What's new

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

Obama's Mission Against ISIS Just Fundamentally Changed - Yahoo Finance

Thu, Aug 21, 2014, 5:46pm EDT - US Markets are closed

Obama's Mission Against ISIS Just Fundamentally Changed

By Brett LoGiurato8 hours ago

President Barack Obama surprised many observers Wednesday with his brevity and anger when he spoke about the brutal murder of American photojournalist James Foley at the hands of militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL).

It was Obama as "you've never seen him before," as The Huffington Post put it on the site's banner. Some observers on Twitter said he sounded almost "Bush-ian," a reference to President George W. Bush. And some analysts think it could mean the start of a long, extended campaign against the group, which Obama compared to a "cancer" and said "doesn't belong in the 21st century."

Some analysts think it is likely that Obama will significantly change the mission against ISIS to, in the words of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry , "crush" the group. For a war-tired American public, the mission will be rebranded as a battle in the "war on terror," rather than in terms of the Iraqi war that the vast majority of Americans, in retrospect, consider a disaster.

"It's a clear escalation of rhetoric — and will lead to an escalation in policy," geopolitical expert Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, told Business Insider in an email. "This moves the United States from stopping ISIS gains on the ground (at least against the Kurds and the Yazidis) to active efforts to destroy ISIS. The U.S. has moved from limited military aims and deterrence towards a broader anti-ISIS military campaign.

"ISIS taking the fight 'directly to America' with their statements in the past days and the videotaped beheading of an American journalist was a serious strategic misstep on their part."

Bremmer tweeted Thursday that the U.S. had "moved from constraining ISIS to combating them," which could expand the war across the Syrian border. Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser to Obama, told NPR on Thursday that the U.S. "would not restrict ourselves ... to geographical boundaries" against ISIS.

The U.S.' current campaign in Iraq began as a humanitarian intervention, providing critical supplies to tens of thousands of religious minorities trapped on a mountain while blunting ISIS advances near areas with a U.S. personnel presence.

Less than two weeks ago, Obama authorized the U.S. military to conduct airstrikes in Iraq to aid Iraqi and Kurdish forces in their fight against ISIS. The Pentagon says the military has conducted 84 such strikes so far, helping the Kurds retake the important strategic mark of the Mosul Dam. The strikes have targeted ISIS security checkpoints, vehicles, weapons caches, and more.

ISIS said its execution of Foley, who was kidnapped in Syria in 2012, came in retaliation for Obama authorizing those airstrikes. ISIS also threatened to kill another journalist it was allegedly holding captive Steven Sotloff, who was kidnapped near the Syrian-Turkish border in August 2013 — if Obama did not draw back U.S. involvement.

Obama made it clear on Wednesday he was not going to do that. Michael Cohen, a fellow at the progressive Century Foundation, tweeted immediately after Obama's speech that the implicit takeaway was that the U.S. was "at war with ISIS."

"I don't think I've ever heard Obama make a statement like that," Cohen told Business Insider in a subsequent interview.

"It was unusually tough, but to the point I made below when you describe ISIS as a cancer and evil and a nihilistic actor you're kind of locking yourself into a policy of full versus half-measures. It will be very hard, now, for Obama to finish this mission with anything less than the defeat of ISIS, which is not something that is going to happen overnight."

Bremmer said he expected Obama to remain cautious in how he escalates U.S. military involvement. More "military advisers" and forces to provide "security" to Americans in Iraq could head to the country so that Obama could keep his promise of not allowing any U.S. "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

But the airstrikes will continue, and they will most likely ramp up significantly with support from allies. Already, in the aftermath of the ISIS video's release, the U.S. conducted at least a dozen airstrikes against ISIS targets.

The brutal murder of Foley also allows Obama an easier sell for a hard line against ISIS to a war-weary American public. It allows him to reframe the intervention to focus on the "war on terror," where he has had some of his biggest foreign-policy successes, and away from memories of Iraq.

"The days of 9/11 and the war on terror remain an all too visceral part of the American national consciousness," Bremmer said. "It also puts the fight in the context of Obama's successful record against al Qaeda and the killing of Osama bin Laden, rather than the failed war in Iraq. All of which will embolden the president to take a much tougher line."
completely eliminate the group would require a full-scale war. One former U.S. official told Business Insider a mission to severely blunt ISIS would most likely require much more than 10,000 troops — not to mention many billions of dollars.

