Al-Qaeda rebels take Tikrit, force 500,000 to flee Mosul

posted at 1:31 pm on June 11, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Tikrit may be remembered more for being Saddam Hussein’s home town. Today it fell to radical Sunni extremists linked to al-Qaeda as western Iraq spins out of Baghdad’s control. ISIS also tightened its grip on Mosul and took aim at the Iraqi oil infrastructure, hoping to establish its own transnational state with territory it controls in Syria:

Iraqi security officials say al-Qaida-inspired militants have seized the northern city of Tikrit.

The two officials in Baghdad told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Saddam Hussein’s hometown was under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, whose fighters this week took control of Mosul, the country’s second largest city.

The BBC reports that 500,000 refugees have fled Mosul to escape ISIS, and that the terrorists have seized diplomatic personnel from Turkey:

As many as 500,000 people have been forced to flee the Iraqi city of Mosul after hundreds of Islamist militants took control of it, theInternational Organization for Migration (IOM) says.

Troops were among those fleeing as the jihadists from the ISIS group took the city and much of Nineveh province.

The head of the Turkish mission in Mosul and 24 consulate officials have been seized, local sources say.

PM Nouri Maliki has asked parliament to declare a state of emergency.

The US said the development showed ISIS was a threat to the entire region.

Yes, but what is the US prepared to do about it? Not much more than cheerlead from the sidelines, according to McClatchy:

U.S. officials were quick to express solidarity with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who was elected to his post originally during the American occupation and whose administration the U.S. has backed with weapons shipments and military training. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the United States was working closely with the Maliki government, and Brett McGurk, the State Department’s top diplomat for Iraq and Iran, pointed out via Twitter that U.S. and Iraqi soldiers “have suffered and bled together, and we will help in time of crisis.”

But the nature of that help was perhaps best encapsulated in the response of Pentagon spokesman Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby that made it clear that the U.S. was unlikely to become directly involved in Iraq’s battle with ISIS. “This is for the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government to deal with,” Kirby said.

In comments Tuesday, U.S. officials left no room for direct involvement in the conflict there, where ISIS, analysts said, had demonstrated that it could successfully and simultaneously control parts of two major Iraqi cities, while battling multiple forces inside Syria, including the Lebanese militant organization Hezbollah and al Qaida’s Nusra Front. …

The performance of the Iraqi military at Mosul was another source of embarrassment for American officials, who had spent billions of dollars training and equipping the Iraqi military, only to have its soldiers shed their uniforms and flee before the ISIS attackers.

As I wrote earlier, there isn’t much we can do now. Despite the predictable return of al-Qaeda and ISIS to western Iraq, the Obama administration failed to reach an agreement with the Maliki government for a residual force to support Iraq’s security services in that eventuality. We have no footprint on the ground any longer in Iraq, and other than long-range bombing missions that would do damage to the Iraqis as well as ISIS thanks to the latter’s integration into urban areas, no immediate way to impact the fight.

Our materiel on the ground is worse than useless now, thanks to the Iraqi army’s flight:

With the fall of Mosul on Tuesday, Iraq’s al Qaeda offshoot has not only seized the country’s second-largest city, it appears it also has come into possession of the heavy weapons and vehicles the U.S. military had provided Iraq’s military to fight them.

That’s terrible news for America’s few allies left in Iraq as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) morph from terrorist menace to a military force capable of over-running an army the U.S. military trained for nearly a decade. It also calls into question the American government’s decision to withdraw the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011. Three years later that withdrawal now appears premature. …

General Najim al-Jabouri, a former mayor of Tel Afar, which is a little more than 31 miles from Mosul, told The Daily Beast the bases seized by ISIS this week would provide the group with even more heavy weapons than they currently control. “The Iraqi army left helicopters, humvees, cargo planes and other heavy machine guns, along with body armor and uniforms,” the general, who is now a scholar at the National Defense University, said. He said he was able to learn about the equipment from soldiers and other politicians in and around Mosul with whom he keeps in touch.

General Najim is not alone in this assessment. Jack Keane, a retired four-star Army general who was a key adviser to General David Petraeus during the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq in 2007 and 2008 known as the surge, said ISIS has now established itself as a formidable military force.

Speaking of premature, the troops we trained to replace us ended up demoralized when confronted in the field — and are now deserting in large numbers:

After months of grinding conflict against a resurgent militant movement, the Iraqi Army is having its power blunted by a rise in desertions, turning the tide of the war and fragmenting an institution, trained and funded by the United States, that some hoped would provide Iraqis a common sense of citizenship.

In a nation tearing apart along sectarian lines, Sunnis and Shiites have served together in the military. But the defections of Sunni soldiers threatened to deepen the growing perception among Iraq’s Sunnis that the military serves as an instrument of Shiite power, even while Shiites soldiers have also fled.

The toll of the desertions came into sharp relief on Tuesday, as soldiers and their commanders abandoned bases in Mosul, all but ceding Iraq’s second-largest city to extremist fighters belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

The fleeing troops left weapons, vehicles and even their uniforms behind, as militants took over at least five army installations and the city’s airport. In a desperate bid to stem the losses, the military was reduced to bombing its own bases to avoid surrendering more weapons to the enemy. American officials who had asserted that the $14 billion that the United States had spent on the Iraqi security forces would prepare them to safeguard the country after American troops left were forced to ponder images from Mosul of militants parading around captured Humvees.

The Wall Street Journal puts the blame on the Obama administration for its decision to completely abandon Iraq:

Since President Obama likes to describe everything he inherited from his predecessor as a “mess,” it’s worth remembering that when President Bush left office Iraq was largely at peace. Civilian casualties fell from an estimated 31,400 in 2006 to 4,700 in 2009. U.S. military casualties were negligible. Then CIA Director Michael Hayden said, with good reason, that “al Qaeda is on the verge of a strategic defeat in Iraq.”

