US strikes ISIS near Baghdad

[webfact]

U.S. airstrike hits ISIS target near Baghdad, first in 'expanded efforts'
By Jim Sciutto, Barbara Starr and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN

(CNN) -- A U.S. airstrike near Baghdad Monday marked a new phase in the fight against ISIS.

The airstrike southwest of the city appears to be the closest the U.S. airstrikes have come to the capital of Iraq since the start of the campaign against ISIS, a senior U.S. military official told CNN. And U.S. Central Command said in a statement that it was the first strike as part of "expanded efforts" to help Iraqi forces on the offensive against ISIS.

Monday's airstrike destroyed an ISIS fighting position that had been firing at Iraqi forces, Central Command said.

It occurred about 35 km (22 miles) southwest of Baghdad, another U.S. official said.

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/15/world/meast/iraq-isis-us-airstrikes/index.html?hpt=hp_c2


-- CNN 2014-09-16

[dexterm]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

[NeverSure]

Yes, don't do anything bad to ISIS. We wouldn't want to hurt their poor widdle feewings.

There's a school of thought that says to kill them where they are and not wait until they get to where we are.

So it would be hard to guess whether killing a mess of them in Iraq and Syria would get some who otherwise would have returned to rain terror on the West.

Frankly I don't care where we kill them. Just kill them.

[H1w4yR1da]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will.

Don't you just love appeasement?

While the civilised world is working out ways to destroy IS, the apologists are winging their hands in despair.

[Jingthing]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will.

Don't you just love appeasement?

While the civilised world is working out ways to destroy IS, the apologists are winging their hands in despair.

Often "apologists" are actually sympathizers in disguise.

Face it, lots of progressive/leftist westerners think it's OK for any non-white people to chop off heads of westerners for any old reason ... payback for "imperialism" and all that, innit?

[PiPiFFS]

What the West fails to admit to is they made a gross error of judgement when they invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and helped in overthrowing Gadaffi, Mubarak and Assad. They failed to understand that these despots were the only thing keeping militant Muslims in check. I have just watching the results of the meeting in Paris. A few have offered some air support but have avoided any offer of boots on the ground. Just how are they going to beat IS ?

I'm stuck in a hotel with just Fox and it has been amusing listening to the reporters giving Obama a hard time over his lack of strategy and are calling for him to declare war. I was shocked when a Democrat said that the last time America declared war was in 1942 <deleted> !!!!!

Just what has it been doing in the Middle East for the past decade or so and even longer in other parts of the world it has bombed the crap out of ?

How can they get away with this without declaring war ?

It seems to be a lose lose situation here !

[NomadJoe]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will.

Don't you just love appeasement?

While the civilised world is working out ways to destroy IS, the apologists are winging their hands in despair.

Often "apologists" are actually sympathizers in disguise.

Face it, lots of progressive/leftist westerners think it's OK for any non-white people to chop off heads of westerners for any old reason ... payback for "imperialism" and all that, innit?

I don't know of any progressive/leftist westerners that think that. I certainly don't. Can you name just one?

[arjunadawn]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

Think you and I finally sync! :-)

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

[arjunadawn]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will.

Don't you just love appeasement?

While the civilised world is working out ways to destroy IS, the apologists are winging their hands in despair.

Since I clearly told Dexterm I agreed with him, I would like to clarify something: "Let's hope the mission ends there" is not a supporting comment to leave the bastards alone. Any who know my posts know how virulently anti jihadi I am. The fact is, it would be great if it all ended "there." (I presume he means the Baghdad sorties). This is just wishful thinking and does not apply that we leave IS alone, only that... this is gonna be not great at all.

This is not going to be good. This will not be good for the US because the margin for error is zero. This will not be good for the US because it is also being used as a tool of domestic distraction. This will not be good for the regional strongmen because it will take theoretical differences sunni islam has and define who is on which side, for once and for all. The fact is, IS does represent islam- wholly. The sunni strongmen exist at their own peril and are wholly illegitimate, and sunni muslims know this (this is the sole reason the house of saud entered into the long ago unholy pact with Wahhabi islam- thus the two faces of SA- the Saudi monarchy has no legitimacy).

The US actually shits the bed on nearly every single thing it touches in the past 6 years! The US has done more to further jihadi aspirations than any single or combined things the jihadis have done themselves (see comments Egyptians make regarding the US supporting terror). Just simply look at US policy throughout the mulsim world. Come on? No one can be this stupid unless its intentional.

This will further define the narrative that jihadis wish to portray the worldview, and polarize the region further. Do I think the US is responding to events on the ground or haphazardly crafting them? Every single recent development is predictable. Go figure!

