Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/19/2014 4:54:01 PM

Ukraine rebels speak of heavy losses in battle against government troops

Reuters

Wochit

Ukraine's President Offers Cease-fire In East



By Aleksandar Vasovic

SIVERSK (Reuters) - Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian separatists were locked in fierce fighting in the east of Ukraine on Thursday and a rebel commander acknowledged big losses among separatists heavily outgunned by government forces.

Even as President Petro Poroshenko and his team prepared to unveil their blueprint for ending more than two months of rebellion, government forces, using artillery and heavy armour, said they were tightening the noose on separatists near Krasny Liman, north of the main regional hub of Donetsk.

Government forces said the fighting erupted in the early hours after rebels refused to lay down their arms as part of Poroshenko's peace plan.

Both Ukrainian government and rebel accounts of the fighting suggested a major battle involving armored vehicles including tanks.

One military source said 4,000 separatists were involved, while rebels sources in Donetsk said Ukrainian infantry supported by 20 tanks and many other armoured vehicles were storming the village of Yampil, about 12 km (7 miles) east of Krasny Liman.

A top rebel commander, Igor Strelkov, reported "heavy losses" in equipment and arms among the separatists, faced with a huge superiority in heavy armour on the government side at Yampil.

"We beat off the first attack and destroyed one tank. But it is difficult to take on 20 tanks. The battle is going on. Our people are holding but we can't rule out that they (government forces) will break through," Strelkov, who is also known as Girkin, said in a videoed statement. He urged Moscow to "take some measures".

There was no word on casualties from the government side.

From the nearby town of Siversk, artillery blasts, small arms fire and machinegun-fire could be heard from about 3 km away. From high ground, smoke could be seen billowing from rebel positions under attack.

Poroshenko, installed as a president on June 7, is pushing a peace plan to end the rebellion which he said would be unveiled soon and presented to European Union ministers early next week.

It includes an offer of a unilateral ceasefire by government forces and amnesty for the separatists - but only if they lay down their weapons.

REBELS "REFUSED TO DISARM"

A government forces spokesman said on Thursday that it was when rebels refused a call to disarm - made in leaflets fired by big guns into rebel positions - that fighting broke out in the early hours of the morning.

"We issued an ultimatum to the terrorists overnight to surrender their weapons. We guarantee their safety and investigation in line with Ukrainian law ... They refused," said government forces spokesman Vladyslav Seleznyov.

"Now we are trying to narrow the encirclement. They are trying to break out," Seleznyov said.

Separatist rebellions erupted in eastern Ukraine in early April after street protests in Kiev toppled the Moscow-backed leader Viktor Yanukovich and Russia in turn annexed the Crimean peninsula. Eastern rebels have called for union with Russia.

The violence has cost the lives of 147 Ukrainian soldiers and wounded 267 up to now, the defense ministry said on Wednesday. Many scores of separatist militia, civilians and members of other military bodies such as the national guard have also been killed and the overall death toll is much higher.

Kiev has accused Russia of fomenting the unrest and of allowing volunteer fighters from Russia to cross into Ukraine to support the rebels.

This is denied by Moscow, which has been urging Poroshenko to end "punitive action" against the rebels.

The United States and its Western allies largely share Ukraine's view. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assured Poroshenko late on Wednesday there would be "further costs on Russia" unless it used its influence to stop the separatist violence, the White House said. (Full Story)

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen meanwhile sounded a new alarm about Russia's possible intentions, saying that at least a few thousand more Russian troops were now on Ukraine's long eastern border.

"I consider this a very regrettable step backwards. It seems Russia keeps the option open to intervene further in Ukraine," he said in London.

"The international community would have to respond in a firm manner if Russia were to intervene further in Ukraine." (Full Story)

BOOST FOR POROSHENKO

In Kiev, Poroshenko received a boost when parliament resoundingly endorsed his nominations for three key posts including that of foreign minister.

Speaking to journalists later, he said he himself would sign an association agreement with the European Union on June 27 which will decisively shift Ukraine away from Russia's influence and rule it out from joining a Moscow-led customs union.

