• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Obama's Iraq aim: contain, not destroy, extremists

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
AP
By ROBERT BURNS and LARA JAKES
August 8, 2014 11:04 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's new military strategy in Iraq amounts to trying to contain, not destroy, the Islamic militant group that now controls much of the country's northern region. That leaves open the questions of how deeply the U.S. will be drawn into the sectarian conflict, and whether airstrikes alone can stop the militants' momentum.


Obama insists he will not send American ground troops back to Iraq after having withdrawn them in 2011, fulfilling a campaign promise. Still, even the limited airstrikes show the president's conviction that the U.S. military cannot remain dormant after fighting an eight-year war that temporarily neutralized Sunni extremists but failed to produce lasting peace.


U.S. military jets launched several airstrikes Friday on isolated targets, including two mortar positions and a vehicle convoy in northeastern Iraq, near the country's Kurdish capital of Irbil. U.S. officials also announced the second airdrop of food and water in as many days for imperiled refugees in northwestern Iraq.


The next move may be up to the Islamic State group, the al-Qaida inspired extremists.


About three dozen U.S. military trainers and a U.S. consulate are in Irbil, where Kurdish forces are fighting off a militant advance.


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said of the Islamic State group, "They are well organized and they're armed, and they are a significant threat to the stability of Iraq."


State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Islamic State group must at least halt its advance on Irbil to prevent further strikes.


Obama Authorizes Airstrikes in Iraq Play Video


Iraq has been pleading for months, if not years, for additional U.S. military help to combat the extremists, but the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in part because it couldn't reach an agreement with the government on legal immunity for U.S. troops. Harf said the Obama administration acted now out of concern that "there was a crisis that had the potential to get much worse."

U.S. officials said the Islamic State extremists in recent days have shown military skill, including using artillery in sophisticated synchronization with other heavy weapons. Their force had overwhelmed not only Iraqi government troops but also the outgunned Kurdish militia.


The Obama administration insists the airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops are not the start of an open-ended campaign to defeat the militants.


The president's critics say his approach is too narrow.


"A policy of containment will not work," Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both Republicans, said in a joint statement. They are among the chief critics of Obama's foreign policy in general, beginning with his decision to stick to the 2011 timetable set by President George W. Bush for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops.


The Islamic militants are "inherently expansionist and must be stopped," the senators said. "The longer we wait to act, the worse this threat will become."


View gallery

President Barack Obama listens during a phone call with Jordan's King Abdullah II Jordan, accord …

Beyond airstrikes, the administration has been asked to provide arms directly to the Kurdish forces defending Irbil. Until now, the U.S. has been willing to do that only through the central government in Baghdad, which has long feuded with the semi-autonomous Kurdish government in Iraq's north.

Michael Barbero, a retired Army general who ran the U.S. training mission in Iraq from 2009 to 2011, said Baghdad never delivered about $200 million worth of American weapons that were designated for the Kurds. Pentagon officials maintain they can provide arms only to the Iraqi government, although Harf said Friday the Kurdish forces play a critical role in the crisis.


"We understand their need for additional arms and equipment and are working to provide those as well so they are reinforced," she said.


The CIA could supply the Kurds under a covert operation. An agency spokesman declined comment when asked whether that was happening.


In announcing his decision to intervene militarily, Obama said he would not allow the U.S. "to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq."


The extremists control an impressive stretch of territory from the outskirts of the Syrian city of Aleppo to most Sunni-dominated areas of northern and western Iraq, up to the edges of Baghdad.


They frequently launch bombings and other attacks in Baghdad, mostly targeting Shiites and government officials, often within sight and hearing of the U.S. Embassy, which is located in the capital's heavily fortified Green Zone.


The State Department on Friday warned U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq and said those in the country were at high risk for kidnapping and terrorist violence.


"I think the administration realizes that we're dealing with that rarest of things in President Obama's world, which is a military situation that has to be resolved militarily," said James F. Jeffrey, who was the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad when American troops withdrew from Iraq in 2011. The basic problem, Jeffrey said, is "these guys have to be stopped. And it's not a matter of whether the U.S. should stop them — it's a matter of when."


Across the Mideast, the U.S. has deployed considerable military power, including warplanes and an air operations center in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. The aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush currently is located in the Persian Gulf and was the launching site for Friday's airstrikes.


The crisis appears to be falling to Washington to deal with — despite Obama's consultations with other nations and the U.N. — as the U.S. struggles with the parallel challenge of Islamic extremists' gains in neighboring Syria.


Vice President Joe Biden, in a call Friday to Iraqi President Fuad Masum, emphasized the threat the extremists present to all Iraqis and affirmed U.S. support, the White House said.
Source
 
Last edited:

football5680

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
4,138
1,517
Georgia
✟105,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The goal should be to destroy them. They are a danger to the Kurds who have been our loyal allies and simply trying to contain them would make the war in Iraq completely meaningless. I wouldn't send our soldiers in on the ground because the Iraqi people must fight to defend their own country. If they don't have the will to do so then the same thing will happen again. We should use airstrikes and drones to decimate them but the Iraqi Army must retake the land.

