WaPo/ABCpoll:MajorityapprovesofairstrikesinIraq

WaPo/ABC poll: Majority approves of airstrikes in Iraq …

posted at 8:01 pm on August 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The White House got some good news  in today’s Washington Post/ABC News poll, which framed the situation in Iraq prior to the beheading of Foley. The majority of Americans support Barack Obama’s decision to conduct airstrikes on ISIS.  The bad news? It hasn’t impacted the approval rating of Obama on that issue at all, even though support for the policy has risen sharply over the last two months:

A majority of Americans now support airstrikes in Iraq, up 9 points since June, as President Obama targets an Islamist extremist group, according to a new poll.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 54 percent support the strikes hitting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), while 39 percent oppose them. …

In June, before the operation began, 45 percent supported airstrikes, while 46 percent were opposed. At that point, Obama had said only that the U.S. was prepared to take military action if necessary.

Wednesday’s poll is the third in a week to show majority support for the strikes. A Pew Research poll on Tuesday found similar results, while a Fox News poll last week showed 65 percent support.

The rise in support for the policy is easy to explain. The media didn’t cover the ethno-religious cleansing of Christian communities in Mosul and Nineveh in the spring to nearly the same extent as they did the genocidal threat to the Yazidis, which dimmed the reaction to the former. The imagery of the men, women, and children trapped in the mountains without food and water created a reaction of global outrage and a demand to do something to alleviate the situation. The settlement of the Iraqi political situation may play into that too, allowing Americans to feel as though the effort didn’t amount to becoming Nouri al-Maliki’s personal air force.

Obama deserves credit for taking action, if belatedly and perhaps not as robustly as some would like. So far, though, Americans aren’t inclined to think that his policies in Iraq have improved. His approval rating in June on the question was 42/52, and today it’s 42/51. In fact, slightly more strongly disapprove now (36%, from 34%) and slightly fewer strongly approve (16% from 17%) than in June, although all of those moves are within the margin of error.

Interestingly, the American public likes the air strikes, but not arming the Kurds, which seems like more of a slam-dunk. A slight plurality opposes providing arms to the Kurds fighting ISIS, 49/45. Those who feel strongly about this have an even bigger gap toward opposition, 29/22. That’s a shame, because the Peshmerga has been an effective force in tandem with Iraqi special forces and the air strikes, as the New York Times reports today:

All bore testament to the deadly effect American airstrikes were having on the militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, who until this month were marauding over northern Iraq with little resistance and who two weeks ago seized control of the dam.

It was not until President Obama authorized airstrikes by the United States military on Aug. 7 that the Sunni fighters’ advance was halted. Two days of concerted air assaults starting Sunday around the dam then paved the way for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim the site. …

The pesh merga have received the majority of the credit for retaking the dam. But the Iraqi Special Forces troops who worked alongside them, who were created in the image of their American counterparts, have gotten far less attention. Known as the Golden Force, fighters interviewed Tuesday said they came from Baghdad and were called into the fight several days ago.

One Special Forces group, stationed by a cluster of homes close to the site’s power plant, said they were the first to enter the area after a series of airstrikes Monday afternoon. A cheery banner over the road passing by the enclave read “Tourist City in Mosul Dam.”

The fight against ISIS will have to be waged by someone that can retake ground from the terrorist army that controls it. If Americans don’t want to send US forces to do that job, the Peshmerga look like a pretty good option, as long as they can get arms and ammunition for the fight.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, ISIS, James Foley, Kurds, peshmerga, WaPo/ABC poll

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Report:TwotimesasmanyBritishMuslimsfighting

Report: Two times as many British Muslims fighting for ISIS as with U.K. armed forces

posted at 7:21 pm on August 20, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Americans were made acutely aware of the threat posed by Western jihadist fighters joining the ranks of ISIS in Syria and Iraq when a man with a London accent beheaded James Wright Foley as part of a taped ultimatum to President Barack Obama.

Inexplicably, President Barack Obama chose not to even abstractly address the nature of that threat, even though he plans to personally chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on precisely this subject next month.

A July intelligence estimate suggested that up to 3,000 ISIS militants were of European origin and 1,500 of those are young British Muslims, according to Birmingham MP Perry Barr. Framing the problem of Europe’s failure to assimilate its Muslim minorities perfectly, a new report indicates that there are more British Muslims fighting with Islamist militants in the Middle East than there are in the British armed forces.