It was Yanukovich's sudden refusal last November to sign that pact and upgrade relations with Moscow that precipated his own ousting and Russia's annexing of Crimea, and sparked the worst crisis in Russia-West relations since the Cold War.

But Poroshenko knows he has to impress the West with his intentions of reaching a peaceful settlement to the eastern crisis by using minimum force. He said his new foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin, would unveil his peace plan for the east on June 23 at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg.

Ukrainian forces, which lost 49 servicemen on June 14 when separatists brought down a military helicopter in Luhansk region, have been gradually tightening their encirclement of rebel positions to the south and east of Krasny Liman including the rebel stronghold of Slaviansk.

Olesya, a woman in Yampil, said Ukrainian forces had entered the village in armoured vehicles bearing the Ukrainian flag.

"There was fighting all night. Mines were flying over our heads. Planes flew over and we could hear heavy weapons. It's awful what is going on here," she said.

Sergei, a 45-year-old who was leaving the village of Zakitne by scooter, said people had been sheltering in cellars for days and his wife had already left because there was no food, electricity or gas.

He was now leaving because "there are homes on fire and dead people on the streets".

"There is an ongoing active phase of the ATO (anti-terrorist operation) in the region of Krasny Liman," said government forces spokesman Vladyslav Seleznyov

Asked about the report that 4,000 separatists could be involved, Seleznyov, the government forces spokesman, replied: "Then, there'll be 4,000 coffins".

(Additional reporting by Lina Kushch in Donetsk and Pavel Polityuk in Kiev; Writing by Richard Balmforth; Editing by Andrew Roche)







Rebels reject a call to lay down their arms in line with a peace plan proposed by President Poroshenko.
'Trying to break out'



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/19/2014 5:53:27 PM

US Signals Iraq’s PM Maliki Should Go


An image grab taken from Iraqiya channel shows Iraqi Primi Minister Nouri al-Maliki delivering a televised speech in Baghdad on Wednesday. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

An image grab taken from Iraqiya channel shows Iraqi Primi Minister Nouri al-Maliki delivering a televised speech in Baghdad on Wednesday. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Stephen: They put him into power; now they want him out – although I’m never quite sure why another country should be holding such global sway over another. Yet, in this case, there is a much bigger picture to think about – especially amid rumours that this ISIS crisis is a false flag and mainstream media beat up; while others say this move to oust the Iraqi PM is linked to the RV and global currency reset…

By Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, WSJ – June 18, 2014 – http://tinyurl.com/oz3pclb

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is signaling that it wants a new government in Iraq without Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, convinced the Shiite leader is unable to reconcile with the nation’s Sunni minority and stabilize a volatile political landscape.

The U.S. administration is indicating it wants Iraq’s political parties to form a new government without Mr. Maliki as he tries to assemble a ruling coalition following elections this past April, U.S. officials say.

Such a new government, U.S., officials say, would include the country’s Sunni and Kurdish communities and could help to stem Sunni support for the al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has seized control of Iraqi cities over the past two weeks. That, the officials argue, would help to unify the country and reverse its slide into sectarian division.

On Wednesday, Iraq stepped up efforts on several fronts to blunt the insurgency’s progress, deploying counterterrorism units and helicopter gunships to battle them for control of the country’s main oil refinery, in Beiji.

A growing number of U.S. lawmakers and Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are pressing the White House to pull its support for Mr. Maliki. Some of them are pushing for change in exchange for providing their help in stabilizing Iraq, say U.S. and Arab diplomats.

The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) told a congressional hearing Wednesday: “The Maliki government, candidly, has got to go if you want any reconciliation.”

Senior administration officials have become increasingly critical of Mr. Maliki in their public statements and question whether he is committed to mending ties with Sunnis.

“There’s no question that not enough has been done by the government, including the prime minister, to govern inclusively, and that that has contributed to the situation and the crisis that we have today in Iraq,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday. “The Iraqi people will have to decide the makeup of the next coalition government and who is the prime minister,” he added. “Whether it’s the current prime minister or another leader, we will aggressively attempt to impress upon that leader the absolute necessity of rejecting sectarian governance.”

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Photo: AP

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Photo: AP

The Obama administration has for years warned Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominant government to be more inclusive and less punitive against the minority Sunnis at the risk of further alienating them.