Fast forward through five years of the Administration’s indifference, and Iraq is close to exceeding the kind of chaos that engulfed it before the U.S. surge. The city of Fallujah, taken from insurgents by the Marines at a cost of 95 dead and nearly 600 wounded in November 2004, fell again to al Qaeda in January. The Iraqi government has not been able to reclaim the entire city—just 40 miles from Baghdad. More than 1,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in May alone, according to the Iraq Body Count web site. …

Its promise of a “diplomatic surge” in Iraq to follow the military surge of the preceding years never materialized as the U.S. washed its hands of the country. Mr. Obama’s offer of a couple thousand troops beyond 2011 was so low that Mr. Maliki didn’t think it was worth the domestic criticism it would engender. An American President more mindful of U.S. interests would have made Mr. Maliki an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Mr. Maliki had to plead for emergency military equipment when he visited the U.S. last year, and the U.S. has mostly slow-rolled the delivery of arms. Now that stocks of U.S. military supplies have fallen into ISIS’s hands in Mosul, the Administration’s instinct will be to adopt an ultra-cautious approach to further arms deliveries. Mr. Maliki is likely to depend even more on Iran for aid, increasing the spread of the Sunni-Shiite regional conflict.

The Administration’s policy of strategic neglect toward Iraq has created a situation where al Qaeda effectively controls territories stretching for hundreds of miles through Anbar Province and into Syria. It will likely become worse for Iraq as the Assad regime consolidates its gains in Syria and gives ISIS an incentive to seek its gains further east. It will also have consequences for the territorial integrity of Iraq, as the Kurds consider independence for their already autonomous and relatively prosperous region.

We gave away all that we won in Iraq, and now the same terrorist network we have explicitly named as our enemy since 9/11 is coming close to creating its own state in the Middle East, complete with standing army and American arms. We may pretend to be able to wash our hands of this outcome, but sooner or later those oil resources will generate billions of dollars that will flood terrorist accounts and fuel attacks against Israel and the US. Right now, we don’t appear to want to do much about it, even to the extent we still can.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Any “exit plan” that depended on having to renegotiate an agreement with an Iraqi leader who no longer wanted the US there was a bad thing. Bush II was the one who signed the original 2008 agreement with its 2011 withdrawal date, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 2:50 PM

I should’ve known better than try to engage someone who doesn’t know anything.

I’m not talking about the 2011 withdrawal of combat forces. I’m talking about a Status of Forces Agreement, called a SOFA. The Obama administration failed to achieve one, so ALL troops were withdrawn.

And I already told you that Bush had an “exit plan,” but you were unable to comprehend what I wrote.

I apologize for overestimating your intelligence.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 2:56 PM

As I wrote earlier, there isn’t much we can do now. Despite the predictable return of al-Qaeda and ISIS to western Iraq, the Obama administration failed to reach an agreement with the Maliki government for a residual force to support Iraq’s security services in that eventuality. We have no footprint on the ground any longer in Iraq, and other than long-range bombing missions that would do damage to the Iraqis as well as ISIS thanks to the latter’s integration into urban areas, no immediate way to impact the fight.

Well maybe Maliki should call his good buddies in Tehran to help him. He wanted a love affair with Iran, well now he can have one…child brides included.

We gave away all that we won in Iraq, and now the same terrorist network we have explicitly named as our enemy since 9/11 is coming close to creating its own state in the Middle East, complete with standing army and American arms. We may pretend to be able to wash our hands of this outcome, but sooner or later those oil resources will generate billions of dollars that will flood terrorist accounts and fuel attacks against Israel and the US. Right now, we don’t appear to want to do much about it, even to the extent we still can.

I never understand this fantasy by some Republicans that we won something in Iraq. I despise Obama and dislike the Democrats, but this delusion that Iraq was a wonderful glorious victory until Obama came and took it away has to stop. It is dangerous because it means our side has learned nothing from the Iraq adventure, which means another Republican president could fall for it again.

In the Iraq War we removed Saddam Hussein, a psycho to be sure, but a semi-secular one. When we did that something was bound to replace the power vacuum. We Americans, in our infinite wisdom, decided we should set up a constitutional democracy. However, we failed to notice the vast majority of the population was Muslim. Which means what are they going to vote for? More Islam! Yea baby!

Better yet, those Iraqi Muslims are divided between Shia and Sunni, who truly hate each other. They are also divided between Arabs and Kurds, two ethnic groups that also don’t like each other. The only way you can keep a country like that together is with a strong man like Saddam.

The idea that a constitutional democracy would work in Iraq, with no long transition period (like a century or two) and no removal of Islam from government, was idiotic to begin with. Oh, but it gets better! Bush and Co. decided the best thing for Iraq was to have more Islam in Iraq, not less, because Bush was under the delusion that any “faith” (even Islam) is wonderful, and all secularism is bad. Therefore America was all for Islam being enshrined into the Iraqi constitution.

So the only way we could keep Iraq together under those circumstances was to keep American troops there for a really, really long time, probably several generations. Anyone think that is possible politically? Now the only way we could have won Iraq and also had a stable Democratic constitutional government in a shorter time would be to literally crush the faith of Islam and reduce it to a minority faith. How many people would we have to kill to do that? Yes…no need to give you the numbers. Once again not in the cards politically.

So where does that leave us? Well, what was destined to happened the second we entered Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. A big Shia vs. Sunni War for control of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and probably the Gulf States. One side will be the Sunnis backed by Saudi Arabia and on the other the Shia backed by Iran. It will also spill over into Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The war will probably bring in Turkey, due to the Kurds, and probably will devolve into other ethnic conflicts as well (like Persians vs. Arabs). Think of the Thirty Years War in Europe between Catholics vs. Protestants. Total chaos with numerous sides changing their allegiances during the conflict, wild reversal of fortunes, and lots of killing.

With all that said, the U.S. is actually better prepared at home than Europe, Russia or China is for this conflict. With the development of fracking our energy problems have been solved, so no need to worry about the Arabians anymore and their habit of back stabbing us. Iran will be put into serious mortal danger by the emergence of Sunni fundamentalist attacking them, and the Arabians will be worried about an Iranian/Shia invasion and attempted takeover of Mecca.

Now I ask, why is any of this a national security concern for the U.S.? There is none. Our enemies are about to slaughter each other. That is a good thing! I know I am heartless…what about the humanitarian disaster that will come out of this? America can’t solve Islam’s problems. The best we can do is protect ourselves and keep the Muslims and their stupid war to be the “Supreme Lord of Islam” over there.

If needed during the chaos we can bomb one side or the other to try to remove nuclear or chemical weapons, but we cannot get in between them and stop them. That is insane, foolish, etc.

Israel can and must be permitted to take preventive military action to protect themselves, and we should assist them. However Israel will be one of the winners in this, because like us, two of their chief enemies will be fighting each other. Hamas/PLO vs. Hezbollah will be one of the results, along with other Sunni Jihadists attacking Hezbollah.