According to the Ministry of Defense, there are only around 600 British Muslims currently serving in the Armed Forces, making up approximately around 0.4% of total personnel. 4.3% of the British population are Muslim.

The UK Foreign Office said that they believe over 400 individuals have travelled to Syria since the uprising began, but said that they could not give exact numbers.

However Mahmood described such low estimates as “nonsense” and said that the British government was failing to deal with the problem of home-grown extremists. “We’ve not concentrated on the prevention work, we haven’t invested enough in de-radicalisation. It’s tragic, somebody’s got to wake up to it.”

It is not an unfounded concern.

In August, 2013, two homegrown disaffected British Muslim men took to the streets of London where they beheaded a U.K. solider.

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,” said Michael Adebolajo, a British citizen of Nigerian origin, with a thick East London accent after attacking the solider.

While the threat of homegrown terror may be diminished for now as the most critical front appears to be in Syria and Iraq, Western governments are smart to prepare for the worst. If ISIS cannot be stopped in the Middle East, the worst is almost certainly on its way.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Iraq, ISIS, Syria

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

AddressingJamesFoley’smurder,Obamaspeaksloudlyand

Addressing James Foley’s murder, Obama speaks loudly and leaves the stick at home

posted at 2:41 pm on August 20, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama addressed the nation regarding the brutal slaying of an American journalist by Islamic State militants. After conducting that gruesome deed, James Wright Foley’s assassin warned the president that his organization planned to kill yet another American unless the West surrenders Iraq and Syria to the Islamic State’s inhuman designs.

Many of the words Obama deployed in his rhetorical front in the war against ISIS were quite nice and even refreshingly blunt. “No just God would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day,” Obama said after a brief list of the atrocities committed by ISIS militants. “ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt.”

“People like this ultimately fail,” the president added. “They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.”

History is, indeed, replete with examples of barbaric forces bent on delivering the world back into darkness. Some have failed. Some did not. Those that did fail did so because they were resisted by the armies of civilization. None of history’s dark crusades ever failed in a vacuum.

Obama expressed how “heartbroken” he was at the murder of an American, and he pledged to “extract this cancer so that it does not spread.” But this metastatic tumor has already been allowed to spread. And, even in a fashion that maintained a sufficient level of operational secrecy, the president failed to inform the American people how he planned to excise it.

Just prior to Obama’s address, CNN reporter Barbara Starr reported that American officials now believe that the video of Foley’s assassination was taken inside Syria, where the United States has no military presence and cannot conduct operations in the air without incurring the serious risk of encountering resistance from Syria’s sophisticated, Russian-made anti-air batteries. Obama failed to make note of this.

Nor did the president, perhaps understandably, mention the fact that another American journalist – Steven Sotloff – will be killed next if the president does not give up the ongoing air campaign against ISIS in Iraq. It makes sense that the president did not want to endanger Sotloff’s life further by antagonizing ISIS. Nor does the President of the United States gain anything from appearing to respond directly to ultimatums issued by a loose band of militants in the Middle East. But these are subjects that can be addressed in a cautious manner that also treats the American people like adults.

Where was the status update on the ongoing airstrikes against ISIS position in the north of Iraq which, judging only from press accounts, appear to be relatively effective? Why did the president fail to address rumors that his administration was aware of the threats to Foley’s life prior to his execution, or that unconfirmed reports have suggested that his killer may have been a former Guantanamo detainee?

For that matter, why did the president not address the fact that a significant number westerners are apparently fighting alongside ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and Foley’s executioner may have been one of these western jihadists? It is, again, perfectly understandable for the president to not want to get ahead of the facts of this still developing event, but Obama is set to chair as United Nations Security Council meeting in September which is focused entirely on that very threat. He has yet to publicly address this forthcoming UNSC meeting, and this incident would have been a perfect time to broach that subject.

Instead, he leaves it up to his surrogates and the media to inform the public about how this war is being prosecuted. The latest development, breaking just minutes after Obama spoke, is an apparent proposal administration officials are considering to send 300 additional troops to Iraq. Even the member some of the members of Obama’s own party are now strongly suggesting that the president come to Congress with a request to legally authorize this application of force in Iraq. When does the president plan speak honestly about the scope of American involvement in the Middle East?