It would also probably require a military campaign of some sort in Syria, where ISIS has developed strongholds in a fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

>"The last thing the president wants is to widen the scope of overt American operations into Syria and get involved in the war there," Garrett Khoury , the director of research at The Eastern Project, told Business Insider in an email.

Khoury disagreed with the notion that Obama would dramatically alter the campaign against ISIS, because it would take a "massive American military escalation" to even push the group back. The setting in Syria, which is much more unsettled than in Iraq, is a prime factor in his reasoning.

"The situation on the ground there is even more confused and dangerous than it is in Iraq, especially considering that both the Assad government and the rebels are fighting ISIS," Khoury said.

In a briefing with reporters Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf would not rule out a U.S. campaign against ISIS in Syria. And Kerry said in his statement that the U.S. would "confront ISIL wherever it tries to spread its despicable hatred."

The situation in Syria, as it always has, again presents a fundamental problem for the Obama administration. How do you "crush" ISIS if you don't go in?

"That's a great question, and somebody should probably ask the president that," Cohen said. "... It's hard to use the language he used to talk about ISIS and support anything other than wiping these guys out."

But he added: "I'd be surprised to see a move into Syria."
.
Obama%27s_Mission_Against_ISIS_Just-345114c52a3e4884e35add9e2e988c8f



Mike Nudelman/Business Insider
 
Islamic State 'beyond anything we've seen': US - Yahoo News

Islamic State 'beyond anything we've seen': US

1 hour ago

An image made available by the jihadist Twitter account Al-Baraka News on June 9, 2014 allegedly shows Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants waving the trademark Jihadist flag on the Syrian-Iraqi border (AFP Photo/)
Washington (AFP) - The Islamic State poses a greater danger than a conventional "terrorist group" and is pursuing a vision that could radically alter the face of the Middle East, US defense leaders said Thursday.

The IS jihadists could be contained and eventually defeated by local forces backed by the United States, but the Sunni population in both Syria and Iraq would need to reject the group, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey told reporters.

Hagel warned that the Islamic State is better armed, trained and funded than any recent militant threat.

"They marry ideology and a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well funded. This is beyond anything we have seen," Hagel told a news conference.

Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the group adheres to a fanatical ideology and has "a long-term vision" to take over Lebanon, Israel and Kuwait.

"If they achieve that vision, it would fundamentally alter the face of the Middle East and create a security environment that would certainly threaten us in many ways," he said.

Hagel said dozens of US air strikes have helped thwart the momentum of the jihadists around the Mosul dam in northern Iraq, helping Kurdish forces counter the militants.

"American air strikes and American arms and assistance helped Iraqi and Kurdish forces blunt ISIL's advance around Arbil, where American diplomats and troops are working, and help the Iraqis retake and hold-Mosul dam," Hagel said.

The bombing runs and humanitarian aid to the local population have stalled the Islamic State's "momentum and enabled Iraqi and Kurdish forces to regain their footing and take the initiative."

Asked if the US would hit the militants in neighboring Syria, Hagel did not rule out that option but did not indicate strikes there were imminent.

Dempsey said the extremists would ultimately have to be taken on in neighboring Syria, possibly by other more moderate rebel elements.

"Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no," the general said.
 
Did anybody stop the genocide in Cambodia as well? And this was long before Rwanda and nobody stopped that so this is not the first buddy.

Are you saying that we should have, but didn't, or that we shouldn't have, but didn't.

No one is contesting that THEY didn't. The question is: Should WE intervene when genocide is imminent?

Genocides have occurred before, with other people running the governments of the time - our parents, grandparents, et.al. Do you think they did the right thing by not intervening? (were they able?) Should WE intervene?

It's not about the past, it's about right now. What do we do today, and going forward?
 
Obama, now please bomb these insects to hell and be done with it. Thank you.
And then blame the Americans again for doing the same after say... a couple of years? :omghaha:

And why would the Americans be welcome in Iraq now?
Just because the Islamic State is creating bad PR?
 
Are you saying that we should have, but didn't, or that we shouldn't have, but didn't.

No one is contesting that THEY didn't. The question is: Should WE intervene when genocide is imminent?

Genocides have occurred before, with other people running the governments of the time - our parents, grandparents, et.al. Do you think they did the right thing by not intervening? (were they able?) Should WE intervene?

It's not about the past, it's about right now. What do we do today, and going forward?

Lets say you are the President, just recently American soldiers were killed in peacekeeping operation to prevent a genocide in another country and want to pull troops out because the American people demand it. There is another genocide soon afterwards, do you intervene?
 
