Jump to content

Iraq

Tigermike

By Tigermike
in Political Smack Talk

Recommended Posts





  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Proud Tiger Founding Father

Proud Tiger 4,261

Posted
Posted

This makes it interesting. When pressed on his Iraq policy recently, Obama said "I'm waiting on a new gov't." Well Mr. Obama, the new gov't is here. What will you do now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tigermike Founding Father

Tigermike 3,025

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"Amerli — ‘Iraq’s other humanitarian crisis': A few hundred fighters fighting to protect town from ISIS jihadists"

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/15/amerli-iraqs-other-humanitarian-crisis-a-few-hundred-fighters-fighting-to-protect-town-from-isis-jihadists

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AURaptor Founding Father

AURaptor 1,122

Posted
Posted

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

Huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homersapien Founding Father

homersapien 11,362

Posted
Posted

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

Huh?

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
japantiger Founding Father

japantiger 4,051

Posted
Posted

Sorry guys, Obama said crisis over. There can't be more murdered Yazidis. We beat ISIS back. Come on, no chance he was wrong on this. I mean, I'm sure Susan Rice is keeping him 100% up to speed on the golf course...and she has a proven track record of accuracy in a crisis. Just ask Ambassador Stevens...oh, wait.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
japantiger Founding Father

japantiger 4,051

Posted
Posted

Is there anything else our Vacationer in Chief can under-estimate? He's demonstrated a real knack for that!

He underestimated how "toolish" he looked when he let someone film him throwing out a first pitch and working out...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cptau Founding Father

cptau 169

Posted
Posted

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

Huh?

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

The problem is how do we know they have a government? No one listened or reacted to the former "Iraqi" government. The only government we are sure of is in the Kurdistan region, which is autonomous and has been since 1991. We should be sending them whatever they need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tigermike Founding Father

Tigermike 3,025

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates to join Islamic State, U.S. officials say

By Greg Miller August 9

U.S. spy agencies have begun to see groups of fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa to join the rival Islamist organization that has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and been targeted in American airstrikes, U.S. officials said.

The movements are seen by U.S. ­counterterrorism analysts as a worrisome indication of the expanding appeal of a group known as the Islamic State that has overwhelmed military forces in the region and may now see itself in direct conflict with the United States.

“Small groups from a number of al-Qaeda affiliates have defected to ISIS,” as the group is also known, said a U.S. official with access to classified intelligence assessments. “And this problem will probably become more acute as ISIS continues to rack up victories.”

The influx has strengthened an organization already regarded as a menacing force in the Middle East, one that has toppled a series of Iraqi cities by launching assaults so quickly and in so many directions that security forces caught in the group’s path have so far been unable to respond with anything but retreat.

U.S. officials attribute the Islamic State’s rapid emergence to factors both psychological and tactical. Its core group of fighters honed their skills against the armies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the United States when it occupied Iraq. The group has used raids and ransoms to stockpile weapons and cash. And its merciless reputation triggered rampant defections among Sunni members of Iraq’s security forces already disenchanted with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

After being stranded on the parched Mount Sinjar for almost a week and then walking 12 miles to seek refuge in Syria, some of the persecuted civilians were able to safely return to the Kurdish region of Iraq with the help of Syrian Kurdish forces.

Aug. 12, 2014 Displaced Iraqis from the Yazidi community gather for food at the Nowruz camp in Derike, Syria. Khalid

Mohammed

Even before its assault on Kurdish territories in northern Iraq this month, analysts said the Islamic State had shown an almost impulsive character in its pursuit of territory and recruits, with little patience for the elaborate and often time-consuming terror plots favored by al-Qaeda.

Counterterrorism analysts at the CIA and other agencies have so far seen no indication that an entire al-Qaeda node or any of its senior leaders are prepared to switch sides. But officials said they have begun watching for signs of such a development.

The launching of U.S. airstrikes has raised new questions, including whether the bombings will hurt the Islamic State’s ability to draw recruits or elevate its status among jihadists. “Does that increase the spigot or close it?” said a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity and noted that U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere have crippled al-Qaeda but also served as rallying cries against the United States.