So many members of the media remarked that Obama appeared “shaken” or “pissed” over the execution of an American, which is a commendable and appropriate emotion to experience under these circumstances. The equally appropriate response from those concerned about national security, America’s position in the world, or even the quaint notion of avenging great wrongs would be, “So what?”

The president’s emotional state at any given moment is utterly irrelevant, unless that provides a window into his decision making process while American service personnel are in harm’s way. To many in the press, the study of Obama’s fluctuating emotions is its own virtue. As thought this was some reality show. Save it that for the confession booth.

What is the plan, Mr. President? Or do we have to wait to read about it in the papers tomorrow?

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, ISIS, James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Syria

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Openthread:Semi-retiredPresidenttoissuedaily

Open thread: Semi-retired President to issue daily communique at 12:45 ET (pledged)

posted at 12:41 pm on August 20, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

After heading back to Martha’s Vineyard despite the butchering of American journalist James Foley, Barack Obama has scheduled a live statement from his vacation at 12:45 ET, presumably to discuss the brutal killing and the American response to ISIS. The announcement of the presser came after US intelligence verified the video released by ISIS as authentic:

U.S. intelligence analyzed the video and determined that it was authentic, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Wednesday.

Obama has been briefed about the video, and “he will continue to receive regular updates,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

ISIS has carried out executions, including beheadings, as part of its effort to establish an Islamic caliphate that stretches from Syria into Iraq. In many cases, ISIS — which refers to itself as the Islamic State — has videotaped the executions and posted them online.

What will Obama have to say about the ghastly execution? John Nolte has a pretty good idea of what Obama won’t say:

Just a guess, but two letters Obama will not use in his statement today are "J" and "V".

— John Nolte (@NolteNC) August 20, 2014

It’s a pretty fair bet that President Obama won’t take Max Boot’s advice, either:

What is needed now is not strongly worded condemnation of Foley’s murder, much less a hashtag campaign. What is needed is a politico-military strategy to annihilate ISIS rather than simply chip around the edges of its burgeoning empire. In the Spectator of London I recently outlined what such a strategy should look like. In brief, it will require a commitment of some 10,000 U.S. advisors and Special Operators, along with enhanced air power, to work with moderate elements in both Iraq and Syria–meaning not only the peshmerga but also the Sunni tribes, elements of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the Free Syrian Army–to stage a major offensive to rout ISIS out of its newly conquered strongholds. The fact that Nouri al-Maliki is leaving power in Baghdad clears away a major obstacle to such a campaign.

Now it is simply a matter of resources and resolve on the part of the U.S. and its allies. That, of course, remains the big unknown–how far will President Obama go? He has been willing in the last few weeks to apply a liberal interpretation of his original mandate for U.S. forces in Iraq, which was to protect Americans in Erbil and Baghdad. But beyond protecting the Yazidis and retaking Mosul Dam we still need a strategy to annihilate ISIS. It can be done–and if done right it will be the best, indeed the only worthy, response to James Foley’s barbaric demise.

I suspect we’ll hear a lot about “no American military solution” and “helping the Iraqis unite” today, as we have heard all along. We may get a little more detail on the current status of air strikes, plus shout-outs to other nations who want to come on board with the American response, but don’t expect any course change today. That would come in an Oval Office address, if at all. Will Obama respond to Pope Francis’ remarks? Not if he’s not going to offer anything new, but perhaps Obama might use Francis’ statement to urge the United Nations to get its act together regarding ISIS.

So what’s the over/under on when Obama actually reaches the podium today? I’ll say 1:15 ET.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, ISIS, James Foley

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

WhiteHouseknewISISplannedtokillJames

White House knew ISIS planned to kill James Foley

posted at 10:41 am on August 20, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The gruesome execution of American journalist James Foley came as a shock to many who were following the increasingly horrific situation in Iraq and Syria. The revelation that another journalist, Steven Sotloff, was also a captive of Islamic State militants and may soon meet the same fate was equally surprising for many. Many, that is, except those in the White House.

“ISIS had recently threatened to kill U.S. journalist James Foley to avenge airstrikes the United States has conducted in Iraq, a senior U.S. official told ABC News,” ABC reporters Arlette Saenz and White House correspondent Jonathan Karl reported on Wednesday.