Once again…stay out of the “Great Islamic Civil War”. There is nothing for us to gain, and a lot for us to lose. This is not isolationism, but instead a recognition that Islam is not conducive to the modern world, and the only possible thing that can bring sense to that part of the world is for Muslims to learn the hard way….by killing each other.

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM

This Obama fellow sure has a way of winning the day with world leaders. His negotiating skills are like to 11.

jukin3 on June 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM

War is not about winning hearts and minds. We sure as hell did not win any hearts and mind with the Germans and the Japanese, but they are now pretty darned close allies.

astonerii on June 11, 2014 at 2:49 PM

War is about ripping the very balls off of the enemy, crushing them to a pulp and force feeding them with the product. Believe me, when you have them by the balls, the hearts and minds follow. Notice how Germany and Japan were BOTH crushed into nothing. Then and only then were we in a position to rebuild them and earn not only their trust in us, but the trust that they knew that it would all happen again should they get out of line.

Barack Obama bailing in the middle of this process is the reason for the upcoming genocide that will occur over the next several months. Well done, Libiots.

bimmcorp on June 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Dear Chair,
You know that even Dick Cheney, admits there is no Iraq-AQ connection.

The only place AQ existed in Iraq, was in the no-fly zones.

Where he had power, he killed them.

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Nope. As usual, you’ve distorted reality to make it comport with your preconceived notions.

Cheney said they had found no evidence that Saddam was directly involved in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks. He also said they had found no evidence that Saddam and al Qaeda carried out attacks together.

He never said that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. You can prove me wrong by finding a sourced quote to back up your assertion.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Note to Afghanistan, this is coming to you via the world’s smartest man i history soon, very soon. GTFO NOW!

jukin3 on June 11, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Now this is a BFD “Big Fricken Deal” courtesy of Barack Obama, your welcome!!!!

redguy on June 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Our materiel on the ground is worse than useless now, thanks to the Iraqi army’s flight

When the Iraqi army and police (aren’t there suppose to be hundreds of thousands of them?) flee from a few hundred “rebels”, why should our troops yet again take their place and fight for them?

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM

In the meantime, all Obama cares about is disarming Americans….
Don’t you think we will need our guns when the time comes???

Oh, I get it!!!!!

redguy on June 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Bush II Progressives started the problem by starting the war ON POVERTY without having an achievable conflict solution and exit plan.

See? I can play this ‘exit strategy’ game, too.

Resist We Much on June 11, 2014 at 3:08 PM

What a waste – smart power my arse.

Hillary – more weights to pull you down – why not just do the speaking tour and collect your millions and go away.

Zomcon JEM on June 11, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Dear Chair,
You know that even Dick Cheney, admits there is no Iraq-AQ connection.

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Hillary said there was.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Not enough troops: See complaints from Shinseki, proven correct afterward.

Improper and lacking equipment: See Rumsfeld, “You go to war with the army you have…” excusing it.

Those are two gigantic screw-ups.

xNavigator on June 11, 2014 at 2:53 PM

1. Not enough troops.

Shinseki called for a massive, slow-moving, Soviet-style invasion. What Tommy Franks did instead was launch the fastest ground invasion in human history, which prevented the Iraqis from blowing their oil wells and dams.

Since the Iraqis had said for decades, “Save us! We want to be free!” we took them at their word and assumed that once the hated dictatorship was gone, the bureaucrats and security forces would help us.

Instead, they abandoned their posts. However, the light footprint kept MOST Iraqis on the fence. Rumsfeld studied the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962), in which the French sent 500,000 troops. Their KIA rate was five times ours, because the entire country joined in the insurgency.

2. You DO go to war with the army you have. Are you saying you go to war with the army you DON’T have? Rumsfeld excused nothing. He explained what was happening. The US military adapted with lightning speed, creating new technology, weaponry, and tactics at a rate never seen before.

You’ve been conditioned to think war is like a well-run factory. We didn’t start winning World War II until two years into it, we never figured out how to do amphibious landings, and we had to sack untold numbers of commanders.

Iraq went off without a hitch compared to World War II. Look up the catastrophic daylight bombing raids, for example. Or the rehearsal for D-Day that resulted in over 700 men killed.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Unlike Vietnam in 75, the Iraqi army is not fighting a well trained, armed and disciplined adversary. The AR had its legs cut off by the Dems and Ford acquiesced, but many ARVN units fought well, and they certainly fought well in 73 when they basically forced the North to retire Giap. Today the Iraqis are fighting gunmen with AKs.RPGs, mortars and MGs we they have heavy weapons, copters, light armored vehicles. What they don’t have is a cause. Also, if AQ is in Mosul, what the hell happened to the Kurds.

xkaydet65 on June 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM

We gave away all that we won in Iraq, and now the same terrorist network we have explicitly named as our enemy since 9/11 is coming close to creating its own state in the Middle East, complete with standing army and American arms. We may pretend to be able to wash our hands of this outcome, but sooner or later those oil resources will generate billions of dollars that will flood terrorist accounts and fuel attacks against Israel and the US. Right now, we don’t appear to want to do much about it, even to the extent we still can.

Also…how are they going to get oil out of the ground without western or Chinese help? The place is going to be a war zone! Every pipeline will be cut, the place will be out of business for a long time.

Look at the bright side…opening up our energy markets during higher energy prices means more profits for America. Why do we want to help the Muslim world get the oil out of the ground by stabilizing the place? The Arabians, etc., have been funding Sunni Jihadist groups for years now using their oil profits that we were protecting with our own troops. Where do you think ISIS is getting their money from now? Muhammad on his magic rug?

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Our materiel on the ground is worse than useless now, thanks to the Iraqi army’s flight

ISIL can’t use armored vehicles, helicopters, or aircraft.

They’re light infantry. That’s their only skill. They can probably take over Iraq, and then we’ll see Iran invade.

At that point we need to sit back and let them duke it out. Every casualty in that conflict will be one less person who will attack us.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Oh yeah, in case you forgot… before GWB decided to go into Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of AQ.

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Lying will only make us laugh at you even harder.

First of all, GWB spent over a year making his case, and after doing so your Democrat Party made him hold a re-vote, solely so they could vote for going into Iraq.

Your second problem? The previous Administration, run by the Democrat who gave GWB the original 9/11 attacks, had already concluded that Saddam Hussein and AQ were working in cahoots with each other. In fact, the Department of Justice 1998 indictment of bin Laden specifically mentions it in the first few paragraphs.