Mr. Maliki has largely ignored that advice over the past five years, U.S. and Arab officials say, jailing popular Sunni protest leaders, blocking even other Shiite blocs from sharing power and taking most key cabinet positions in government for himself.

This week, as pressure rose from the U.S. and other allies to work toward a representative government for Iraq, Mr. Maliki participated in a unity meeting with top Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders. The result wasn’t hopeful, U.S. and Arab officials say.

Iraq is on the brink of a full-blown civil war. Who are these ISIS jihadists and how do they hope to change the map of the Middle East? What do other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan think about ISIS? WSJ’s Jason Bellini diagrams the situation, and offers #TheShortAnswer.

“We believe that Maliki’s sectarianism and exclusion of Sunnis has led to the insurgency we are seeing,” said a senior Arab official. “He unfortunately managed to unite ISIS with the former Baathists and Saddam supporters.”

President Barack Obama and his national security aides are in deliberations over the creation of a new strategy for stabilizing Iraq, with a clear road map expected in the coming days.

Mr. Obama has discussed the possibility of using air power and drone strikes to weaken ISIS, say U.S. officials. But he has been particularly focused on developing a political process to heal the widening rift between Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni communities that officials see as feeding the support for ISIS’s insurgency in western Iraq.

Mr. Obama met Wednesday with the top Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate to update them on administration plans.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the chamber’s minority leader, issued a statement afterward, criticizing Mr. Obama’s past policies on Iraq and saying it was important to apply the experience to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in two years.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), the House Democratic leader, said Mr. Obama didn’t need any further legislative authority to pursue options in Iraq. But officials said Mr. Obama told the congressional leaders he would continue to consult with them.

Earlier Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned senators at a hearing against expecting quick U.S. military strikes, because of the difficulty of developing targets. “It’s not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then immediately striking it,” said Gen. Dempsey.

To support the administration approach, Secretary of State John Kerry and his aides have consulted with Iraq’s neighbors—particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran—to find a formula to create a more inclusive government in Baghdad.

The State Department’s point man on Iraq, Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk, has concurrently been meeting with Iraqi politicians and religious leaders in Baghdad to promote this political process, say U.S. officials.

The State Department wouldn’t say if the Obama administration was specifically discussing the issue of removing Mr. Maliki during these talks. But Arab diplomats and policy advisers who have talked with the White House in recent days said it was clear the administration was “casting about for somebody better” than Mr. Maliki.

Mr. Kerry was even more pointed in his criticism of Mr. Maliki on Monday, arguing his removal could help stabilize Iraq’s sectarian divide.

“If there is a clear successor, if the results of the election are respected, if people come together with the cohesiveness necessary to build a legitimate government that puts the reforms in place that people want, that might wind up being very salutatory,” he told Yahoo News.

Mr. Maliki’s State of Law coalition won a plurality of seats, 92 out of 328, in Iraq’s parliamentary elections. The country is waiting for ratification of the results, after which the parliamentary speaker will call on the leadership of Mr. Maliki’s party to form a new government.

Mr. Maliki is still viewed as in a strong position to retain his post. In fact, many Shiite leaders have rallied behind the Iraqi prime minister in the wake of the ISIS gaining control of the cities of Mosul, Tal Afar and Tikrit in recent days and launching an offensive on Baghdad.

Still, the formation of governments in Iraq has seen significant horse-trading—and the involvement of American, Iranian and Arab diplomats—since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The Shiite politician Ayad Allawi’s political party won the most seats in 2010. But he failed to form a government after some Shiite and Kurdish parties backed Mr. Maliki.

Current and former U.S. officials said Iran will be crucial a player in efforts to form a new government in Baghdad and potentially remove Mr. Maliki, and will push for any new government to be friendly to its interests.

Tehran and Washington are Iraq’s most important diplomatic, economic and military partners. And both the U.S. and Iran have pledged in recent days to support the Iraqi government in its fight against ISIS.

Former U.S. officials said both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations communicated regularly with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad during the political deliberation in 2006 and 2010 that previously elected Mr. Maliki. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns discussed Iraq’s political reform process with Iranian officials on Monday in Vienna, according to the State Department.