The White House had been aware of the threat prior to the release of a video Tuesday night that appears to show the beheading of Foley and warns that militants will carry out a similar act against U.S. journalist Steven Sotloff, who went missing in August.

President Obama was briefed on the video aboard Air Force One Tuesday night as he returned to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, from Washington to resume his August vacation. The White House said the intelligence community is working to authenticate the gruesome video that allegedly shows Foley’s beheading.

Combined with the unconfirmed revelation that Foley’s killer, an ISIS militant with a pronounced British accent, may have been a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, this is shaping up to be a particularly bad news cycle for the White House

It is entirely reasonable, however, to believe that American officials had no knowledge of either Foley or Setoff’s whereabouts. There are many outstanding questions about how Foley, who went missing after seeking to cross the Turkish border into Syria in 2012, even went missing in the first place.

Business Insider reported on Tuesday that most publicly available intelligence suggested that these captured American journalists were still in Syria, and may even be in the custody of Bashar al-Assad’s government.

What is unclear is if previous investigations into Foley’s whereabouts were inaccurate, if ISIS militants somehow captured Foley from some of the regime’s most elite security, or if the Assad regime provided Foley to ISIS.

“Until recently, James Foley was thought to be in hands of pro-Assad forces. If Assad is handing over Westerners to ISIS to be killed, it indicates Assad feels cornered, looking for leverage,” BBC’s Kim Ghattas tweeted, adding that the assessment jibes with what she has been told by sources in Damascus recently.

Nevertheless, the revelation that the White House was aware of the threats to Foley’s life and was unable to provide for his safety will prompt administration critics to sharpen their attacks on Obama’s approach to the crisis in the Middle East. In the wake of what may have been a preventable atrocity, some of that criticism will be quite valid.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, ISIS, James Foley, Steven Sotloff

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

EverythinghaschangedaftertheexecutionofJames

Everything has changed after the execution of James Foley by ISIS

posted at 8:01 am on August 20, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The execution of the American journalist James Wright Foley by Islamic State militants and their threat to do the same to another U.S. citizen has changed the West’s approach to the threat posed by this fundamentalist group occupying portions of Iraq and Syria. The tempo of officials in the West has quickened as preparations to address this threat take on a new urgency.

President Barack Obama will return to Washington today to give a statement on the gruesome execution of an American at the hands of an Islamic militant who appears to have been British-born. Obama will be unable to satisfy the concerns of a nervous and wounded nation if he merely reprises his threadbare role as America’s “comforter-in-chief.” The country demands a plan of action aimed at rolling back ISIS from Iraq and a longer-term strategy to suppress the Islamic State threat in Syria.

In the U.K., Prime Minister David Cameron, too, announced his intention to end his vacation early and return to London after pressure mounted on him to recall Parliament for an emergency session aimed at crafting a plan to confront the threat posed by ISIS.

The language Americans are using to describe the ISIS threat has also changed. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a 2016 hopeful who has positioned himself as among the hawkish in the field of GOP presidential aspirants, minced no words in his statement on Foley’s execution.

“Just as Al Qaeda’s initial killings of Americans abroad foretold the carnage they would unleash within our borders, this barbaric beheading of a defenseless hostage is the clearest indication to date that ISIL has declared war on the United States, on the American people, and on freedom loving people everywhere.

“For more than a year, ISIL has been murdering civilians, raping women and young girls and enslaving them, and carrying out a systematic genocide of anyone who does not share their warped and extremist Islamist views. ISIL cannot be reasoned with, they can’t be negotiated with, and their view of the world is irreconcilable with civilized society.

And, on CBS This Moring, Obama’s former acting CIA director Mike Morell warned the public to mark the date as it was the first time ISIS had attacked Americans directly.

“I think what ISIS is trying to do here,” he began, “is intimidate the United States into backing off of the attacks that we’ve done in the last several weeks.”

“And I think our response should be, and our response will be, to not do that,” Morell continued. “In fact, we should pick up the pace here.”

Morell makes a sound point. From all appearances, the Western airstrikes on ISIS positions in Iraq’s north have successfully dislodged the Islamic State from key positions like those they occupied around Mt. Sinjar and the Mosul Dam. An even more energetic operation would likely enjoy even more successes.

