Tag Archives: Syria

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

Security issue crosses a new border

Well, it seems that border security isn’t just an American problem.

Vice President Biden said recently that Turkey has allowed fighters to cross into Syria to join the Islamic State in its fight against the world. His statement drew a sharp rebuke from Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who has demanded an apology from the vice president.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/219780-turkish-president-demands-apology-from-biden

Erdogan’s take? He said, according to The Hill: “‘Foreign fighters have never entered Syria from our country. They may come to our country as tourists and cross into Syria, but no one can say that they cross in with their arms,’ Erdogan continued, saying the country had prevented 6,000 suspected jihadist members from entering the country and deported another 1,000.”

This sounds vaguely familiar.

There might be a serious semantic problem that needs to be clarified.

Critics of the Obama administration keep harping on the “porous” southern border with Mexico, yet ignore that U.S. border agents are rounding up illegal immigrants daily and have been returning them to their home countries in record numbers. Is the border really “porous” if we’re catching people coming here illegally? Just asking.

Now we hear about border security issues in one of the most dangerous places on Earth. Syria years ago erupted into civil conflict. It’s been bloody and ruthless. Neighboring nations ought to be locking down their own borders with Syria, particularly with news of the thousands of foreign fighters joining the hideous forces waging battle against the tyrannical regime of Bashar al-Assad.

So, what did the vice president say? He criticized Turkey and Arab nations for supporting Sunni militant groups that turned out to comprise fighters from around the world.

I’ll give the vice president the benefit of the doubt on this one. He may have been asserting that Turkey needs to do a better job of securing its borders with a nation at war with itself. These conflicts have ways of spilling over into neighboring nations.

So, if the Turks are our allies, then they need to demonstrate their commitment to joining the fight by locking down their border and ensuring the foreign fighters don’t enter the Syrian battlefield from Turkey.

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.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Revenge on tap? Who knew?

This is the nature of the enemy with which the United States and other nations are at war.

Al-Qaeda officials vow “revenge” for the air strikes that have hammered Islamic State positions in Syria and Iraq. And why are we striking those targets? Because of terrorist acts against innocent civilians.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/al-qaida-leader-syria-warns-revenge-airstrikes-n213636

Al-Qaeda started this fight 13 years ago when terrorists hijacked those airplanes and flew them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The United States, led by two presidents, have sought to finish the fight they started.

There’s no end game in sight yet. President Bush declared our intention to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan. President Obama has followed through.

ISIL has emerged as an offshoot of al-Qaeda and has executed innocents, some of whom in a horrific way.

And now these terrorists are vowing revenge?

Someone will have to explain to me how this makes any sense.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Let's debate this war declaration notion

Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, is quite correct to call attention to whether the United States of America has gone to war under the rules set forth by the U.S. Constitution.

He was speaking this morning on ABC-TV’s “This Week” and said the debate should have commenced 30 years ago.

The Constitution states in Article I, Section 8 that Congress has the power “To declare war.”

There it is. No argument. No qualifier. The power to declare war rests exclusively with Congress.

And yet …

We’ve been to war in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea — am I missing anything? — without Congress voting on a declaration of war.

The discussion this morning comes just as the United States is gathering a coalition of allies to bomb the Islamic State into oblivion as it seeks to destroy what’s been called “an existential threat” to this country. Congress has authorized the training and arming Syrian rebels, but hasn’t yet debated whether to send American aviators into hostile air space to bomb ISIL forces.

That’s warfare, as I understand the meaning of the term.

Shouldn’t we be having this debate? Shouldn’t Congress declare war on ISIL if that is what the commander in chief says is occurring as we seek to “degrade and ultimately destroy” this terrorist cult?

Uncategorized

Bully for the Brits; shame on Congress

Two nations separated by an ocean are engaging the air war over Syria in entirely different manners.

The British Parliament came back into session at the behest of Prime Minister David Cameron to debate and vote on whether the United Kingdom should join the coalition fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Parliament voted to get into the fight.

On this side of the Atlantic, the U.S. Congress is, well, on recess.

http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell/watch/congress-on-recess-as-airstrikes-continue-333908547996

Which legislative body is being more responsible and responsive to a burgeoning international crisis?

I doubt you should think it’s the Congress of the United States of America.

The Brits have this one down correctly.

Prime Minister Cameron was right to call his colleagues back into session. Parliament was right to debate the issue and then take a critical vote.

President Barack Obama operates in a different form of government, in which the legislative branch is co-equal with the executive branch. Lawmakers in both congressional chambers operate under their own sets of rules. Democrats set the rules for the Senate; Republicans do the same in the House of Representatives.

I get that these folks have to campaign for their offices. Still, why have they spread hither and yon across our vast country at this time — while our young servicemen and women are risking their lives while trying to put down a despicable terrorist organization?