I know that the teaching assistants at your junior college told you that Saddam and bin Laden would never work together, solely based on outdated “thinking” on their parts, but always remember: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:14 PM

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM

This man sees with clarity.

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:07 PM

I agree with the sentiment. But as the Fram Filter guy used to say, you can pay me now or pay me later.

We will be back there in our lifetimes, in some manner. The later it takes the bloodier it will get. Just the way life rolls my friend.

But next time scratch the building project. Blow the crap out of them and then place a standing army there for 50 years to make it work – no more dead US soldiers after we have to go back in and fix this. Oh – and allow the Israelis to deal with the PA once and for all. These two things would isolate Iran, force her to be more daring in her own strategic interests, and thus directly expose her to our rebuke. Would take awhile, but in the end it would be done. Then you can gather the Saudi royal family together adn say I want all of your Islamist fanatics in your family cut off or we will have a few very large smoldering cities.

It just depends on whether you really want to finish it or not.

Zomcon JEM on June 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM

All Obama had to do was sign a Status of Forces agreement which Bush had already negotiated with Maliki on all major points. It would have left us with bases and a residual force, enough to put out fires like this before they spread, and to keep an eye on the area.

Obama, following the Obama Doctrine of always taking the action which hurts America and her allies the most, decided to bug out like the cowardly little leftist punk he is.

The real worry here is NOT al Qaeda and their Sunni extremist allies. We should worry instead that if they can’t call us, who will the Shi’ite majority turn to for help?

Is there a big Shi’ite army somewhere in the area?

Adjoran on June 11, 2014 at 3:16 PM

And I don’t recall seeing any news articles about people in the US spitting on our soldiers or treating them as pondscum.

jimbo 56 on June 11, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Where have you been the past 2 weeks? Berghdahl’s squad members have been treated like pondscum nonstop by your Democrat Media.

F-

PS, there’s a new thread just started. Has your name all over it!

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Dear Chair,

You know that even Dick Cheney, admits there is no Iraq-AQ connection.

The only place AQ existed in Iraq, was in the no-fly zones.

Where he had power, he killed them.

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:54 PM

LOL! Your feeble attempts against vastly superior intelligence are like watching a child bringing a cap pistol to the gunfight at the OK Corral.

From the DOJ 1998 indictment of bin Laden:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- V-

USAMA BIN LADEN,

a/k/a “Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden,”

a/k/a “Shaykh Usamah Bin-Laden,”

a/k/a “Mujahid Shaykh,”

a/k/a “Abu Abdallah,”

a/k/a “Qa Qa,”

Defendant

Count 1, Article 4

4. al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Complete Indictment Text

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Nope. As usual, you’ve distorted reality to make it comport with your preconceived notions.

Cheney said they had found no evidence that Saddam was directly involved in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks. He also said they had found no evidence that Saddam and al Qaeda carried out attacks together.

He never said that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. You can prove me wrong by finding a sourced quote to back up your assertion.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM

A+

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Where have you been the past 2 weeks? Berghdahl’s squad members have been treated like pondscum nonstop by your Democrat Media.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM

You mean those liars and psychopaths who question Saint Bergdahl’s great service of honor and distinction.

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Well at least the Gitmo 5 have someplace to go and something to do now…

Wyznowski on June 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM

The Wall Street Journal puts the blame on the Obama administration for its decision to completely abandon Iraq

It’s Booosh’s fault in 5, 4, 3…

PS The Children’s Crusade on the border, Iraq, A-stan are all going to be “human catastrophes”, as the Lefties like to put it.

And they will all be their doing.

formwiz on June 11, 2014 at 3:30 PM

It just depends on whether you really want to finish it or not.

Zomcon JEM on June 11, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Outside of blowing up Islamic holy cities, we are going to have to learn to live with an Islamic world always in perpetual conflict. To deal with that in a economically feasible way containment is the best strategy, along with giving weapons and funding to non-Islamic peoples and nations on the borders of the Islamic world, like Southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel, the Christians in Lebanon, etc.

Trying to send large armies into that part of the world and trying make Islam work in a modern political system of any kind is a waste of time, money and lives.

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Notice how Germany and Japan were BOTH crushed into nothing. Then and only then were we in a position to rebuild them and earn not only their trust in us, but the trust that they knew that it would all happen again should they get out of line.

Barack Obama bailing in the middle of this process is the reason for the upcoming genocide that will occur over the next several months. Well done, Libiots.

bimmcorp on June 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I have to disagree a bit. We didn’t crush Japan and Germany. We crushed the ideologies of Nazism and Shinto/Bushido. They were prepared to accept a new idea because the old ones had been discredited. We did not attempt this in Iraq. Islam was never discredited, and we even allowed it to be enshrined in their constitution. That is our problem in the ME. We have never attacked our true enemy there. We afraid to even name it.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Monday, January 6, 2014
An Epic Expression of Failed COIN Strategy; Fallujah falls to Al Qaida Factions

What is so damnably frustrating about this is that too many of us to list, foretold of this, years ago. And if there were any left in this country who still held onto the belief that either our civilian leadership or the left-listing General Grade Officers which populate the upper echelon of our Military structure were somehow visionaries and intellectuals, this latest manifestation of a failure of foresight should hopefully drive a spike through the heart of that lingering belief.

Not once – but twice, Marines, Sailors and Soldiers were asked to lay down their lives, “liberating” Al Anbar and most specifically, Fallujah; the second time being tightly restrained by the rigid ROE (Rules of Engagement) borne of the incomprehensibly idiotic paradigm of COIN! And now, two years later, that effort and all that blood, proves to have been for naught!

Third, it is not our place, constitutionally or even morally, to save any people from themselves. Civil wars and internal strife are, by definition, internal. In our haste to re-establish some semblance of order in a country we had invaded, choices were made which changed the dynamics of the balance of power, giving control to the Shiite majority, placing that nation in league with Iran and at odds with Al Qaida which is principally Sunni.

These continued ill-advised efforts to massage the troubles of cultures in the Islamic world are proceeding with bad advice about those cultures and their religion and continue to threaten the well-being of American War Fighters who are continually compelled to act as a highly restricted police force rather than this nation’s Warrior Guard.

We have literally wasted the lives and the wellbeing of far too many of this generation, chasing after something that cannot be achieved; improved relations with a people who will only be satisfied when the last vestige of Infidel’s corpses are rotting in the ground.