The government created this problem by opposing Assad which allowed ISIS to establish themselves within Syria. Now even if they are pushed out of Iraq they can simply go back to Syria and buy more time until they strike back. There is no border between Iraq and Syria now so you cannot support the same entity in one place and oppose them in another.
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If I were the POTUS, I would order airstrikes at the ISIS positions around that mountain where they have those Christians surrounded. And after ISIS is destroyed there, I would immediately follow it up by sending helicopters to pick up the innocents from the mountain to take them to safety. But just before this, I would use heavy bombers to clear a corridor in the desert that leads to a safe area. And this corridor would be patrolled with heavy bombers and dozens of strike fighter jets until all of the civilians are evacuated and brought to safety. From there, I would transport them to America were they would all be offered an instant American citizenship. Since ISIS is a threat not just to the Middle East but also a very real potential threat to the world if they take over the Middle East oil, I would gather a coalition of countries to include whatever European countries are willing. But I'd also ask for help from Russia, Iran, and Syria.

- Russia because Vladimir Putin saw this coming. Right from the start, he saw the anti-Assad Sunni "rebels" for the terrorists that they are. And Russia would have the willingness to go after them since they threaten Russia's interests.

- Iran because it is a Shia Muslim country, and ISIS is going around beheading the Shias and telling them to convert to Sunni or die. This has also been happening in other parts of the world where the Sunni majority has been persecuting the Shia minority and telling them to convert to Sunni or die. And Iran is already a strong country with a lot of military strength.

- Syria because President Assad is also a Shia and is the one we should have sided with in the first place. He has already been fighting ISIS, and he would have had them taken care of if we wouldn't have given our support to these terrorist rebels who were fighting him.

I would even welcome China to join us in the fight since ISIS threatens to take us all back to the stone age. We need to wake up and stop sitting on the fence with this, or ISIS will finish doing all the things they promise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟105,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know what we or anyone should do, beyond caring for the victims to the extent possible. Arming rebels creates terrorists. Ignoring terrorists creates terrorists. Killing terrorists creates terrorists. Occupying foreign lands creates terrorists. Setting up new governments on someone else's land creates terrorists.

Greed and opportunity to placate greed seem to be the best weapons against terror. Counties that offer real opportunity to move up in the world don't seem to have the problems that impoverished ones do. It is tempting to blame Islam, and Islam does deserve some criticism for the outrageous events that have been plaguing that area for decades, but it also has to be noted that the Muslim countries that offer comfortable lives of excess to their citizens don't experience the issues we're seeing in Syria and now in Iraq, at least not on such a scale. Citizens who are lusting over new motorcycles and guitars and houses that are within their reach if they work for it don't seem to have time for senseless violence. It seems ironic to me that the most fought-over pieces if land on this Earth are also some if the least desirable from an inhabitability standpoint. Yes, there's oil and there is still money in oil, but still...
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Middle East oil is important not because of greed but because most countries have set themselves up to be heavily dependent on it just to function. If oil becomes scarce so will food since food has to be transported. And that would directly impact everyone, especially the poor. So this isn't about greed for oil, it's about trying to avoid something that will destabilize the world economy. But if ISIS is allowed to take over the Middle East oil and all the countries just let it happen and agree to do business with them then ISIS will succeed in their plan to take over the world or at least the ME, Africa, and the passively liberal West since they would have the money, resources, and ruthless agression to do it. ISIS and the Sunni jihad is no different than when Hitler and the Nazis wanted to take over the world, except that ISIS is more ruthless and barbaric.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟105,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Middle East oil is important not because of greed but because most countries have set themselves up to be heavily dependent on it just to function. If oil becomes scarce so will food since food has to be transported. And that would directly impact everyone, especially the poor. So this isn't about greed for oil, it's about trying to avoid something that will destabilize the world economy. But if ISIS is allowed to take over the Middle East oil and all the countries just let it happen and agree to do business with them then ISIS will succeed in their plan to take over the world or at least the ME, Africa, and the passively liberal West since they would have the money, resources, and ruthless agression to do it.