Longer-term, U.S. officials expressed concern that the Islamic State, which so far has been focused predominantly on its goal of reestablishing an Islamic caliphate, may now place greater emphasis on carrying out attacks against the United States and its allies.

President Obama was careful to depict the strikes as part of a humanitarian mission to protect endangered Iraqis, including members of a Christian sect, encircled with scant supplies on a northern Iraq mountaintop. Obama also referred to the presence of U.S. personnel in the region and stopped short of authorizing a broader assault against the Islamic State.

Still, the strikes triggered widespread calls for retaliation among militant groups online. A prominent figure on a well-known jihadist forum, Shumukh al-Islam, wrote Friday that the airstrikes should prompt fighters to unite against the United States.

“The mujahideen must strike and seek to execute proactive operations in their own home, America, to discipline America and its criminal soldiers,” the jihadist, Abu al-Ayna al-Khorasani, wrote, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant postings.

teez606.jpg?uuid=JpCuch9fEeSbbBLjDL6Gow View Graphic

U.S. officials said the defections to the Islamic State have come primarily from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based group that has launched several bombing plots targeting the United States, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which had seized territory in northern Mali before facing strikes carried out by France last year.

“It’s not to the point where it’s causing splintering within the affiliates,” said the senior U.S. counterterrorism official. But the defections have accelerated in recent months, officials said, and also involve fighters from groups in Libya and elsewhere that are not formally part of al-Qaeda.

U.S. officials estimate that the Islamic State has as many as 10,000 fighters, including 3,000 to 5,000 from countries beyond its base in Iraq and Syria. Its ranks have swelled with the emergence of the civil war in Syria — a country relatively easy to reach from both in the Middle East and Europe — as a larger magnet for jihadis than Afghanistan or Iraq were. The group has also attracted critical support from disenfranchised Sunni residents in Mosul and other Iraqi cities, civilians who have lost patience with the government of Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki but may not embrace the hard-line agenda of the Islamic State.

The group has not been linked to any known plot against the United States, but Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. testified in January that the group “does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland.”

U.S. officials have said about 100 Americans have either traveled to Syria or tried to. Among them was a former Florida resident, Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who returned undetected to the United States for several months this year before departing again for Syria and detonating a suicide bomb. Abusalha was not tied to the Islamic State, but officials believe that as many as a dozen Americans have linked up with the group.

The Islamic State traces its origin to al-Qaeda in Iraq but broke from the terrorist network this year after being criticized for its tactics — including the slaughter of civilians — and refusing instructions to cede the fight in Syria to a separate al-Qaeda ally known as al-Nusra.

Since then, the Islamic State has amassed arms, cash, fighters and territory at a breathtaking rate. In July, the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, took the pulpit at the largest mosque in Mosul, declaring himself the “caliph” of the Muslim world and urging followers to flock to his organization.

In doing so, Baghdadi fulfilled an ambition articulated by his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006. It also marked a significant departure from the al-Qaeda playbook.

Al-Qaeda’s commander in Yemen, Nasir al Wuhayshi, has written letters to subordinates cautioning against prematurely declaring Islamic rule even in small villages — in part out of fear that failing to hold territory or enforce Islamic law would lead the group to lose face with the local population.

Baghdadi’s lack of restraint appears to have expanded his appeal, according to U.S. officials who said the group’s expanding territory, aggressive reputation and roster of experienced fighters account for its momentum.

“They are demonstrating just how advantageous it is to a ­terrorist-insurgent group to be fighting in the field for years and years as they have been in Iraq and Syria,” said Daniel Benjamin, a professor at Dartmouth University who previously served as the top counterterrorism official at the State Department.

“Their skill at maneuver is really kind of extraordinary compared to groups you would compare them to,” including al-Qaeda’s affiliates in Yemen and Mali, Benjamin said. “They are not constrained by that fear of failure other al-Qaeda groups have shown,” he added, or the group’s tendency to “spend years preparing single attacks.”