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:35 PM

Outside of blowing up Islamic holy cities, we are going to have to learn to live with an Islamic world always in perpetual conflict. To deal with that in a economically feasible way containment is the best strategy, along with giving weapons and funding to non-Islamic peoples and nations on the borders of the Islamic world, like Southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Israel, the Christians in Lebanon, etc.

Trying to send large armies into that part of the world and trying make Islam work in a modern political system of any kind is a waste of time, money and lives.

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM

We need to isolate them but also attack the concept of Islam. If you are Allah’s chosen then why is the West richer, healthier, and more advanced?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Are you high? A large part (if not a majority) of the “rebel” forces is ISIS.

Ted the Average on June 11, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Are you an idiot? Read the news you f***ing moron… ISIS has been fighting and killing the rebels for many months and they are not doing anything to Assad and Assad is doing nothing to them… Read before you opine you moron…

mnjg on June 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Also…how are they going to get oil out of the ground without western or Chinese help? The place is going to be a war zone! Every pipeline will be cut, the place will be out of business for a long time.

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Maybe you hit on something else there. Let China do it. They won’t be nearly as sentimental about Islam as we would. It would make China the world’s dominant power, but it’s a job that we just can’t get done politically.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Well at least the Gitmo 5 have someplace to go and something to do now…

Wyznowski on June 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM

You mean they are not all going to open up yoga exercise studios?

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

bimmcorp on June 11, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I have to disagree a bit. We didn’t crush Japan and Germany. We crushed the ideologies of Nazism and Shinto/Bushido.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Methinks the original poster meant we physically crushed Japan and Germany; we bombed them back to the Stone Age and destroyed their armies and navies.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Methinks the original poster meant we physically crushed Japan and Germany; we bombed them back to the Stone Age and destroyed their armies and navies.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

We certainly did, but I don’t think that’s what allowed the successful nation building. It was the defeat of the ideologies. Something we haven’t come close to doing anywhere in the ME, and we’re even frightened to name Islam as the enemy. Could we have been successful in either Japan, or Germany if we treated Nazism, or Shinto/Bushido in the same way?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM

No he wasn’t, you imbecile.

Saddam PAID al Qaeda affiliates Answer al-Islam and Abu Sayyaf.

Al Qaeda and Saddam reached an understanding that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on weapons development.

A top secret Iraqi document dated March 28, 1992, lists Osama bin Laden as an asset of the Iraqi intelligence services, as reported by the Daily Telegraph.

In 1992, Ayman al Zawahiri–who later became the Number Two in al Qaeda–visited Baghdad for a meeting with Saddam Hussein.

From 1999 to 2002, Saddam Hussein ran three training camps in Iraq that produced thousands of Islamic terrorists.

Abu Zubayr al Halili, an officer in Saddam’s secret police, was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief.

Do some research instead of puking up the standard party line. All this stuff has been out there for over a decade.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Another thing that’s been out there for over a decade? In 2003, in the same Federal Court in Lower Manhattan where Holder wanted to try KSM (also the same Court that issued the 1998 Indictment against bin Laden) a Federal Judge ruled, based on the evidence presented by the 9/11 family members at trial, that Iraq did play a role in the original 9/11 attacks. He must have been Lying too!

By the way, that Federal Judge was appointed by the man who gave us 9/11, Bill Clinton.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:50 PM

Any “exit plan” that depended on having to renegotiate an agreement with an Iraqi leader who no longer wanted the US there was a bad thing. Bush II was the one who signed the original 2008 agreement with its 2011 withdrawal date, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 2:50 PM

I should’ve known better than try to engage someone who doesn’t know anything.

I’m not talking about the 2011 withdrawal of combat forces. I’m talking about a Status of Forces Agreement, called a SOFA. The Obama administration failed to achieve one, so ALL troops were withdrawn.

And I already told you that Bush had an “exit plan,” but you were unable to comprehend what I wrote.

I apologize for overestimating your intelligence.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Uum, the link was to the Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush II, with an expiration date of 2011. The link is titled “Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement”.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Oh, boy! New and Improved Al Qaeda, now with Oil Assets!

Smart Power! Forward!

dreadnought62 on June 11, 2014 at 3:59 PM

And I don’t recall seeing any news articles about people in the US spitting on our soldiers or treating them as pondscum.

jimbo 56 on June 11, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Where have you been the past 2 weeks? Berghdahl’s squad members have been treated like pondscum nonstop by your Democrat Media.

F-

PS, there’s a new thread just started. Has your name all over it!

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Yeah. Articles questioning why the leader of Berghdahl’s squad or wondering whether their memories are correct are the same as spitting on the 10,000+ soldiers who’ve served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, the GOP is fine to call Berghdahl not only a deserter (which may or may not technically be correct) but also suggest he was a traitor who helped the Taliban (or whatever) prepare bombs and ignition devices based on one article by the UK press which wasn’t substantiated.

F-

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 4:02 PM

articles questioning why the leader of Berghdahl’s squad was removed or

Forgot those two words.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM

The collapse of the Iraqi Army in the western provinces, rather than the defeat of Eric Cantor, is the real important news story of the week…Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term.

GreenBlade on June 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I wonder what percent of the arms that the [sunni] “rebels” in Iraq have that they got from their brother [sunni] “rebels” in Syria that we supplied them.

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM

The collapse of the Iraqi Army in the western provinces, rather than the defeat of Eric Cantor, is the real important news story of the week…Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term.

GreenBlade on June 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Not to the future of America.

VorDaj on June 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM

Yeah. Articles questioning why the leader of Berghdahl’s squad or wondering whether their memories are correct are the same as spitting on the 10,000+ soldiers who’ve served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, the GOP is fine to call Berghdahl not only a deserter (which may or may not technically be correct) but also suggest he was a traitor who helped the Taliban (or whatever) prepare bombs and ignition devices based on one article by the UK press which wasn’t substantiated.

jimbo 56 on June 11, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Sorry, but the NY Times blamed Bergdahl’s desertion on his fellow soldiers. Last time I checked they were not part of the “UK Press”.

NewsBusters:

The New York Times has sunk, yet again, to a new low. Only this time, they may have created an even bigger conundrum for President Obama.

In a clear and desperate attempt to whitewash Obama’s ill-fated swap of what is increasingly appearing to be an army deserter for five unrepentant deadly dangerous terror leaders (two of whom have been named war criminals by the United Nations) for a U.S. soldier, The Times has gone into overdrive, now seemingly blaming those with whom Bowe Bergdahl served for his apparent desertion.