Edited September 16, 2014 by arjunadawn

[arjunadawn]

What the West fails to admit to is they made a gross error of judgement when they invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and helped in overthrowing Gadaffi, Mubarak and Assad. They failed to understand that these despots were the only thing keeping militant Muslims in check. I have just watching the results of the meeting in Paris. A few have offered some air support but have avoided any offer of boots on the ground. Just how are they going to beat IS ?

I'm stuck in a hotel with just Fox and it has been amusing listening to the reporters giving Obama a hard time over his lack of strategy and are calling for him to declare war. I was shocked when a Democrat said that the last time America declared war was in 1942 <deleted> !!!!!

Just what has it been doing in the Middle East for the past decade or so and even longer in other parts of the world it has bombed the crap out of ?

How can they get away with this without declaring war ?

It seems to be a lose lose situation here !

The dubious 1970s War Powers Act expressed what had been a practice by the US executive since WWI, to use the constitutional clause "exigent circumstances" to enable the president to bypass requiring the Houses to enact a declaration of war. What was once a constitutional republic is long gone. The examples are numerous but just consider Libya. The War Powers Act kinda just means the executive must notify within 72 hours.

A standing army and an unrestrained executive is a bad mix; just look at contemporary history. Add the powers of the reserve dollars, and few nations can withstand these pressures. What will be assembled in support of action against IS will shortly reveal itself to be primarily the US. Obama's "lead from behind" polices inform others that if they dont step up and out, the US will have to do it alone- and everyone else is fine with this.

[iancnx]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

Think you and I finally sync! :-)

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

Best two posts of the day. Those of you blabbering on in here that 'think' you know about the ME and US/western poodle foreign policy thereof, should take time out to listen to those of us that have actually worked and lived there.

[kamahele]

Thank you George W. Bush. You are the gift that just keeps on giving or should I say killing

[car720]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

Think you and I finally sync! :-)

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

Best two posts of the day. Those of you blabbering on in here that 'think' you know about the ME and US/western poodle foreign policy thereof, should take time out to listen to those of us that have actually worked and lived there.

Well I don't know so much about the middle east but I do have 2 questions. If one pom can go in and take Damascus with just one tribe of &lt;deleted&gt; then what the hell is wrong with the mightiest nation in the world? Also can anyone tell me if they were sunni or shia?

[car720]

for those who are too young...........I was referring to T.E. Lawrence.

[catweazle]

"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." ~ Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild's wife

http://www.citizensamericaparty.org/thedevilsgranddeception.htm

Edited September 16, 2014 by catweazle

[Jingthing]

Yet another antisemitic, tin foil hat conspiracy theory link. When it rains, it pours.

Warning others ... don't click on that garbage. Google will get the wrong impression about you. Too late for me.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Jingthing

[Baerboxer]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

Yes those bad Americans and British again. Removing a lunatic despot who murdered millions. Shocking.

The two nations who have made the most sacrifices, in all sorts of ways, to try and preserve some modicum of freedom and justice in the world always get slagged off by those who like to talk and never do.

ISIS - rapist, criminal, murdering thugs who try to claim it's all in the name of god. Rabid animals with no sense of morality need to be put down as quickly and effectively as possible.

Speaks volumes that so many Moslems are against these nutters.

[arjunadawn]

Well I don't know so much about the middle east but I do have 2 questions. If one pom can go in and take Damascus with just one tribe of <deleted> then what the hell is wrong with the mightiest nation in the world? Also can anyone tell me if they were sunni or shia?

i will take a shot and say sunni. In the early 20th century shia in the alawites were a tolerated people under ottoman rule. I am pretty sure as late as post independence bathists (sunni) were in power. My history is a little rusty here but think in the 60s an alwaite coup installed the shia dynasty.

[Baerboxer]

The U.S. began targeted airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq last month to protect American personnel and support humanitarian missions.

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

Think you and I finally sync! :-)

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

Best two posts of the day. Those of you blabbering on in here that 'think' you know about the ME and US/western poodle foreign policy thereof, should take time out to listen to those of us that have actually worked and lived there.

Nothing like 3 wise men..................... and you 3 certainly ain't. Privy to what's really going on, sure. Interesting opinions, but that's all.

Unless you feel qualified to share your sources of the in depth intelligence and insight into American and British politics you seem to think you have?

Were you a senior diplomat, military officer, spook of some kind - or just "joe public" working for an honest crust?

[smotherb]

What the West fails to admit to is they made a gross error of judgement when they invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and helped in overthrowing Gadaffi, Mubarak and Assad. They failed to understand that these despots were the only thing keeping militant Muslims in check. I have just watching the results of the meeting in Paris. A few have offered some air support but have avoided any offer of boots on the ground. Just how are they going to beat IS ?