International news, military news, national news, political news

ISIS's 'worst nightmare' answers the call

2 Comments

This story absolutely, positively knocks me out.

Major Mariam Al Mansouri has flown a combat mission striking Islamic State targets in Syria.

Al Mansouri is a major in the United Arab Emirates air force.

The major is a woman!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/world/meast/uae-female-fighter-pilot/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Al Mansouri might be, in the words of CNN.com, the Islamic State’s “worst nightmare.”

The Islamic State — aka ISIS or ISIL — is at this moment the world’s No. 1 terrorist organization. It is a Sunni extremist cult that beheads prisoners and brutalizes women, denying them any semblance of respect.

These terrorists are animals. President Obama has declared his intention to “degrade and destroy” the terrorist organization.

Accordingly, he and Secretary of State John Kerry have enlisted several nations to join in a coalition to fight ISIL/ISIS. The United Arab Emirates is one of them. Among the service personnel ordered to fly combat sorties against the Islamic State is the aforementioned Major Al Mansouri.

“She is (a) fully qualified, highly trained, combat ready pilot, and she led the mission,” Yousef Al Otaiba told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” according to CNN.com.

This is fantastic. A female UAE air force officer has led a combat mission to destroy military targets manned and operated by sworn enemies of women all around the world.

The delicious irony is way beyond measure.

International news

Not the U.S. fight alone

President Obama said it correctly.

The fight against the Islamic State does not mean the United States wages this battle alone. ISIL presents a worldwide threat and therefore the world — or at least those nations closest to the threat — must step up.

Five of them have done so as air strikes have begun in Syria.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-says-arab-support-shows-this-is-not-americas-fight-alone

It is to the great credit of Secretary of State John Kerry that he was able to cobble together a coalition of Arab states to take part in this fight alongside American service personnel. French fighter aircraft already have joined U.S. pilots in hitting ISIL targets in neighboring Iraq.

Obama said, “America is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations. This is not America’s fight alone.”

So the fight has been joined with the Islamic State in Syria. Does this mean we’re now cozying up to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who remains an enemy of the United States? Not in the least, although U.S. commanders did alert Assad in advance that the air strikes against ISIL targets would commence.

The pressure must remain on the Arab states to stay in the fight for as long as it takes to put down these terrorist monsters, who have made it clear they intend to target Americans for future heinous acts.

Yes, the fight will take some time to complete. It must be done.

International news, national news, political news

Air strikes in Syria begin … with help

American pilots are now doing what the commander in chief said was likely: launching air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

With that news, the war against the terrorists has expanded.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My view from many thousands of miles away is this: We’d better hit them hard and keep hitting them hard for as long as it takes to render them “degraded” significantly.

I do not want U.S. “boots on the ground.” Those “boots” would be carrying Americans, which is why I have grown weary of that cliché. I remain cautiously optimistic that air strikes can do what President Obama wants them to do, which is to degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State.

No, we cannot do this alone. The Pentagon has said that partner nations are involved in the air strikes, which began with Tomahawk missiles and fighter aircraft launched from the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush.

There can be no doubt that any military operation requires friendly nations to take part. The Pentagon hasn’t been very specific on which nations are contributing to this cause, but reports indicate that Sunni Arab states have been involved. That’s an encouraging sign.

What’s the biggest worry, other than ISIL responding with some hideous execution? My guess is that it would Syria reacting badly to U.S. aircraft entering Syrian airspace. If the Syrians are smart — and I believe they are — they’ll be quietly applauding the air strikes, as the ISIL targets represent the biggest threat to that government’s survival.

Oh, boy. This fight has just gotten a whole lot more complicated.

Uncategorized

Bipartisanship returns … for a time at least

President Obama got what he asked for from Congress: authorization to train and arm Syrian rebels.

The vote in both congressional chambers crossed party lines, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans supporting his request.

Does this mean Congress is going to set aside its partisan differences among its members and with the president and start actually governing? I’m not holding my breath.

But I was struck by a comment I heard in the wake of the Senate vote from a lawmaker who said that the fact that Congress actually passed something with a bipartisan vote ought to send chills up the spines of the bad guys we’re trying to destroy in Syria and Iraq.

Indeed, the vote is a tricky one.

U.S. national security officials say they’ve identified “moderate” foes of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Those are the people who’ll get the arms and the training to use them. The Islamic State will be isolated and wiped out eventually, they contend.

Obama also said that he’s lined up a coalition of about 40 nations. France is going to start flying sorties over targets in Iraq and aiding in our bombing campaign against the Islamic State.

Great. But what about the Sunni Arab states that have pledged to aid in this effort?

They need to get in the game — quickly.