General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama Decides Against Immediate Airstrikes in Iraq
U.S. Rules Out Iraq Airstrikes for Now
By Carol E. Lee, Julian E. Barnes, Dion Nissenbaum
Wall Street Journal
Posted 2014-06-18 00:54 GMT
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama decided against immediate air strikes on marauding Sunni extremists in Iraq, opting instead to pursue strategies such as providing intelligence to the Iraqi military, addressing the country's political divisions and seeking support from regional allies.
The president wants to avoid airstrikes for now in part because U.S. military officials lack sufficient information to hit targets that would shift momentum on the battlefield. Officials say their approach also would help address underlying causes of the Sunni uprising and the collapse of Iraq's military forces.
"What the president is focused on is a comprehensive strategy, not just a quick military response," a senior administration official said. "While there may potentially be a military component to it, it's a much broader effort."
Mr. Obama ultimately may decide not to order air attacks, senior U.S. officials said, bucking what for days appeared to be the leading U.S. option to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, the terror group that has seized a large swath of Iraq's north and west. U.S. strikes are still actively under discussion, but the officials cautioned Tuesday that they don't expect Mr. Obama to put military action back on the table quickly, and said he may announce steps in a broader U.S. response over time.
read more: http://www.aina.org/news/20140617195438.htm
Renew Deal
(81,897 posts)Drop your weapons and run!
Just kidding. I think the insurgents have shown that fighting to the last man is a better option.
Cha
(298,018 posts)thanks bigtree
tabasco
(22,974 posts)and started blowing the fuck out of these ISIS assholes.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)You never know when their children would get really angry at you years later....
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I'm in no hurry to oblige them.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)to tell us how that confrontation goes!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That condition is that two US warmongers are strapped to each missile fired.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)However, he folded the "common wisdom".
In fact President Obama has fooled the common wisdom throughout his presidency. He got the ACA through though we were assured by those in the know that wasn't going to happen. He took the lead on gay rights, equal pay for equal work, and moving us out of wars based on lies, plus much much more.
In the meantime he got bin Laden, the individual responsible for the Benghazi, and Bergdahl released to boot
What have the republicans done? Fought not to extend Medicaid in most red states, fought to get us involved in a lot of wars, and done everything to obstruct this President and the country
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)Why? Because sometimes it takes leadership to walk back on rhetoric. I'm glad he didn't follow through on his "red line". The reality is that tough talk need NOT be backed up by military action all the time. And honestly, I don't care if republicans (or conservative Dems) consider this "feckless" or "weak". Most people, including myself are not interested in another conflict.
He was partly elected in '08 for promising to bring troops home from Iraq. He followed through on that. I don't think he's going to break that. This was never our war to fight. And if he decides we have to strike the ISIS terrorists with air strikes (we don't want them forming another Taliban-era Afghanistan where terrorist camps are allowed to operate), I want him to be damn sure they actually have some strategic objectives in place.
I'm feeling comfortable that we can at least rule out sending in ground troops though. That itself is a major relief.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)does NOT "shoot at the hip" so to speak.
He thinks things out carefully
He is sending 250 troops to Iraq, but there is no way that amounts to a fighting force. Most likely it is to help evacuate the embassy, or other Americans who may want to go. I agree, he won't send ground troops. He can already assess the situation that this is a religious war going on there, and something which would be very dangerous to get bogged down in.
It is sad that the republicans are so anxious to jump into these conflicts.
There is no doubt in my mind we would be heading into an endless cycle of wars if mccain or romney for that matter had won
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)bigtree
(86,016 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Iraq's got the big-boy pants now, they can figure it out.
Our involvement in this should be diplomatic and economic pressure against the nations funding ISIS and its affiliates. Nothing greater.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)already...