“Iran can play a positive role,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007. “Sometimes, on a tactical level, there can be an opportunity for cooperation. It’s happened in the past.”

The sequencing of the U.S.’s deliberations with Iraq and Iran will be crucial in determining whether progress can be made in driving ISIS out of the territories it’s already claimed, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Mr. Obama has signaled that he’s going to hold back on launching any major military operations inside Iraq until he get assurances from the Iraqi government that it will take meaningful steps to reach out to its Sunni community.

But there are concerns within the administration that ISIS could continue to make military gains as Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi politicians jostle for power in Baghdad.

“The question is if the U.S. needs to do something [militarily] while waiting for a political settlement,” said Mr. Khalilzad.

—Michael R. Crittenden, Jeffrey Sparshott, Ellen Knickmeyer and Dion Nissenbaum contributed to this article.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/19/2014 6:03:06 PM

The Truth About US Troops “Sent to Iraq”

By Tony Cartalucci
Land Destroyer Report
June 17, 2014

Indeed, nearly 300 troops are being prepared to deploy to Iraq, as they would be to any nation on Earth where a US embassy is located, and may possibly require evacuation. It is in no way an “intervention” or a gesture of “assistance” to the government of a destabilized country. However, in Iraq, Western headlines would have readers think otherwise.

The Guardian’s article, “Barack Obama sends troops back to Iraq as Isis insurgency worsens,” in title alone leads the general population to believe the third “Iraq War” has begun. The article claims:

The US is urgently deploying several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq and considering sending an additional contingent of special forces soldiers as Baghdad struggles to repel a rampant insurgency.

Upon carefully reading the article, however, it is revealed that these troops are only to aid in the security of the US embassy in Baghdad. Buried 11 paragraphs down, amid suggestions, speculation, and conjecture, is the true nature of the latest deployment:

Obama said in his notification to Congress that the military personnel being sent to Iraq would provide support and security for the American embassy in Baghdad, but was “equipped for combat”.

All troops participating in such missions to protect and possibly evacuate US embassies anywhere on Earth are “equipped for combat.” This hyperbole at best is sensationalism, and at worst, intentional disinformation meant to further undermine the stability of Baghdad’s government, by implying that it both seeks and depends on US military forces for its continued survival.

Image: US troops aren’t going “to Iraq.” They are going to bolster security at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Attempts to portray the routine move as an “intervention” is a ploy to undermine the credibility and sovereignty of the Iraqi government.

It has been previously reported that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a creation of the United States and its regional allies, with the CIA itself monitoring, arming, and funding the terrorist organization along the Turkish-Syrian border for the past 3 years. The ISIS’ incursion into northern Iraq was portended by their very public redeployment to eastern Syria in March 2014 where they then prepared for the invasion of Iraq.

Since invading, they have committed themselves to overt, sectarian bloodshed in an attempt to trigger reprisals across Iraq along sectarian lines and create a wider sectarian conflict. The relatively small ISIS force can and will be overwhelmed by Iraqi security forces if the psychological and strategic impact of its blitzkrieg-style tactics can be exposed and blunted. In the meantime, during this closing window of opportunity, the US in particular is struggling to undermine both the sociopolitical stability of Iraq itself, and the credibility of the government in Baghdad. Ironically, to do this, the US is posing as Baghdad’s ally.

America’s “Political Touch of Death”

Image: The US has used insidious propaganda to distance itself from its own proxies in places like Egypt, portraying ElBaradei and Mohammed Morsi as “anti-Western.” Policymakers have admitted the need to do so to prevent anti-American sentiment from undermining the chances of success for their proxies. Following this logic, overtly “supporting” those the West opposes would be an effective way to in fact, undermine them.

Readers should recall during the opening phases of the very much US-engineered, so-called “Arab Spring,” that both the US and Israel intentionally and very publicly offered “support” for the embattled government of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, despite training and funding the very mobs that were set to overthrow his government. The alleged support was a psychological operation (psyop) designed not to help the embattled government, but to undermine it further. Egyptians on all sides of the political divide viewed the United States and Israel with everything from suspicion to outright scorn. By posing as allies of the Mubarak government, the US and Israel were able to politically poison the leadership in Cairo and deny it any support that could counter the Western-sponsored mobs in the streets.