I'm stuck in a hotel with just Fox and it has been amusing listening to the reporters giving Obama a hard time over his lack of strategy and are calling for him to declare war. I was shocked when a Democrat said that the last time America declared war was in 1942 <deleted> !!!!!

Just what has it been doing in the Middle East for the past decade or so and even longer in other parts of the world it has bombed the crap out of ?

How can they get away with this without declaring war ?

It seems to be a lose lose situation here !

A declaration of war requires congressional approval, but the president can order military action; as was done in Korea, Lebanon, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. --and the last declaration of war was 1941, December 8, to be exact.

[arjunadawn]

Think you and I finally sync! :-)

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

Best two posts of the day. Those of you blabbering on in here that 'think' you know about the ME and US/western poodle foreign policy thereof, should take time out to listen to those of us that have actually worked and lived there.

Nothing like 3 wise men..................... and you 3 certainly ain't. Privy to what's really going on, sure. Interesting opinions, but that's all.

Unless you feel qualified to share your sources of the in depth intelligence and insight into American and British politics you seem to think you have?

Were you a senior diplomat, military officer, spook of some kind - or just "joe public" working for an honest crust?

I think a topic as important as this, and an a fair observation such as yours, deserves a response. I will PM you. Thank you.

[wwest5829]

What the West fails to admit to is they made a gross error of judgement when they invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and helped in overthrowing Gadaffi, Mubarak and Assad. They failed to understand that these despots were the only thing keeping militant Muslims in check. I have just watching the results of the meeting in Paris. A few have offered some air support but have avoided any offer of boots on the ground. Just how are they going to beat IS ?

I'm stuck in a hotel with just Fox and it has been amusing listening to the reporters giving Obama a hard time over his lack of strategy and are calling for him to declare war. I was shocked when a Democrat said that the last time America declared war was in 1942 <deleted> !!!!!

Just what has it been doing in the Middle East for the past decade or so and even longer in other parts of the world it has bombed the crap out of ?

How can they get away with this without declaring war ?

It seems to be a lose lose situation here !

OK, you have established you are not an American so, from my humble perspective.... I agree Iraq was Bush's wet dream. I opposed the false entry and brow beating, "if you are not with us, your against us", foolish bravado. Sorry, I view Afghanistan quite differently. The Taliban allowed protective cover for the training of those who attacked the U.S. My response strategy would have differed. Absolutely, attackers are to be massively punished as to exact such a toll that attacks would have an unambiguous result. But the idea of instituting some mission to instill western style democracy, ludicrious.

Ha! Yes, the U.S. Is sometimes difficult to understand at times but please note, Korea, for example, was a United Nations " Police Action" so designated by the UN. Only the U.S. congress can issue a declaration of war. Yes, I know, semantics but also legal and political ramifications are involved. You need not agree with U.S. legalities but there it is.

I agree, Saddam kept the thumb down on any opposition, as did Giddafi, and others. Today the Saudi Royal Family does the same. Personally, it is why I want to see Moslem troops facing down IS and oppose any U.S. ground troops (yes, I am aware the advisors are already there). In the current situation, I favor air support and weapons support.

OK, enough from me.

[shaurene]

When they started to invade Iraq I was home in New Zealand and all the guys in the local club we go to where saying good on them kill that bastard Sadam I said to them Iraq has to many tribes for it to be a democracy it can only be run as a Police State and Sadam has been doing this and that is why it has been peaceful for years, they should have put him back after the war and warned him. You would not have this now if they did. Think about it. The tribes where at war for years before the USA and the Brits put him in power and he stopped all the wearing between the tribes. End of story, the bloody yanks caused all this. Not the people the politicians

[iancnx]

Nothing like 3 wise men..................... and you 3 certainly ain't. Privy to what's really going on, sure. Interesting opinions, but that's all.

Unless you feel qualified to share your sources of the in depth intelligence and insight into American and British politics you seem to think you have?

Were you a senior diplomat, military officer, spook of some kind - or just "joe public" working for an honest crust?

None of your business with regards to my experience in life. Others can speak for themselves. There is nothing wrong with Joe Public or working for an honest crust as you put it. In 33 years work experience internationally I have done plenty of that - so don't be so hard on yourself..... Stop putting yourself down.

Edited September 16, 2014 by iancnx

[arjunadawn]

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

Best two posts of the day. Those of you blabbering on in here that 'think' you know about the ME and US/western poodle foreign policy thereof, should take time out to listen to those of us that have actually worked and lived there.

Nothing like 3 wise men..................... and you 3 certainly ain't. Privy to what's really going on, sure. Interesting opinions, but that's all.

