dead.

Whether he died at the hands of other bad guys or at the hands of our soldiers wouldn’t matter to me one little bit.

 

Uncategorized

Strange bedfellows, indeed

What may be about to happen in Syria just might re-define the term “strange bedfellows.”

This one utterly blows my ever-loving mind. The United States apparently is about to start launching surveillance flights over Syria to help pinpoint the whereabouts of ISIS fighters battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, the guy we threatened once to hit with airstrikes after he crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons on his own people.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215935-report-us-to-conduct-surveillance-flights-over-syria

ISIS is running rampant in Syria and Iraq. The terrorist organization has beheaded an American journalists, threatened to bring its mayhem to American shores, pledged all-out war against Israel and promised to overthrow the Iraqi government we helped install.

The group personifies evil.

It’s also fighting Assad’s wicked regime in Syria. Assad is another enemy of the United States. President Obama has called on him to step down. He has pledged support to insurgents fighting against Syrian government troops. One of those so-called “allies” appears to be ISIS, if that’s what we’re led to believe.

How can that possibly be happening?

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Remember that cliché?

You want more? Syria now has offered to help the United States by providing intelligence data on the movements of ISIS within that country’s border. No word yet on whether we’ve accepted the offer of assistance.

My head is about to explode as I ponder this amazing tangle of relationships.

Someone help me out. Please.

 

Intgernational news, national news

Let's hear plan? No, wait … that'll tip off the bad guys

These guys are killin’ me.

Critics of the president of the United States now say they want to hear his plans, in detail, on how he intends to “finish off” ISIS, the terror group running rampant in Syria and Iraq.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215847-ryan-wants-to-hear-obamas-plan-to-finish-off-isis-militants

Do you get it? They want Barack Obama to reveal to congressional Republicans the precise manner in which he intends to battle the hideous terror organization. Then what? Will they blab to the world whether the president is on the right track or wrong track? Will they reveal to the ISIS commanders what they’ve learned? Will they tip our hand, giving the bad guys a heads up on where we’ll attack and how much force we’ll use?

I get that the critics want to be kept in the loop. I also get that they need to some things about how an international crisis is evolving.

There seems to be a limit, though, on how much a commander in chief should disclose to his political adversaries — let alone his allies — on how he is deploying military and intelligence assets to do battle with a sworn enemy. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., noted that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are speaking out, but he wants to hear directly from the president.

Mr. Chairman, the defense boss and the Joint Chiefs chairman are speaking on behalf of the president. I’m betting they’re saying what he wants them to say.

 

 

Uncategorized

Social media offer some barometer of public mood

Judging the mood of the country through social media posts is a bit like relying on those instant Internet polls. Neither is very accurate and could be slanted depending on who you associate with on social media and who is answering the Internet “surveys.”

I get into exchanges with my network of Facebook “friends” about the state of things in the United States. I at times feel a bit lonely, as so many of those who read my Facebook posts — usually fed from this blog — have swilled the conservative Kool-Aid that makes them think the country has gone straight to hell under the leadership of the “socialist, Muslim-sympathizing, empty-suit fraud,” aka, the president of the United States, Barack Obama.

Others with whom I’m acquainted through this medium tilt the other way and they, too, weigh in with their own thoughts on the state of affairs in America.

I keep getting the feeling, though, that they — and I — are getting out-shouted. My friends on the other side have taken command of the public megaphone and are winning the argument.

One individual today said the nation has gone to pot. She’s given up on things, or so it appears.

This sorrowful attitude makes me wonder about just what has been accomplished since Barack Obama became president. Let me count them, as best I can remember:

* The annual federal budget deficit has been cut by more than half.

* Job growth is accelerating, although not at a rate fast enough to suit many people.

* Domestic energy production is at an all-time high; yes, many have credited private industry, not government, for that fact.

* Home foreclosures have slowed dramatically; meanwhile, new home construction has accelerated. Has anyone taken a look at all the houses being framed in Amarillo lately?

* Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden.

* We’re deporting illegal immigrants at record rates. Our southern border remains too accessible to illegal entrants, but we’re catching them and sending them back to their country of origin.

OK, have we had a run of perfection? Of course not. Then again, no presidential administration in my lifetime has been run perfectly.

International hot spots are burning hotter than ever in Iraq and Syria. Ukraine and Russia are going nose to nose. Israel is defending itself against Hamas terrorists who keep launching missiles into Israeli neighborhoods. Terror groups are kidnapping women and girls in Nigeria, beheading captives in the Middle East and persecuting Christians and other religious minorities throughout the Third World.

Amid all those international crises, critics keep yammering about the United States doing too little. What are the options? Send in ground troops to settle these disputes? Clamp economic embargoes? Do we ship more armaments to our friends, and if so, at what cost? What about those who say we should cut off “all foreign aid” and concentrate solely on the needs of Americans here at home?

It’s fair to ask: Has this country over the past two decades taken on too large an international role in a time when our adversaries have become more diverse, more elusive and pose greater and more varied existential threats than our former, easily identifiable enemy, the Soviet Union?

I am not a Pollyanna. I understand full well the challenges that await us. I also appreciate the challenges we’ve met over the years.

Has the United States of America gone to pot, as so many of my social media acquaintances have suggested? We’re just as strong as ever.