Lets say you are the President, just recently American soldiers were killed in peacekeeping operation to prevent a genocide in another country and want to pull troops out because the American people demand it. There is another genocide soon afterwards, do you intervene?

One of the reason why Direct Democracy does not work well is because sometimes mob opinion is not best for national direction. A leader is chosen to lead so he can use his wisdom and farsightedness and make choices for the best long term interest of the nation, sometimes ignoring whimsical public opinions. I am not saying Obama does that, in fact, I very much think that Obama pretty much follow public opinion more than I would like him to, but sometimes he seem to make exceptions and going against IS could be one of these wise decisions, even if it goes against the general war weariness that exists in the public mood. Simply because IS is directly threatening US national interest and the interest of its allies in the region.

If he was more wise in his choices in Syria since 2011, we would probably not see an IS today in this form. So I like to think that IS is actually Obama's creation, along with close to 190,000 deaths in Syria, which was avoidable.
 
It's only a matter of time before US jets crash over Iraq and pilots get captured. What then?
the odds of that happening are slim, but if it did happen think we got special forces ready to go in helicopters to pick them up from Jordan or wherever they are based at.
 
the odds of that happening are slim, but if it did happen think we got special forces ready to go in helicopters to pick them up from Jordan or wherever they are based at.


The US crashes a lot of aircraft. They crashed an F-15E on the first day over Libya. They crashed Apaches early on over Kosovo as well. About a third of their aerial casualty is caused by crashing their own aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Lets say you are the President, just recently American soldiers were killed in peacekeeping operation to prevent a genocide in another country and want to pull troops out because the American people demand it. There is another genocide soon afterwards, do you intervene?

You still have not answered my question, but I will answer yours:

Yes.

As the leader of a country treaty-bound to prevent genocide, yes, you advocate for the deployment of troops to prevent genocide, where possible. Alternatively, you point out to the people you are leading that they are reneging on their agreements, and perhaps they don't really believe what they claim to believe (that genocide should be stopped).

Now, please answer my question: Should WE intervene when genocide is imminent?

From your comments thus far, I gather you don't give a rip about genocide unless it is being committed on "your" people.
 
The US crashes a lot of aircraft. They crashed an F-15E on the first day over Libya. They crashed Apaches early on over Kosovo as well. About a third of their aerial casualty is caused by crashing their own aircraft.

yeah but how many aircraft do you think we used against Libya on the first day? the ratio of sorties per crash??
air strikes against IS in Syria would be a limited one. I would suspect no more than 6 F-18 SH with 2 sorties per day
 
You still have not answered my question, but I will answer yours:

Yes.

As the leader of a country treaty-bound to prevent genocide, yes, you advocate for the deployment of troops to prevent genocide, where possible. Alternatively, you point out to the people you are leading that they are reneging on their agreements, and perhaps they don't really believe what they claim to believe (that genocide should be stopped).

Now, please answer my question: Should WE intervene when genocide is imminent?

From your comments thus far, I gather you don't give a rip about genocide unless it is being committed on "your" people.

I wouldn't care and the President has no allegiance to "his" people because of his skin color or religion. Easier said than done until you realize the consequences of getting involved with one group trying to wipe out another. For example Shiites killing Sunnis at a mosque today in Iraq. Maybe you should give Bill Clinton an interview why he didn't intervene in Rwanda and why he pulled out of Somalia.
 
One of the reason why Direct Democracy does not work well is because sometimes mob opinion is not best for national direction. A leader is chosen to lead so he can use his wisdom and farsightedness and make choices for the best long term interest of the nation, sometimes ignoring whimsical public opinions. I am not saying Obama does that, in fact, I very much think that Obama pretty much follow public opinion more than I would like him to, but sometimes he seem to make exceptions and going against IS could be one of these wise decisions, even if it goes against the general war weariness that exists in the public mood. Simply because IS is directly threatening US national interest and the interest of its allies in the region.

If he was more wise in his choices in Syria since 2011, we would probably not see an IS today in this form. So I like to think that IS is actually Obama's creation, along with close to 190,000 deaths in Syria, which was avoidable.

You could say it was Obama's creation when he pulled troops out while Iraq was still weak and not stable enough. Shrugs* After all there were terrorist attacks by the ISIL against the Iraqi govt. as well as joined forces to turn into ISIS.
 
Back
Top Bottom