Richard Oppel Jr. and Eric Schmitt of the Times suggest that Bergdahl should somehow be exonerated for his crime because he was a victim of sorts, being a member of what the paper describes as “a misfit platoon that stumbled through its first months in Afghanistan and might have made it too easy for him to walk away.” Yet, even if we are to buy into this weak defense, we are still left wondering how this justifies the trading of five Taliban leaders for Bergdahl.

As a means to quell the voices of members of his “raggedy” platoon speaking out about Bergdahl, the leftist newspaper is joining other Obama apologists in slamming and smearing soldiers who have the courage to tell the truth. What is also startling is that even if true and a soldier is serving in a less than stellar platoon, the Times deems this an acceptable reason to go permanently AWOL. That the deserter is who makes a platoon weak seems to be lost on the defenders of a dangerously flawed and incompetent Commander-in-Chief.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Maliki government is on its last legs unless they can be saved by the Obama, and now!

Iraq will be partitioned between the Sunni’s (AQ) in the West and North, and the Shia (Iran) in the South – Kurds to declare an independent Kurdistan which will really piss off the Turks.

Another Drew on June 11, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Ed, don’t be silly. Obama has Al Qaeda on the run.

John the Libertarian on June 11, 2014 at 4:34 PM

The downside of Cantor’s defeat last night is that people aren’t talking today about what a foreign policy disaster Barack Obama has been.

Murf76 on June 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Obama said “our war isn’t in Iraq, it’s in Afghanistan”

RdLake on June 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM

I can explain most of this.
The equatorial belt of Islam spanning the globe.
Isn’t King Putt a product of Indonesia which his Sunni?

Missilengr on June 11, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Uum, the link was to the Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush II, with an expiration date of 2011. The link is titled “Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement”.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Oh. So when I mentioned that fact that Obama failed to get a SOFA, you linked to an article about something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Just go away.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Obama said “our war isn’t in Iraq, it’s in Afghanistan”

RdLake on June 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM

And 73% of the casualties in Afghanistan have taken place with O’bama as Commander in Chief.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 5:05 PM

Iraq will be partitioned between the Sunni’s (AQ) in the West and North, and the Shia (Iran) in the South – Kurds to declare an independent Kurdistan which will really piss off the Turks.

Another Drew on June 11, 2014 at 4:30 PM

As an aside, it’s worth re-noting that the word ‘Iran’ is a Farsi cognate of the word ‘Aryan.’

Iranians re-named themselves that from ‘Persia’ in 1935 to show their allegiance with Hitler and the Nazis. Original Aryans were Persians. Then Hitler came up with a crackpot theory that Aryans were blonde-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavian types, that somehow were German. Iranians were thrilled that the guy was exterminating Jews, and even though they had no idea as to why the nut was naming his blonde-haired, blue-eyed ‘race’ after Persians, the fact that he was killing Jews was good enough, so they renamed the country.

WhatSlushfund on June 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Perhaps this war within Islam is what is needed, that these attempts by the West to conform the Middle East into parliamentary democracies is a futility, as the people of Islam need to go through a purge of blood similar to what our ancestors did during the 16th-17th centuries.

We need to give the Middle East wide berth to self implode. Jihad is in part a reaction to Western, Judeo-Christian culture and world view, and is a response seen as a threat to Islam, which in a sense it is. No culture and no religion can survive in a vacuum. It will always be influenced by outside cultures and ideas. Islam is insecure because its world view is stale and ill-equipped to deal with believers who question it.

Such a conflict may not start for several years and may go on for decades, even centuries. Islam needs to grow up, and this is a painful period of its life cycle. Hopefully, it can either be quashed by its own people, who like our ancestors, came to the slow realization that people with differing religious beliefs need to be able to coexist within a society and that religion and state need to be separate, free from persecution.

Funny how our own society here in the US seems to be digressing a bit, with this extreme political correctness and anti-traditional values kick.

VigilantNAZ on June 11, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Methinks the original poster meant we physically crushed Japan and Germany; we bombed them back to the Stone Age and destroyed their armies and navies.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

We certainly did, but I don’t think that’s what allowed the successful nation building. It was the defeat of the ideologies. Something we haven’t come close to doing anywhere in the ME, and we’re even frightened to name Islam as the enemy. Could we have been successful in either Japan, or Germany if we treated Nazism, or Shinto/Bushido in the same way?

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Actually, I think you are both correct. The big difference is that it is doubtful that even with the bombing back to the stone ages of Islamic nations, those idealogues are so entrenched in their sordic beliefs that even then, they will not give up their Fatwa or their Jihad against the ‘Great Satan’ Until every vermin maggot Muslim is eradicated, the war on terror will continue. Islam IS and always has been the enemy, and there is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Muslim. Their entire existence is predicated upon the notion of total world dominance in the name of Allah, and they will stop at nothing in their quest. That, my friends, is the truth of it. We need to purge America of all Muslims and their spawn. We then need to continue the eradication worldwide if we harbor any notions of peace.

Since we lack the clarity, guts, and resources to achieve eradication, it is merely a matter of time before Islam achieves it’s goal. And this has already been addressed in Biblical Prophecy, as well. It’s going to get much uglier, but the end will be worth it. And our nation will not be a viable nation when it all comes down, either.

bimmcorp on June 11, 2014 at 5:28 PM

Uum, the link was to the Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush II, with an expiration date of 2011. The link is titled “Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement”.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Oh. So when I mentioned that fact that Obama failed to get a SOFA, you linked to an article about something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Just go away.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Uum, why should Obama get another SOFA when Bush II already negotiated one that was terminating? Bush II should have negotiated a SOFA that gave us more time to stay if Bush II thought a longer time was needed.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Maybe you hit on something else there. Let China do it. They won’t be nearly as sentimental about Islam as we would. It would make China the world’s dominant power, but it’s a job that we just can’t get done politically.

DFCtomm on June 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Not likely…the amount of time and effort China would have to put into securing the oil would keep them busy for a long time. I hope they do get involved, because the more China gets involved in the Muslim world, the more the Chinese will have to fight Muslims (which they have a lot of within China), that in turn takes Chinese resources and military assets away from the east, and our important Asian allies, bases, and sea lanes.

The problem with the Islamic world is once you take sides, you become the mortal enemy of the other. So if you side with Iran, you can’t be friends with the Sunni Arabs, etc. If Russia sides with Iran, and China sides with the Sunni Arabians, that might put a crimp in the Russian-Chinese relationship. Of course they both might side with Iran, but then most Muslims are Sunnis which will hurt China and their half baked relationship with Pakistan. Russia already is basically waging war against Sunnis is places like Chechnya. Hence their strange affinity toward Iran.

