Tag Archives: Iraq

Uncategorized

Iraq terrorists 'beyond anything we've seen'

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has laid it out there.

The monsters who killed journalist James Foley comprise a group that surpasses any terror organization Americans have seen since the war on terror began.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/chuck-hagel-isil-defense-james-foley-110241.html?hp=t1

We’re in for yet another fight for our lives. We’d better get ready.

This, I submit, is what we got when we declared war on international terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

“They’re beyond just a terrorist group,” Hagel said. “They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready.”

Hagel is referring to ISIL. They’re fighting in Syria against an enemy government and in Iraq against a friendly government. They’re vowing to bring the fight to the United States, which prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to suggest this week that the terror organization might already be lurking in this country.

I’m not going to suggest that we shouldn’t have declared war on terrorists after 9/11. They struck hard at us on that Tuesday morning in New York and Washington and we responded as we should have done.

Matters worsened when we invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the false premise that Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction that they would use against us and Israel.

What now? Do we re-enter the fight in Iraq with ground troops? Absolutely not. Do we invade Syria? Again, no.

President Barack Obama is deploying significant air power against the terror organization in Iraq. Reports indicate the strikes are working. Yes, the war must continue for as long as monsters keep killing innocent people.

Critics of the current strategy should recall the lessons of Vietnam. We fought tooth and nail there for nearly a decade. We left eventually and the communists took control of the country we fought to defend. We can commit ground troops in Iraq until hell freezes over, leave that country and the chaos we’re witnessing today will erupt.

What’s the solution?

Intense vigilance here at home against forces that seek to harm us. Yes, keep up the attacks on the Sunni extremists whom Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey describes as “an organization (that) has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision, and which will eventually have to be defeated.”

The question remains: How will we know — in this new age of open warfare — when our enemy is beaten?

Uncategorized

Lawsuit to be put on hold … perhaps?

The thought occurs to me: If the speaker of the House of Representatives wants the president to concentrate on his job, might he and his Republican congressional colleagues want to delay their goofy lawsuit over Barack Obama’s alleged misuse of executive authority?

Let’s think about this.

The United States is up to its armpits in a variety of international crises: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Hamas vs. Israel. They are taking up a lot of the president’s time, attention and energy.

The speaker has been critical of the president because, he says, the president has abused his executive authority by changing parts of the Affordable Care Act without congressional approval.

Obama has countered Boehner’s contention by encouraging him to “sue me.”

But now the nation is trying to resolve these crises. Does the president need to be “distracted” by the lawsuit? I don’t think so.

Indeed, with beheadings, rocket attacks, air strikes, Americans in physical danger in hostile places, the idea of going to court over domestic policy differences seems, well, rather irrelevant.

Don’t you think?

Uncategorized

Obama must stand strong against monsters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQ-D7GD92o

Barack Obama likely never envisioned dealing with the monstrous behavior he and the rest of America have witnessed in recent days.

No, he took office as the nation was mired in a financial meltdown. The nation was at war with terrorists and had made progress in that effort. Osama bin Laden was still on the loose, but that crack SEAL team killed him in May 2011.

The president made another statement today about the death of a journalist in Syria at the hands of ISIL, the terrorists seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government while also fighting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Can there be any more complicated relationship here, with the United States despises the terrorists fighting a government we support in Iraq while fighting a government we oppose in Syria?

These monsters took the life of an American journalist, James Foley. They’re demanding we stop the air strikes against them, or else they’ll kill others held hostage.

Plus, the world learned today that this summer, the United States launched an attempt to rescue Foley and others from ISIL, but couldn’t locate him or his captors.

The president today vowed to keep up the fight against the killers. He held Foley up as a courageous journalist, while calling ISIL a band of cowards.

He used strong language, as the video attached to this post will attest. Words, though, fail to persuade terrorists bent on destroying their enemies.

The president’s response to the terrorists’ demands was to step up the air attacks against targets in Iraq.

They must continue. Let us take caution, though, to avoid that slippery slope. This nation has plenty of air power assets to deploy against the monsters. Let us use them with maximum force and prejudice.

Uncategorized

Hey … about those Nigerian girls

3 Comments

World crises seems to cascade all around us so rapidly that they yank our attention from, um, previous world crises.

Well, several crises ago, the world was aghast at the kidnapping of 300 or so Nigerian girls by yet another terrorist organization, Boko Haram. Remember that story?

The girls were taken into the forest where they’re reportedly being held hostage. Boko Haram had been demanding some sort of ransom. U.S. intelligence and special operations forces had joined the Nigerians and other international organizations in the hunt for the girls.