In retrospect, the orchestrated Western-backed nature of the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan unrest is clear. However, as the events played out, especially in the early stages, the corporate-owned Western media committed itself to breathtaking propagandizing. In Egypt, crowds of 50,000 were translated into “crowds of 2 million” through boldfaced lies, tight camera angles and disingenuous propagandists like BBC’s Jon Leyne. In Libya, the initial armed nature of the “rebellion” was omitted and the unrest was portrayed as “peaceful unarmed protests.”

Perhaps most diabolical of all is the manner in which the mainstream media portrayed Egypt’s opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. Indeed, ElBaradei was at the very center of the protests, having returned to Egypt a year earlier in February 2010 to assemble his “National Front for Change” with the help of Egypt’s “youth movements” led by the US State Department trained April 6 Movement and Google’s Wael Ghonim. But we were all told he “just flew in,” and that he was viewed with “suspicion” by the West. We were also told that Hosni Mubarak was still our “chosen man” and reports even went as far as claiming (unsubstantiated claims) that Mubarak was preparing to flee to Tel Aviv, Israel of all places, and that Israel was airlifting in weapons to bolster his faltering regime.

Obviously those “attempts” to save Mubarak’s regime failed, precisely because they were never designed to succeed in the first place. And on the eve of Mubarak’s fall, the US eventually turned a full 180 degrees around from defending him, to demanding he step down.

With amazing “foresight,” the Council on Foreign Relations’ magazine Foreign Affairs reported in March 2010, a year before the so-called “Arab Spring,” the following (emphasis added):

“Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly. Somewhat paradoxically, ElBaradei’s chilly relationship with the United States as IAEA chief only advances U.S. interests now. “

Fully realizing US or Israeli support for ElBaradei would destroy any chance for the “revolution’s” success, it appears that the cartoonish act of overtly, even oafishly supporting Mubarak in the early stages of the unrest was a deliberate attempt to shift the ire of the Egyptian people toward him, and their suspicions away from the West’s proxy ElBaradei. Similar attempts have since been made to bolster the legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood while undermining the military-led government now ruling in Cairo.

Beyond Egypt, such a campaign unfolded in Libya against Muammar Qaddafi, with rumors circulated that Israel was trying to save the embattled regime by hiring mercenaries, and even claims being made that Qaddafi was Jewish. Mirroring the cartoonish propaganda aimed at galvanizing Mubarak’s opposition, attempts to tarnish Qaddafi’s image in the eyes of America’s and Israel’s enemies by feigning support for him was attempted, but ultimately failed. Against Syria, a similar campaign by the US and Israel met with even less success.

Still, the “political touch of death” the US and its regional allies wield is extended out toward any and all in the hopes that it will help undermine and destabilize targeted nations. This most recent attempt to portray Baghdad as a benefactor of possible US assistance seeks to both grant the US plausible deniability in its role of raising ISIS legions in the first place, and undermine the Iran-leaning government of Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki in the eyes of enemies and allies alike.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/19/2014 11:22:39 PM

Megyn Kelly grills Dick Cheney: 'History has proven that you got it wrong in Iraq'

Dylan Stableford, Yahoo News
Yahoo News


FOX News Videos

Dick and Liz Cheney on the need for American leadership


Watch video

Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is being applauded for grilling Dick Cheney over an op-ed in which the former vice president and his daughter harshly — and some say hypocritically — criticized President Barack Obama's handling of the crisis in Iraq.

In the op-ed, published by the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, Cheney writes, "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."

During her interview with Cheney and his daughter Liz on Wednesday night, Kelly introduced him as "the man who helped lead us into Iraq in the first place."

She read the quote back to the former vice president and then said, "But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong in Iraq as well, sir."

"You said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Kelly told Cheney. "You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the insurgency was in the last throes, back in 2005. And you said after our intervention that extremists would have to 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now with almost $1 trillion spent there, with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say, 'You were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many'?"