Now you see why I don’t much care for the U.S. to get involved in that part of the world. It is like a giant trap for great nations in world history.

William Eaton on June 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM

The Middle East a lovely place NOT to live.

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM

NewsBusters:

The New York Times has sunk, yet again, to a new low. Only this time, they may have created an even bigger conundrum for President Obama.

In a clear and desperate attempt to whitewash Obama’s ill-fated swap of what is increasingly appearing to be an army deserter for five unrepentant deadly dangerous terror leaders (two of whom have been named war criminals by the United Nations) for a U.S. soldier, The Times has gone into overdrive, now seemingly blaming those with whom Bowe Bergdahl served for his apparent desertion.

Richard Oppel Jr. and Eric Schmitt of the Times suggest that Bergdahl should somehow be exonerated for his crime because he was a victim of sorts, being a member of what the paper describes as “a misfit platoon that stumbled through its first months in Afghanistan and might have made it too easy for him to walk away.” Yet, even if we are to buy into this weak defense, we are still left wondering how this justifies the trading of five Taliban leaders for Bergdahl.

As a means to quell the voices of members of his “raggedy” platoon speaking out about Bergdahl, the leftist newspaper is joining other Obama apologists in slamming and smearing soldiers who have the courage to tell the truth. What is also startling is that even if true and a soldier is serving in a less than stellar platoon, the Times deems this an acceptable reason to go permanently AWOL. That the deserter is who makes a platoon weak seems to be lost on the defenders of a dangerously flawed and incompetent Commander-in-Chief.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Where did the NY Times blame Bergdahl’s desertion on others in his platoon or suggest that he should not be penalized for going AWOL?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html?_r=0

Did the National Inquirer look at buying Newsbusters but decided not to do so because it would lower the Inquirer’s reputation?

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Uum, why should Obama get another SOFA when Bush II already negotiated one that was terminating? Bush II should have negotiated a SOFA that gave us more time to stay if Bush II thought a longer time was needed.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM

You do know that people who begin sentences with “Uum” are nothing but large intestines in human form, don’t you?

So, as I understand it, your argument is that Obama didn’t bother to get a new SOFA because Bush should’ve negotiated a longer one. Since Bush’s SOFA expired in 2011, that absolves Obama of all responsibility for trying to get a new one.

If a president’s predecessor makes a mistake, the current president is under no obligation to rectify that mistake.

Thanks for the insight into a cult member’s thinking process, such as it is. You’ve explained in just a few posts why the country is in so much trouble. Bizarre, brainless large intestines are now voting.

Even though this won’t make any difference to you, Uum Jim56, I’ll try to help you grasp what happened.

The reason the Bush SOFA was valid only until 2011 was because the president made the mistake of thinking that his successor would be competent. The Iraqis were hesitant to enter into any long-term commitments to the US. In that part of the world, perception as American lackeys can be fatal, so we had to negotiate a short-term SOFA.

The expectation was that Obama would be smart enough to negotiate another SOFA. Sadly, that expectation was misplaced.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 5:52 PM

We may revert to bombing the oil fields to keep AQI from getting that revenue. Naw obummer is for AQI.

jake49 on June 11, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Where did the NY Times blame Bergdahl’s desertion on others in his platoon or suggest that he should not be penalized for going AWOL?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html?_r=0

Did the National Inquirer look at buying Newsbusters but decided not to do so because it would lower the Inquirer’s reputation?

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 5:52 PM

The NewsBusters piece I posted is about the very NYT article you link. You’re not very good at this, are you?

And an O’bama official, namely Brandon Friedman, the Obama administration’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Friedman said of the the members of Bergdahl’s squad “What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”

BTW, unlike Media Matters, NewsBusters has no Corrections Page.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 6:10 PM

There are some general rules for this worldwide military intervention thing.

1.Use military force only when attacked, or when vital interests are threatened

2.When you do attack, do so with overwhelming force to lessen casualties and duration of conflict

3.When the hostile forces are destroyed, depart the target area. Do not nation-build, ever

4.Before departing, solemnly warn people of the target area that (2) will be repeated with double intensity if (1) occurs again

5.Carry out (4) as necessary

When will we ever learn?

spiritof61 on June 11, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Al-Qaeda is on the run.
They’re running anywhere they want.

Galtian on June 11, 2014 at 6:19 PM

After alkooky is done rampaging through iraq, I hope they roll over iran as well.

Then we can finally issue glass parking lot permits for the middle east.

Diluculo on June 11, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Iraq violence
2m
Report: Iraq privately signals openness to US airstrikes against al Qaeda militants, US officials tell @WSJ
Read more on online.wsj.com
===========================

Middle East News
Iraq Signals Openness to U.S. Airstrikes Against al Qaeda, U.S. Officials Say
By
Adam Entous And
Julian E. Barnes

June 11, 2014 6:50 p.m. ET
**************************

WASHINGTON—Iraq has privately signaled to the Obama administration that it would allow the U.S. to conduct airstrikes with drones or manned aircraft against al Qaeda militant targets on Iraqi territory, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The Obama administration is considering a number of options, including the possibility of providing “kinetic support” for the Iraqi military fighting al Qaeda rebels who seized two major cities north of Baghdad this week, according to a senior U.S. official who added that no decisions have been made.

Officials declined to say whether the U.S. would consider conducting airstrikes with drones or manned aircraft.

Iraq has long asked the U.S. to provide it with drones that could be used in such strikes, but Washington has balked at supplying them, officials said.
=====================

http://online.wsj.com/articles/iraq-signals-openness-to-u-s-airstrikes-against-al-qaeda-u-s-officials-say-1402526823

canopfor on June 11, 2014 at 7:06 PM

500,000 refugees on the run…..because they don’t have guns

clandestine on June 11, 2014 at 7:10 PM

We all owe Jimmy Carter a big apology.

John the Libertarian on June 11, 2014 at 7:32 PM

We gave away all that we won in Iraq

We never won anything in Iraq. We simply delayed the inevitable implosion by a few years after destabilizing it.