If the president’s concerns about expanding operations in Iraq were political, that Americans would never be prepared to risk U.S. blood and treasure in Iraq again, he can probably rest easy knowing that he has the support of the public behind his actions. In public opinion polls, bipartisan majorities have expressed support for airstrikes against the medieval ISIS threat. Today, in the wake of this barbarism against an American journalist with threats of more of the same to come, the American people are likely willing to go even further to neutralize this new enemy.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, David Cameron, Iraq, ISIS, Syria

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Mission accomplished: ISIS continues to torture Iraq’s Yazidis

Missionaccomplished:ISIScontinuestotortureIraq’sYazidis

ObamatochairU.N.SecurityCouncilmeetingto

Obama to chair U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss threat of Western Islamist militants

posted at 6:01 pm on August 18, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

In September, President Barack Obama will preside over a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. This marks only the second time in history that an American president has presided over the UNSC, the first being President Barack Obama.

On the agenda when Obama first took the helm of a UNSC meeting in 2009, however, was the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The president will take on a substantially more pressing and less utopian subject when he addresses the UNSC member states next month: Western fighters joining the ranks of Islamist militants in the Middle East who could potentially plan and execute terror attacks on Western targets.

According to administration officials, who revealed Obama’s plan to chair a UNSC meeting exclusively to the liberal news outlet Think Progress, the nature of the threat and a counterterrorism strategy designed to address it will be on the agenda.

“Specifically the meeting will cover the phenomenon of foreign fighters travelling to conflict zones and joining terrorist organizations, as seen in the surge in foreigners joining ranks with such groups as Jahbat al-Nusra in Syria,” Think Progress reported.

TP does not, however, mention the terror threat posed by the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, where a July estimate suggested over 10,000 Western fighters are training for and executing attacks.

Over the weekend, Syrian opposition forces called on the United States to carry out airstrikes similar to those being executed against ISIS targets in Iraq on Islamist positions in Syria. The highly publicized announcement came seemingly out of the blue, though unconfirmed foreign affairs reporters indicated that this plea came at the request of the United States:

Important if true. MT @Basma_: US asked #Syria rebels to call on int'l community to hit ISIS targets: sources. Appeal expected today.

— Liz Sly (@LizSly) August 16, 2014

Of course, the U.S. continues to confuse its allies in Syria by not being clear about the level of American support they can expect.

The news come as the US is carrying out air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq and a day after the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that aims to weaken the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s Syria branch.

Commenting on the resolution, the Syrian Coalition’s Special Representative to the UN, Najib Ghadbian, said: “The Syrian Coalition calls for targeted air strikes in Syria. Strikes should be backed up by intensive train and equip programmes for the moderate Syrian opposition forces that have been effectively fighting ISIS [Islamic State] for over a year.”

Another member of the coalition told Al Jazeera that the group was “getting different promises” from the US.

The Islamic State, an al-Qaeda splinter group, has in the recent months seized swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria and declared a caliphate.

Following the Syrian opposition’s calls for U.S. intervention against Islamist fighters, Vice reported that Assad’s forces executed their most comprehensive strikes on Islamic State targets in Syria to date. If America acts in Syria, it may well be doing so alongside the Syrian army less than one year after Obama addressed the nation about the need to execute airstrikes against pro-Assad forces.

This comes as Iran and the U.S. are reportedly working toward the same goal of rolling back ISIS in Iraq, though without any overt coordination. While “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” tacitly allying with Damascus and Tehran in the effort to combat ISIS would have been virtually unthinkable just months ago.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, Iraq, syia, United Nations

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

IranmaypartiallyinvadeIraq postedat

Iran may partially invade Iraq

posted at 3:21 pm on August 18, 2014 by Noah Rothman

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

As American forces continue to mount airstrikes on Islamic State positions around the key Mosul dam in support of Kurdish forces, it appears that Iran is prepared to increase its military support for Iraq’s Shia in the south and east.

An unconfirmed report in Iraqi News indicates that Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces are preparing to insert heavy armor into Iraq.

According to an informed source, tanks and armored vehicles belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are mobilizing to enter the Khanaqin district with the aim of the concentration in areas with Shiite majority north of the capital Baghdad and hit the insurgent of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

The source said that a convoy of tanks and armored vehicles moved through Serpil Zahab, a way to enter Iraq through the border crossing, which links between the two countries from Khanaqin district.