Julie Tate contributed to this report.

link

This is more than a little Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homersapien Founding Father

homersapien 11,362

Posted
Posted

The problem is how do we know they have a government? No one listened or reacted to the former "Iraqi" government. The only government we are sure of is in the Kurdistan region, which is autonomous and has been since 1991. We should be sending them whatever they need.

Well, we know Iraqi didn't have a government before Maliki agreed to step down. Maliki's own party has now agreed to form a coalition government with the other parties represented in the recent election. Until then, it looked like Maliki was going to stage a coup and take over.

As far as the Kurds, last week the US bombed Isis and Obama has agreed to directly arm Kurdish troops.

http://time.com/3103537/kurds-iraq-erbil-barzani-isis/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AURaptor Founding Father

AURaptor 1,122

Posted
Posted

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

Huh?

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

The problem is how do we know they have a government? No one listened or reacted to the former "Iraqi" government. The only government we are sure of is in the Kurdistan region, which is autonomous and has been since 1991. We should be sending them whatever they need.

well, Iraq HAD a govt. But I agree that we need to be doing more for the Kurds. We should have been doing so for quite a while now. I don't know why our govt hoses them so much. Regardless of administrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NC1406

Guest NC1406

Posted
Posted

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

So are you saying we invaded a country and toppled their government but pulled out before a new government was established?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homersapien Founding Father

homersapien 11,362

Posted
Posted

Actually, this does change things.

Really, none of you see the problems with providing military aid to a country without a government?

So are you saying we invaded a country and toppled their government but pulled out before a new government was established?

No, but the elected government was headed by Maliki, who promptly degraded the political situation by excluding the non-Shia. Then when a legitimate constitutional political change was in the offing, Maliki resisted the transition to the point of threatening an outright coup.

It was during this period of government "limbo" that the crisis with Isis developed. For a period, there wasn't a legitimate government in Iraq. The various factions were negotiating with each other while their "country" was being invaded.

Had we supported an illegitimate government we would have been reinforcing this illegitimacy. In other words, we would have been taking title to a politically chaotic Iraq (once again). Had we jumped in to take over their problems, they'd probably still be negotiating on forming a government.

In other words, by intervening prematurely, we would be trying to prop up a country that didn't exist from a political standpoint. In even plainer words, we'd be jumping right back into the s***.

If you are seriously asking me such a question, then you obviously haven't been paying much attention to Iraq..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NC1406

Guest NC1406

Posted
Posted

I was seriously asking the question and I HAVE been paying attention, more closely than most actually. Our intervention was probably ill timed. Our exit appears to have been a miscalculation. Many lives have been sacrificed with little to negative results. Very discouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homersapien Founding Father

homersapien 11,362

Posted
Posted

I was seriously asking the question and I HAVE been paying attention, more closely than most actually. Our intervention was probably ill timed. Our exit appears to have been a miscalculation. Many lives have been sacrificed with little to negative results. Very discouraging.

Our exit was the only option, unless you feel we should have stayed without a status of forces agreement. Staying would have required that we thumb our noses at the very government we were trying to get them to form. What would you have us do, set up a colony?

Our exit was hardly a "miscalculation". Just the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest NC1406

Guest NC1406

Posted
Posted

So are our "advisors" protected working without a status of forces agreement? Are we back in Iraq for humanitarian reasons or is it to set up a legitimate government this time? I am following the situation but I am not clear on our objective at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homersapien Founding Father

homersapien 11,362

Posted
Posted

So are our "advisors" protected working without a status of forces agreement? Are we back in Iraq for humanitarian reasons or is it to set up a legitimate government this time? I am following the situation but I am not clear on our objective at the moment.

I expect that now they really need and want us there, it's a moot point.

We are not there to set up a "legitimate" government - which is non-sequitur at any rate. Apparently the Iraqi's are going to do that for themselves.

And I don't think you are following the situation (in my best Jerry Seinfeld imitation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...