Unless you feel qualified to share your sources of the in depth intelligence and insight into American and British politics you seem to think you have?

Were you a senior diplomat, military officer, spook of some kind - or just "joe public" working for an honest crust?

Are we good? Do I have the "depth of intelligence and insight" necessary to comment on policy in this region?

[Scott]

When they started to invade Iraq I was home in New Zealand and all the guys in the local club we go to where saying good on them kill that bastard Sadam I said to them Iraq has to many tribes for it to be a democracy it can only be run as a Police State and Sadam has been doing this and that is why it has been peaceful for years, they should have put him back after the war and warned him. You would not have this now if they did. Think about it. The tribes where at war for years before the USA and the Brits put him in power and he stopped all the wearing between the tribes. End of story, the bloody yanks caused all this. Not the people the politicians

I lived and worked in Iraq for a number of years. I think it is incorrect to say that under Saddam it was 'peaceful for years'. It's also not correct to say that 'he stopped all the warring between the tribes.'

Just because something isn't on the national news doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[chuckd]

Obama seems to believe he doesn't need Congressional approval for the attack on ISIS.

He believes he already has it and the great thing is, if/when his tactics fail yet again, he can still blame Bush!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama plays both sides: Sought repeal of Bush war statute now used to justify Islamic State strikes

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Sunday, September 14, 2014

President Obama’s first initiated war against an Islamic terrorist group is authorized, the White House says, by George W. Bush-signed legislation that Mr. Obama has criticized and wanted to repeal since last year.

Since beginning airstrikes last month against the Islamic State, also known by the acronyms ISIS and ISIL, the White House has said it does not need congressional approval to carry out such missions.

Last week, on the 13th anniversary of al Qaeda’s attacks on the United States, the administration announced why, saying President Bush’s Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution in 2001 is all the authority Mr. Obama needs.

In a May 2013 speech to a military audience at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama portrayed the law as dated and as a potential blank check to get the U.S. into wars.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/14/obama-sought-repeal-of-bush-war-statute-now-used-

[simple1]

Let's hope the mission ends there, but I doubt it will. We'll get an IS retaliation attack in an allied country, and our wise leaders will say "See, we told you so" neatly discounting the chicken and the egg principle.

I couldn't agree more with BBC's Jeremy Bowen.

"And the US and its Western allies are becoming direct players in the wars in Syria and Iraq - and in the deepening sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Many argue that the Americans and the British tore open sectarian scars when they invaded Iraq in 2003, and now risk making matters even worse."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29214785

Think you and I finally sync! :-)

It will not end now. We got involved in northern Iraq because IS moved on Irbil, where we have a hard to defend mixed agency compound in the center of town. Irbil is actually a tell; it is the oldest continually inhabited city on earth and as such is actually a round, elevated city center. Easy as hell to attack from any direction. The US did not want IS going north, but I believe didn't care about IS going south as long as it pressured the former shi ite administration.

The US is undoubtedly now involved on one of this conflict. The US policy is so fractured and disjointed it is flailing all over the place. I am one of the folks who believe the US and West actually want the sectarian conflict to disable Iran. Indeed, a lot of people smarter than me proposed this a few years ago- neocons in US.

Again, we agree- the US tore this all open in 2003. I spent the better part of 7 years on the ground in and around this sandbox (from 2003 on). Not tours, years! I have a very good sense of what is happening on the ground and I can tell you, the US actions make no sense at all. There is only two conditions under which the US policy makes sense, to me: 1) utter stupidity and unfathomable incompetence or 2), intention.

Best two posts of the day. Those of you blabbering on in here that 'think' you know about the ME and US/western poodle foreign policy thereof, should take time out to listen to those of us that have actually worked and lived there.

Nothing like 3 wise men..................... and you 3 certainly ain't. Privy to what's really going on, sure. Interesting opinions, but that's all.

Unless you feel qualified to share your sources of the in depth intelligence and insight into American and British politics you seem to think you have?

Were you a senior diplomat, military officer, spook of some kind - or just "joe public" working for an honest crust?

Post removed to permit response.

What the posters are doing is bringing content to the forefront for debate. You will find the various POVs / opinions are not unique & are available in the public domain.

[Ulysses G.]

In a May 2013 speech to a military audience at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama portrayed the law as dated and as a potential blank check to get the U.S. into wars.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/14/obama-sought-repeal-of-bush-war-statute-now-used-

Time and again, Barack Obama has done the same exact same things that he has attacked George W. Bush for. What a hypocrite.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

The mission creep has begun...

"US ground forces could be deployed against Islamic State (IS) militants if the current US-led strategy fails, top US General Martin Dempsey has said.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that US ground troops would not have a combat mission in Iraq under the strategy outlined last week."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29225367