The source added that the Iranian forces will go to the areas which witnessed fighting between the Kurdish Peshmerga forces and militants of ISIL such as Jalawla, which had fallen to the insurgents recently. It is believed that the Iranians want to flush out the militants and deliver these areas to the Peshmerga fighters.

As if American negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program were not complicated enough by Washington’s reliance on an increasingly unhelpful and expansionist Russia to act as a mediator, American dependence on Tehran to serve as stabilizing force in Iraq is probably going to gum up the works in Vienna even further.

Reuters previously reported that, while Iran officially denies that its forces are engaging in combat operations inside Iraq, the recent deaths of Iranian fighters inside the neighboring country “shows that Iran has committed boots on the ground to defend Iraqi territory.”

“Regional experts believe the Revolutionary Guards have increased the supply of weapons and funds to proxy militant groups inside Iraq in recent weeks,” Reuters further reported.

American cooperation with Iran in Iraq is not merely limited to military operations. Last week, Iran withdrew its support for embattled former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and backed his chosen successor, Haider al-Abadi.

Abadi himself, long exiled in Britain, is seen as a far less polarising, sectarian figure than Maliki, who is also from the Shi’ite Islamic Dawa party. Abadi appears to have the blessing of Iraq’s powerful Shi’ite clergy, a major force since U.S. troops toppled Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.

If and when the ISIS threat is diminished in Iraq, Iran will have established a foothold in Iraq which the West will find difficult to dislodge. When the fighting subsides, maybe Tehran will show they have learned from America’s mistakes and will negotiate a long-term status of forces agreement to ensure the gains they have made are not so easily lost.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Iran, Iraq, ISIS

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Breaking:PopeFrancisendorsesforcetostop

Breaking: Pope Francis endorses force to stop ISIS; Update: CNN says “punts on airstrikes”

posted at 2:01 pm on August 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

We already got hints of this over the last couple of weeks, as Vatican officials spoke on the record in support of limited military action to rescue the Yazidis. The Boston Globe’s veteran Vaticanista John Allen noted the stunning change of tone from the previous two international forays into Iraq, but warned in an interview on The Ed Morrissey Show that it sounded more like a “yellow light” than a full-fledged endorsement of war. Allen also pointed out that it looked as though the Vatican was taking some care to separate Pope Francis himself from whatever endorsement of military action they were signaling.

Not any more, according to the Associated Press. This time the Pontiff himself has endorsed military action, but with at least one significant condition:

Pope Francis has endorsed the use of force in Iraq to stop Islamic militants from attacking religious minorities but says the international community — and not just one country — should decide how to intervene.

Reuters corroborates the AP report with some direct quotes from Francis about the legitimacy of force in stopping an unjust aggression:

“In these cases, where there is an unjust aggression I can only say that it is legitimate to stop the unjust aggressor,” he told reporters on the plane returning from South Korea in response to a question about U.S. air strikes against Islamic State insurgents who have overrun much of the country’s north. …

The pope suggested he was not giving a automatic green light for bombings or war but that the situation was grave and the international community had to respond together.

“I underscore the verb ‘to stop’. I am not saying ‘bomb’ or ‘make war’, but ‘stop him’. The means by which he can be stopped must be evaluated. Stopping the unjust aggressor is legitimate,” he said.

“One single nation cannot judge how he is to be stopped, how an unjust aggressor is to be stopped,” he said.

Francis seems to stop short of explicitly endorsing military force, but that’s only theoretically speaking. If anything short of military force could stop ISIS, Francis wouldn’t need to make this statement in the first place. The question will be — and actually is, in Francis’ statements — just what kind of force to apply.

In many wars, one can debate whether one side or the other, or both, have committed “unjust aggression.” In the case of ISIS, which is conducting genocides, ethno-religious cleansing, and wholesale massacres, as well as condemning women into sex slavery, there is no debate on the nature of the conflict. There is, however, debate on what it would take to put a stop to all of the above “unjust aggressions,” which is Francis’ first qualifier on his endorsement. According to the rough parameters of the just-war doctrine, there should be no more force than what is necessary to bring an end to the injustice being perpetrated. Pope Francis doesn’t want to offer any prescriptions for the specific methods but just the moral framework for the decision.