"Well, I just fundamentally disagree, Reagan — uh, Megyn," Cheney replied. "You've got to go back and look at the track record. We inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody's mind about the extent of Saddam's involvement in weapons of mass destruction. We had a situation where, after 9/11, we were concerned about a follow-up attack. It would involve not just airline tickets and box cutters as the weapons, but rather something far deadlier, perhaps even a nuclear weapon."

It would've been "irresponsible for us not to act," Cheney said.

The interview surprised plenty of Twitter users, many of whom praised Kelly for her tough questioning that the Cheneys, perhaps, didn't see coming. Fox News is generally criticized for catering to conservatives.

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are owned by News Corp.

My new favorite TV interrogator: Megyn Kelly, grilling surprised-seeming and talking-point-bound VP Cheney http://is.gd/u0SoVv

23 RETWEETS 25 FAVORITES





Megyn Kelly doesn't pull any punches when talking to the former vice president about the war in Iraq.
'You got it wrong'



"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
6/19/2014 11:45:41 PM

Obama’s war on ISIS could reach beyond Iraq into Syria

Olivier Knox, Yahoo News
Yahoo News

What's News: President Obama to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq but pledges not to send combat troops there. The Supreme Court Rules that the first amendment protects whistleblowers who are public employees from retaliation. Netflix makes move into late-night talk shows with comedian Chelsea Handler. Photo: Getty


Even before President Barack Obama announced a limited escalation of America’s military role in battling al-Qaida-inspired extremists in Iraq, one of his top allies in Congress openly worried that the U.S. involvement could spiral out of control.

“You have to be careful sending special forces, because it's a number that has a tendency to grow,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters.

Pelosi, one of four top congressional leaders who heard Obama’s Iraq plans on Wednesday at the White House, said, “I'd like to see the context, purpose, timeline and all the rest for anything like that.” She added, “I would say let's proceed cautiously in that regard, without thinking that a hundred is a hundred.”

Obama, who has built much of his presidency on American war-weariness, acknowledged those concerns a few hours later in the White House briefing room as he unveiled plans to send up to 300 elite U.S. troops to Iraq as “advisers.”

“We always have to guard against mission creep,” he said. “So let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again. We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq.”

And, he underlined, “ultimately this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.”

In the meantime, Obama said, “we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.”

That was widely read as a threat to use airstrikes — either from airplanes or drones — against ISIS, which has drawn many of its battle-hardened fighters from the killing fields of Syria’s civil war. (ISIS, which refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is also known as ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.)

Will American strikes against ISIS be confined to Iraq or could they reach into Syria, a reporter asked on a conference call with three senior administration officials after Obama's news conference.

"The president is focused, again, on a number of potential contingencies that may demand U.S. direct military action. One of those is the threat from ISIL and the threat that that could pose, again, not simply to Iraqi stability but to U.S. personnel and to U.S. interests more broadly, certainly including our homeland," one official said.

"In that respect, we don't restrict potential U.S. action to a specific geographic space," the official continued. "The president has made clear time and again that we will take action as necessary including direct U.S. military action if it's necessary to defend the United States against an imminent threat.

"Clearly, we're focused on Iraq," the official underlined. "But the group ISIL, again, operates broadly, and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States."

In other words: The United States might take its war against ISIS into Syria.

There’s nothing imminent, another official said.

“We're not at the stage where we're preparing for airstrikes, obviously. The president hasn't asked us to do that,” the official said.

Obama famously opted not to strike Syria after it became clear he couldn’t get congressional permission — but this is not quite the same situation. In that debate, the president was weighing whether to target forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad. In the current crisis, American firepower would rain down on extremists that Obama says pose a direct threat to American interest and even might be plotting attacks on American soil. (Yahoo News reported on that possibility in February.)

Assad has shown no reluctance to slaughter rebels by the thousands, but there’s no credible public evidence that he’d ever target the United States.

Still, it raises an unsettling prospect. ISIS has been fighting to topple Assad. Should the U.S. go after the group in Syria, American power could end up being used in a way that helps the Syrian strongman Obama has said must go.



Worry over U.S. military involvement in Iraq


Rep. Nancy Pelosi says the U.S. must be careful of sending special forces because that "has a tendency to grow."
Could spill into Syria


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1