What’s happened to that story? Where are the girls? What has become of the urgency that was being expressed from places like the United Nations, the Oval Office of the White House, from the State Department, from capitals around the world?

I shudder to think that we can handle only one crisis at a time. Syria once was the crisis du jour; then came Ukraine; next up was Gaza and the Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli neighborhoods. The world is now fixated on Iraq, ISIS and the attempted overthrow of a government that the United States helped install.

Meanwhile, those Nigerian girls are still being held somewhere, by someone, for some reason.

Please, someone tell me the world still cares about those girls.

Uncategorized

U.S. responds correctly to ISIS threat

The Sunni extremists seeking to overrun Iraq have executed an American journalist, released video of his gruesome death and threatened to do the same thing to others until the United States stops its air strikes against military targets in Iraq.

The U.S. response? More air strikes.

It is absolutely the correct response to this hideous threat.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

James Foley had been held for two years by ISIS terrorists before reportedly being beheaded by his captors. Foley has been saluted and eulogized as a courage chronicler of events in the Middle East who’s paid the ultimate price for doing his duty as a journalist.

ISIS has been characterized by experts as an organization far worse than al-Qaeda — and Americans know first hand what kind of outfit al-Qaeda has become.

ISIS’s advance on Iraqi installations and its assault on people needs to stopped. That is why President Obama has ordered the air strikes that reportedly have done grave damage to the group’s military capabilities.

For as long as ISIS continues to threaten to do harm to Americans and innocent Iraqis — namely Christians — then the United States has an obligation to protect these interests. We have paid too much in our own blood and money to let ISIS run rampant in Iraq. Obama says our nation’s ground combat role in Iraq is over, but the aerial campaign — along with the humanitarian effort to aid Yazidis and Kurds — is worth pursuing in an effort to pound ISIS into oblivion.

If ISIS responds with another execution, well, then the attacks should increase in ferocity.

Uncategorized

'Bipartisan foreign policy' must return

Holy cow! Texas Gov. Rick Perry is making some sense as it regards U.S. foreign policy.

Perry has penned an essay for Politico Magazine in which he says the following about the growing conflict in Iraq between the Iraqi government and the ISIS terrorists seeking to take control of the country: “The danger for the United States and other Western nations may still seem remote. And for many Americans, understandably, just about the last thing we want to think about is more conflict in Iraq and what it might require of our country. But we cannot ignore reality. We have come to a seminal moment when America’s action or inaction could be equally consequential. If anything is left of the old bipartisan tradition in American foreign policy – that basic willingness to unite in fundamental matters of security – we need to draw on that spirit now in a big way.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-op-ed-iraq-110088.html#ixzz3Ahd3u8t8

I’ll repeat part of it. “If anything is left of the old bipartisan tradition in American foreign policy … we need to draw on that spirit now in a big way.”

Amen to that, Gov. Perry.

I’ve long lamented the sniping and bickering regarding foreign policy that in its way gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Democrats did it to Republican presidents, and Republicans are now doing it to a Democratic president. The great Republican U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan used to say that partisanship “stops at the water’s edge.” It now splashes into the water and the waves ripple far and wide.

Perry, of course, said much more in his Politico essay. He argues that U.S. air strikes must save Irbil from ISIS terrorists, as it is home to a U.S. consulate in Iraq.

The governor argues against “rehashing the causes of today’s crisis” and says it’s now time to look forward to what we can do to bring it to an end. The targeted air strikes against military targets in parts of Iraq appear to be working. I am concerned about the so-called “slippery slope,” and whether we’re going to re-engage in a ground war — something that Gov. Perry actually called for as he ran for president briefly in 2012.

He seems to have backed away from that notion and is preaching a more bipartisan approach to solving a foreign-policy crisis.

Uncategorized

'Go' on air strikes … but with caution

Count me as one American who supports the air strikes against ISIS terrorists in Iraq.

Also, count me as one who is concerned about the potential for falling down that proverbial slippery slope.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/politics/obama-iraq-turning-point-political/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

President Obama’s decision to strike military targets in northern Iraq is necessary to protect Iraqis and Americans against ISIS, a group known to be far worse than al-Qaeda. The strikes are intended to destroy military installations, munitions and, of course, actual terrorists.

Let’s hope they do their job.

It’s the possible “what’s next” that gives me concern.

The president says Americans aren’t going to re-enter the battlefield against those seeking to destroy the Iraqi government. I’ll take him at his word.

It is absolutely clear that Americans no longer want to fight the Iraq war, which was launched in March 2003 on information regarding weapons of mass destruction that proved to be totally bogus. It lasted nearly a decade, costing billions of dollars and thousands of Americans casualties.

So, it is with some concern about the future that brings this particular statement of support for the attack from the air.

Please, Mr. President, do not resume the fight on the ground.

Uncategorized

Air strikes 'authorized'

2 Comments

Here we go once more.

The commander in chief “authorizes” the use of military force but leaves the door open to possibly not actually using it.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/08/07/obama_authorizes_renewed_airstrikes_in_iraq_107354.html

The enemy this time is in Iraq, the Sunni Muslim extremists seeking to overthrow the Shiite government. President Obama today announced a humanitarian mission to help those who are stranded in northern Iraq by the onslaught of the Sunni fighters.

What’s next? The president said he has “authorized” the launching of targeted air strikes against those who would threaten a small detachment of U.S. forces sent to protect American consulate officials in Irbil.

A part of me wants the president to make good on the threat. However, a bigger part of me hopes the Iraqi government can push the insurgents back, defeat them on the battlefield and forgo the use of U.S. military might in a conflict our ground forces ended more than a year ago.

As RealClearPolitics.com reported: “‘As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,’ Obama said.

“Even so, he outlined a rationale for airstrikes if the Islamic State militants advance on American troops in the northern city of Irbil and the U.S. consulate there in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The troops were sent to Iraq earlier this year as part of the White House response to the extremist group’s swift movement across the border with Syria and into Iraq.”

No one should want the United States to re-enter the fight in Iraq. However, the United States, with its investment in lives and money already deposited in Iraq, needs to protect its interests in that country.

If air strikes are needed, then we must not be reluctant to exert our considerable force.

Uncategorized

WMD crisis averted

The world can focus only on one crisis at a time, or so it seems.

The Syria crisis gave way to the Ukraine crisis, which then gave way to the Nigeria girl-kidnap crisis, which then made way for the Iraq crisis.

Back to Syria. Remember the “red line” President Obama drew and then said the United States would strike militarily at Syria if it used chemical weapons against its people? The Syrians did. The president blustered, threatened to hit them hard, then asked Congress for permission.

Then came the Russians, who then brokered a deal that persuaded the Syrians to get rid of the gas they used on their citizens.

You know what? It now appears the last of the weapons are gone. Destroyed. We never fired a shot at them.

It’s not entirely clear that all the weapons are gone, as the New York Times editorial notes with caution. The “known weapons” have been removed and destroyed. It remains to be seen whether the entire cache of WMD is gone.

Still, it is worth noting that Obama’s critics had it wrong when they blasted him for failing to act on the “red line” threat, even though Republicans kept insisting the president seek congressional approval before he did anything. The president did that — but it wasn’t good enough to suit the critics.

Barack Obama took office in January 2009 vowing to bring diplomacy back as a tool to help stem international crises. He’s sought to do that, all the while deploying military might when needed. Drone strikes have been effective at killing terrorists. Let us not forget what happened in early May 2011 when the SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in that daring raid to wipe out Terrorist No. 1.

The Syrian crisis is far from over. People are still dying in a civil war. Bashar al-Assad’s forces have taken back the momentum in the struggle.

One key element of that crisis — those dreaded WMD — has been removed. As the New York Times editorial notes: “President Obama’s critics excoriated the deal, but they have been proved wrong. The chemical weapons are now out of the hands of a brutal dictator — and all without firing a shot.”

Uncategorized

Come to Israel and see for yourself, PCUSA

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a classic response this morning to a question about a mainline Protestant denomination’s decision to divest itself of economic ties to Israel.

The decision by Presbyterian Church USA involves its divestment in companies that do business in the Middle East’s lone democratic state.

Netanyahu, appearing this morning on NBC’s “Meet the Press” news talk show, was asked by host David Gregory what he thought of that decision, which PCUSA based on Israel’s building of settlements in the West Bank region and Israel’s continued contentious relationships with its Arab neighbors.

Presbyterian Church Approves Israel Divestment, But Does its Boycott Even Matter?

For the life of me, this one is baffling.

Well, Netanyahu took the question from Gregory.

He responded magnificently. He noted that Israel grants full freedom in its country for Christians to worship their faith. He noted that many Arab nations persecute Christians, even kill them.

Netanyahu invited any Protestant denomination to tour the Middle East, encouraging them to look first-hand at the Arab nations — he mentioned Libya, Syria and Iraq by name — and then visit Israel. They will see up close the difference in the way they are treated in the Arab world as opposed to how they are received in Israel.

He offered two words of advice to anyone who takes him up on his invitation. “Be sure to travel in an armored vehicle” while touring any of those Arab nations, Netanyahu said. “And don’t tell anyone in any of those countries that you are a Christian.”

Amen, Mr. Prime Minister.