His other qualifier, which is that the debate should take place in an international context, may be easier to meet — as long as Pope Francis isn’t suggesting that the only legitimate body for the debate is the United Nations. NATO and the regional nations threatened by ISIS would provide for a rather robust international forum and avoid the traditional sticks-in-the-mud Russia and China. On the other hand, Russia and China might have their own reasons for backing the use of force; going after ISIS helps Bashar al-Assad and the mullahs in Tehran, at least in the short run.

This pronouncement will put significant pressure on the US and EU to take action in Iraq against ISIS, precisely because of the singular nature of a Catholic Pope endorsing any kind of military action in any context at all. Who wants to be seen as more pacifist than the Pontiff and finding their reluctance to act called out by any Pope as a moral failure by omission? That may be especially true with this particular Pope, who has tremendous international popularity and credibility as a moral voice in the modern age.

We’ll see whether this prompts the West into some coordinated effort to stop ISIS. In the meantime, make sure to bookmark this moment, because it won’t come again soon.

Update: Keeping in mind that the media is usually eager to slice up Pope Francis’ remarks, it’s a good idea to look for the larger context. T. Becket Adams has a longer piece of the remarks:

And now for what Pope Francis actually said: pic.twitter.com/O7L0GCzCFW

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) August 18, 2014

In it, the Pope actually does specify that the proper venue should be the United Nations, plus he’s a little more careful than Reuters or the AP suggested in issuing an explicit endorsement of force. In this case, though, to ask the question is to beg the answer. “Is this an unjust aggression?” cannot be answered in any way other than yes, unless we want to suggest that genocides and sexual slavery are legitimate in some circumstances. “How should we stop it?” may be a little more nuanced, but there is no way to stop ISIS now without resorting to some kind of military force.

This is what the Vatican officials explicitly conceded on the record last week. Legitimizing an international debate on these questions married to an exhortation to stop the “unjust aggression” is a not-terribly-tacit green light for international action through the UN, if and when that body can agree to do something about it.

Update: CNN has a different take on the same remarks:

The Pope punted.

Asked if he approved of the American airstrikes that began earlier this month against Muslim militants in Iraq, Pope Francis held back his weighty moral imprimatur, refusing to support or denounce the military campaign.

“I can only say this: It is licit to stop the unjust aggressor,” the pontiff said Monday during a press conference on the plane back to Rome from South Korea.  “I underline the verb: stop. I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means.”

In an apparent reference to the United States, Francis said “one nation alone cannot judge” the best means of stopping “unjust aggressors” like ISIS, the group that calls itself the Islamic State. Those decisions should be made by the United Nations, the pontiff said.

“Punted”? Hardly. Pope Francis called for an international agreement to stop ISIS, preferably through the UN. His argument is that single nations can use claims of just war to oppress other nations, but (a) that’s clearly not the case with these limited airstrikes, and (b) Francis is supporting a “stop” on ISIS and its “unjust aggression” in some form. His answer is remarkably clear — he wants the UN to take responsibility for stopping unjust aggression and then get something done. In the meantime, people are dying, which is why the Vatican took the time last week to offer support for airstrikes to relieve the Yazidis and Christians in northern Iraq.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: European Union, Iraq, ISIS, just war, NATO, Pope Francis, United Nations, Vatican

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Video:Iraqi,KurdishforcesretakeMosulDam?

Video: Iraqi, Kurdish forces retake Mosul Dam?

posted at 9:21 am on August 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Both Iraq and Kurdish Peshmerga forces have claimed a rare victory over ISIS this morning, the first in many months of setbacks and collapses. According to both, the Iraqi flag flies once more over the Mosul Dam, a critical piece of infrastructure and a potential time bomb that could kill as many as 500,000 Iraqis if destroyed:

Iraqi state television reported Monday that Iraqi national and Kurdish “peshmerga” forces had retaken the key Mosul dam from Sunni militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but the fighting didn’t appear to be over.

If confirmed, reclamation of the nation’s largest dam would be a hugely symbolic and strategic victory in the months-long battle against ISIS, which has wrested control of a vast swath of north and west Iraq and eastern Syria.