In that unfortunate scenario, I'd hope that ISIS were able to establish a strong, respected government (note - I don't want ISIS to take Idaq, not at all). Power vacuums are very bad in the Middle East and it is becoming increasingly clear that the world and the region benefit from having steady leadership in power there. Efforts at destabilization too often end up hurting society's most vulnerable and end up creating opportunities for society's most aggressive. Life under evil but powerful men like Saddam Hussein can be preferable to life in a regime that is constantly fighting to maintain power. Unfortunately for virtually everyone, ISIS is about the worst player to emerge in this power struggle to date. At some point we have to concede that good is not an option as far as ME leadership goes and stop trying to undermine governments that are bad, but the best we're going to get given the current circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
In that unfortunate scenario, I'd hope that ISIS were able to establish a strong, respected government (note - I don't want ISIS to take Idaq, not at all).
Why? So that they can take over the world? That is their stated goal, and it would be with the blood of Christian martyrs just like how the book of Revelation describes the way things are at the end of the world. If the US calls them respectable and does business with them the US would fit the description of the harlot of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the Christian martyrs. Do you believe that if Hitler and the Nazis would have been allowed to take over the world that there would have been a chance that they would mellow out and become respectable? ISIS are terrorists, and they are even more ruthless and barbaric than the Nazis. Letting a terrorist have their way doesn't take the terrorist out of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟105,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't think that they have much of a chance of taking over the world, the world is a pretty hard place to take over. The Nazis had a proud naval and industrial tradition. It is hard to imagine how ISIS might become a serious threat outside the ME in the near term. If she were able to strike an alliance with China (unlikely, considering China's thoughts on Islam) or Russia, she could get a head start. India would be another option though also unlikely. I think ISIS's big talk is, like Iran and North Korea's, more intended to rally their base than to actually directly state their ambition.
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't think that they have much of a chance of taking over the world, the world is a pretty hard place to take over. The Nazis had a proud naval and industrial tradition. It is hard to imagine how ISIS might become a serious threat outside the ME in the near term. If she were able to strike an alliance with China (unlikely, considering China's thoughts on Islam) or Russia, she could get a head start. India would be another option though also unlikely. I think ISIS's big talk is, like Iran and North Korea's, more intended to rally their base than to actually directly state their ambition.
With terrorism we are fighting a nearly invisible enemy. They don't have to wear uniforms. On the surface, they can look like the average person and can blend in with any crowd. But on the inside they are ruthless serial killers. ISIS is growing and advancing on the Middle East at a lighting fast rate, and they are gaining in popularity among Muslims (the Sunnis). If they succeed in taking over the Middle East, which means taking over the oil, what impact do you think that would have on the situation?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟105,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Quite little, honestly. Terrorist tactics will not succeed in accomplishing their stated goal re the White House. We are better equipped than they could hope to be yet we have yet to successfully overthrow even relatively weak countries with anything but massive commitments. Asymmetrical warfare only works for underdogs looking for attention. We own the seas and the skies and any government that seeks to establish itself by launching terror attacks against us will find themselves ousted and quick.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
41,675
16,774
Fort Smith
✟1,431,142.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Middle East oil is important not because of greed but because most countries have set themselves up to be heavily dependent on it just to function. If oil becomes scarce so will food since food has to be transported. And that would directly impact everyone, especially the poor.

Which all goes to show how foolish and shortsighted we've been to put developing energy sources like solar and wind power on the back burner. The cost of solar panels has dropped quite a bit recently, so hopefully people will begin to use it more.

I am concerned about fracking and the lack of transparency of oil companies about the chemicals they use. Destroying our water supply to increase our oil supply is foolish.

They are now developing fuel from algae in the ocean (Algenol Biofuels). There is potential all over for ending our dependency on oil--which would cut off the terrorists' supply of cash.
 
Upvote 0

football5680

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2013
4,138
1,517
Georgia
✟105,332.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Don't we get most of our oil from the Middle East?
No. I don't know how much oil we produce for ourselves but 75% of the oil we import does not come from the Middle East. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela cover around 50%. 20% is Africa and around 5% would be from Russia and the UK. Half of the Middle Eastern oil that we do import comes from Saudi Arabia which isn't in any danger.
 
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No. I don't know how much oil we produce for ourselves but 75% of the oil we import does not come from the Middle East. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela cover around 50%. 20% is Africa and around 5% would be from Russia and the UK. Half of the Middle Eastern oil that we do import comes from Saudi Arabia which isn't in any danger.
Then how did the Arabs in the Middle East get so insanely rich from their oil when they basically had nothing else of material worth but oil prior to that? And why does America bend over backwards to please the king of Saudi Arabia if their oil is not a big deal to us?

Edit:

I just found the following Forbes articles:

King Crude: How Iraq's ISIS Crisis Restores Saudi Influence
For Oil Prices, Uncertainty Is As Big A Threat As ISIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CseUglupmZk
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,497
11,193
✟220,786.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The goal should be to destroy them. They are a danger to the Kurds who have been our loyal allies and simply trying to contain them would make the war in Iraq completely meaningless. I wouldn't send our soldiers in on the ground because the Iraqi people must fight to defend their own country. If they don't have the will to do so then the same thing will happen again. We should use airstrikes and drones to decimate them but the Iraqi Army must retake the land.

The government created this problem by opposing Assad which allowed ISIS to establish themselves within Syria. Now even if they are pushed out of Iraq they can simply go back to Syria and buy more time until they strike back. There is no border between Iraq and Syria now so you cannot support the same entity in one place and oppose them in another.
Well said! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0