I hope it was worth the lives and billions in costs (hint- it wasn’t)

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Dare I say, these events in Iraq and along our Southern border represent the very epitome of the Obama Doctrine.

claudius on June 11, 2014 at 8:56 PM

The Associated Press @AP · 3m

Raw VIDEO: Iraqi army troops flee base in Tikrit http://apne.ws/TLJ4hS
=========

Raw: Iraqi Army Troops Flee Base in Tikrit
Published on Jun 11, 2014
**************************

Al-Qaida-inspired militants seized effective control on Wednesday of Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, expanding their offensive closer to the Iraqi capital as soldiers and security forces abandoned their posts following clashes with the insurgents. (J

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xja5yY5I4Kw&feature=youtu.be

canopfor on June 11, 2014 at 9:01 PM

****RED BOINKING ALERT *********************

Iraq violence
1m
Militants who seized parts of northern and north-central Iraq now plan to march on Baghdad, SITE Intelligence Group says – @AFP
see original on twitter.com

https://twitter.com/AFP

Agence France-Presse @AFP · 9m

#UPDATE: Iraqi officials have privately asked US to weigh potential air strikes targeting militants, a Western official tells AFP

Replied to 0 times

Agence France-Presse @AFP · 26m

#BREAKING Militants who have seized parts of northern and north-central Iraq now plan to march on Baghdad: SITE Intelligence Group says

Replied to 0 times

Agence France-Presse @AFP · 2h

Mosul residents fleeing to Arbil berate Iraq’s Maliki http://u.afp.com/PA7 Photo by Safin Hamed pic.twitter.com/RmOoUn9i0A

canopfor on June 11, 2014 at 9:36 PM

canopfor on June 11, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Al-Qaeda rebels take Tikrit, force 500,000 to flee Mosul « Hot Air.

The Bergdahl swap was supposed to take the spotlight off the VA scandal. It generated even more controversy.

But few of us ever thought that Obama would go to these lengths to deflect criticism.

schmuck281 on June 11, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Uum, the link was to the Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush II, with an expiration date of 2011. The link is titled “Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement”.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 3:54 PM

So why was Obama negotiating a new SOFA to keep 5,000 troops after 2011? Bush wanted 15,000.

Chuck Schick on June 11, 2014 at 10:25 PM

We never won anything in Iraq. We simply delayed the inevitable implosion by a few years after destabilizing it.

I hope it was worth the lives and billions in costs (hint- it wasn’t)

Tlaloc on June 11, 2014 at 8:38 PM

It was a hell of a lot more stable when Obama took office.

Chuck Schick on June 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM

A Chair of Some Kind on June 11, 2014 at 3:10 PM

LULZ. You asked someone else for examples of Bush’s incompetence in Iraq. I provided you with two: Too few boots on the ground to get the job done (led to chaos and a ‘surge’), and a severe lack of proper equipment (soldiers in Iraq had to buy their own damn body armor; if it could be purchased by them, it should have been GIVEN TO THEM by the government after being purchased by the government).

You may want to try to defend against these screwups, but reality is a harsh mistress and Bush screwed up on both of those scores. Here’s a third: Getting us into Iraq at all. A SCREWUP.

xNavigator on June 11, 2014 at 11:23 PM

Could we have been successful in either Japan, or Germany if we treated Nazism, or Shinto/Bushido in the same way?

Well, we did leave the emperor in place in Japan, which in my opinion was a major error. We also absolved Japan’s Unit 731 of their crimes against humanity so we could get our hands on the data, but we were the good guys, so what’s a little sick biological experimentation on humans between consenting nation states, right?

xNavigator on June 11, 2014 at 11:27 PM

@William Eaton: I don’t disagree with your well-reasoned general argument for nonintervention, but must note that the mere fact that two of our enemies are fighting each other does not shield us, our allies or other bystanders from being targeted as part of the Sunni-Shia competition, much as Finland and Poland were targeted during Stalin’s rivalry with Hitler, and Kuwait was targeted during Saddam’s jockeying with Iran.

The conflict could well make things worse for those caught on the cross-fire without the wherewithal to defend themselves.

Seth Halpern on June 11, 2014 at 11:36 PM

Bush screwed up on both of those scores. Here’s a third: Getting us into Iraq at all. A SCREWUP.

xNavigator on June 11, 2014 at 11:23 PM

Smells like Open Reg Teen Spirit in here.

Welcome to Hot Gas, Scarecrow!

Unless you’re a mindless Democrat Drone (and remember, O’bama lost the college graduate vote in 2012) you can’t ignore the following fact.

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 11:59 PM

The collapse of the Iraqi Army in the western provinces, rather than the defeat of Eric Cantor, is the real important news story of the week…Short Term, Medium Term and Long Term.

GreenBlade on June 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM

You are absolutely right. I think we’re witnessing world shaping events that are completely beyond the capability of our present Western leadership to properly manage. I think the word might be apocalypse.

claudius on June 12, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Dear Leader’s got a pen, and a phone, and a putter; and he doesn’t give a flying f@#$ about what’s going on in Iraq.

aquaviva on June 12, 2014 at 12:33 AM

Obama is like an anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns into crap.

Theophile on June 12, 2014 at 4:43 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 11:59 PM

LOL. You can always tell a “mindless straight-ticket” guy/gal from his/her rabid posting defensiveness.

Are democrats on the hook for voting for the Iraq intervention and calling for it? Yes.

Who, as president, got us the hell INTO IRAQ?

Try and defend that, snowflake. It’s INDEFENSIBLE. It is/was his biggest screwup. :rollingeyes:

xNavigator on June 12, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Anybody on here that is upset about Iraq, and feels like going over there to stem that tide…go for it.

inklake on June 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Typical idiotic lib response.

zoyclem on June 12, 2014 at 11:51 AM

The NewsBusters piece I posted is about the very NYT article you link. You’re not very good at this, are you?

Yes. Where does the NYT article say what NewsBusters said it did? That was the reason for the link.

And an O’bama official, namely Brandon Friedman, the Obama administration’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Friedman said of the the members of Bergdahl’s squad “What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”

That’s not the NYT and not someone involved in the situation for the WH.

BTW, unlike Media Matters, NewsBusters has no Corrections Page.

And that’s supposed to make me feel better about them…how?

Del Dolemonte on June 11, 2014 at 6:10 PM

F-

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Uum, why should Obama get another SOFA when Bush II already negotiated one that was terminating? Bush II should have negotiated a SOFA that gave us more time to stay if Bush II thought a longer time was needed.

jim56 on June 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Blame Bush all you want, but when Iraq falls, history will cast blame on the incompetent-in-chief holding office now.

zoyclem on June 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2