The reports on State TV quoted a spokesman for the Iraqi military, but peshmerga fighters told CBS News they were advancing on the dam complex slowly and cautiously amid concerns that ISIS fighters might have left behind IEDs or mines, and possibly rigged parts of the dam itself with explosives.

Fox News reports that they have confirmation from multiple sources that the whole dam has now been liberated from ISIS:

Iraqi security forces and Kurdish peshmerga fighters have wrested control of the vital Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, from Islamic State militants, a senior official in the peshmerga forces told Fox News Monday.

Spokesman Lt. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi told The Associated Press the troops were backed by aerial support, but he didn’t specify whether there were U.S. airstrikes during the battle, adding that the troops “fully liberated” the dam Monday and “hoisted the Iraqi flag over it.”

The retaking of the entire dam complex on the Tigris River and the territory surrounding its reservoir is a significant victory against the Islamic State, the militant group formerly known as ISIS, which seized large swaths of northern and western Iraq this summer. It is the first major success for Iraqi and Kurdish forces since U.S. airstrikes began earlier this month.

The dam and its broader complex hold great strategic value as they supply electricity and water to a large part of the country.

The Associated Press was not quite as sanguine, and there are reports that control of the dam is still contested:

Boosted by two days of U.S. airstrikes, Iraqi and Kurdish forces on Monday wrested back control of the country’s largest dam from Islamic militants, a military spokesman in Baghdad said as fighting was reported to be underway for the rest of the strategic complex.

Soon after the news broke, the Islamic State group, which two weeks ago captured the Mosul Dam spanning the Tigris River just north of the city of Mosul, denied the claim, insisting it was still in control of the facility. …

Iraq’s Ministry of Defense said security forces “liberated a large part of the Mosul Dam” with the help of U.S. airstrikes, adding that forces are working to fully free the entire complex. U.S. Central Command would not immediately confirm any involvement.

However, a senior Kurdish commander told The Associated Press that his peshmerga forces had withdrawn from the dam complex on Monday afternoon because it was heavily rigged with explosives. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media.

In an Internet statement, the Islamic State denied losing control of the dam, dismissing the government claim as “mere propaganda war.” The statement, which could not be independently verified, was posted on a website frequently used by the militants.

If the Kurdish and Iraqi forces have not yet taken control of the dam, it may be more dangerous than ever. Engineers have long had concerns about the stability of the dam even when no fighting takes place. If ISIS has booby-trapped the dam, it may not take much to destroy it and kill tens of thousands of Iraqis immediately, and maybe hundreds of thousands in a short period of time. When it comes to control of this particular facility, half-measures and partial victories won’t do.

Still, the sudden reversal of momentum comes as good news after months of horror in the Iraqi desert. ISIS hasn’t had too many setbacks in their sweep from Syria to almost the gates of Baghdad and Irbil. A few bloody noses, plus a new government in Baghdad, could have some of the Sunni tribal leaders looking for a better deal than their current one with the genocidal freaks of ISIS. The US air intervention should continue, and if this result holds up, shows that it should have started long before the Yazidis faced a genocide on Mount Sinjar.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: air strikes, Iraq, ISIS, Kurds, Mosul

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Openthread:Sundaymorningtalkingheads

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on August 17, 2014 by Allahpundit

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

War in Ukraine, war in Iraq, a looming executive power grab on immigration, and a 2016 GOP contender indicted for nakedly political reasons: There’s a lot on the ol’ news plate this Sunday morning but the main course, of course, is Ferguson. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is the lead guest on “Meet the Press” and “State of the Union,” and I’m going to go ahead and guess that he booked those appearances on Friday. He probably thought today was going to be a belated victory lap after he ordered the Highway Patrol to take the lead in crowd control on Thursday and the protests remained peaceful that night. Oops: Friday night brought more looting. Now he’s back on the hot seat.

If you’re not up for watching op-ed pagers sitting around the round table and navel-gazing about race in America, Rick Perry will be on “Fox News Sunday” to answer for his crime of thinking that someone who did time on a DUI charge probably shouldn’t be serving as DA. How’s the other side of that argument working out for Democrats thus far? Not so well. The full line-up is at Politico.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: darren wilson, ferguson, Iraq, michael brown, police, Russia, Sunday, talk shows, Ukraine, Yazidis

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair