Post-Withdrawal Iraq

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Carpet_pissr »

I think Al Qaeda would love to take them out.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Kurth »

Carpet_pissr wrote:I think Al Qaeda would love to take them out.
Maybe, but who cares? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not with these guys.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Rip »

Kurth wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I think Al Qaeda would love to take them out.
Maybe, but who cares? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not with these guys.

Yea, that saying is one of those that can really burn you in the ass if you follow it too blindly and literally.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by El Guapo »

I agree that we should do whatever we can to destroy ISIS, though it'll be a little awkward now being on the same side of a conflict as Bashar al-Assad.

We at least need to start actively supporting the Kurds.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by El Guapo »

As always, Obama listens to Kurth:
DOHUK, Iraq — American military forces bombed at least two targets in northern Iraq on Thursday night to rout Islamist insurgents who have trapped tens of thousands of religious minorities in Kurdish areas, Kurdish officials said.

Word of the bombings, reported on Kurdish television from the city of Erbil, came as President Obama was preparing to make a statement in Washington.

Kurdish officials said the bombings targeted fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria who had seized two towns, Gwer and Mahmour. Residents who had fled those areas by car were heard honking their horns in approval.

Obama administration officials had said earlier in the day that Mr. Obama was considering airstrikes or airdrops of food and medicine to address a humanitarian crisis among as many as 40,000 members of religious minorities in Iraq, who have been dying of heat and thirst on a mountaintop where they took shelter after death threats from ISIS.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kurth »

El Guapo wrote:As always, Obama listens to Kurth:
DOHUK, Iraq — American military forces bombed at least two targets in northern Iraq on Thursday night to rout Islamist insurgents who have trapped tens of thousands of religious minorities in Kurdish areas, Kurdish officials said.

Word of the bombings, reported on Kurdish television from the city of Erbil, came as President Obama was preparing to make a statement in Washington.

Kurdish officials said the bombings targeted fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria who had seized two towns, Gwer and Mahmour. Residents who had fled those areas by car were heard honking their horns in approval.

Obama administration officials had said earlier in the day that Mr. Obama was considering airstrikes or airdrops of food and medicine to address a humanitarian crisis among as many as 40,000 members of religious minorities in Iraq, who have been dying of heat and thirst on a mountaintop where they took shelter after death threats from ISIS.
He knows my number. He can call any time.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
paulbaxter
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:46 pm

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by paulbaxter »

Kurth wrote:The more I hear about what ISIS is doing, the more I'm starting to feel we need to do whatever we can to take them out:

Who will stop ISIS? Christian forced to convert to Islam, then beheaded
If you're following the news about ISIS, which now calls itself the Islamic State, you might think you've mistakenly clicked on a historical story about barbarians from millennia ago.
In a matter of months, the group seized territory in both Iraq and Syria and declared an Islamic caliphate, celebrating its own shocking slaughter along the way.

"I don't see any attention from the rest of the world," a member of the Yazidi minority in Iraq told the New Yorker. "In one day, they killed more than two thousand Yazidi in Sinjar, and the whole world says, 'Save Gaza, save Gaza.'"

In Syria, the group hoisted some of its victims severed heads on poles. One of the latest videos of the savagery shows a Christian man forced to his knees, surrounded by masked militants, identified in the video as members of ISIS. They force the man at gunpoint to "convert" to Islam. Then, the group beheads him.
I've been reading story after horrible story like this in my facebook feed.

Latest one: http://myocn.net/breaking-isis-just-emp ... ians-fled/

And for what it's worth, I'd be about as horrified (maybe only slightly less so) if it was members of some other religion being killed and/or forced to flee.
No sig, must scream, etc.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by GreenGoo »

They certainly aren't limiting their aggression to Christians.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Isgrimnur »

Bring on the airstrikes.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kraken »

Who is financing and arming the Islamic State? I know that they've captured a lot of valuable assets...but who enabled them?
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by GreenGoo »

Kraken wrote:Who is financing and arming the Islamic State? I know that they've captured a lot of valuable assets...but who enabled them?
And how the fuck does an army of 40 thousand men spring up out of a vacuum and roflstomp a country, even one as fragile and disorganized as Iraq?
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Isgrimnur »

Per the wiki page, they've been around in one guise or another since 2000. And some reports are that they're being funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. They were part of the groups that were opposing Assad in Syria, siphoning funds and support off from that direction.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Kraken wrote:Who is financing and arming the Islamic State? I know that they've captured a lot of valuable assets...but who enabled them?
I remember reading a piece in the NYT a while ago that explained much of their multiple sources of revenue:
NYT wrote:A FEW feet from the Bab al-Salam border crossing near the Turkish town of Kilis, there is a shabby cafe where the most interesting items for sale are not found on the menu. The cafe is the final stop for young radicalized men from Europe or North Africa who are planning to slip past the lax Turkish border officers and into Syrian territory. This is where they exchange their passports for cash. When one of us visited the cafe in January, a Belgian passport was for sale for $8,000. A buyer could have it altered for movement to Europe or visa-free travel to the United States. New passport photos were being snapped in the parking lot.

Half a continent away, in Kuwait, on an evening in March, a soon-to-be auctioned 1982 Chevy Caprice Classic awkwardly sat parked on carpets outside a tent. Inside potential bidders were being asked to alleviate the suffering of Syrians with “humanitarian contributions.” Few could have had any doubt that once their money found its way to Syria, fighters — some affiliated with Al Qaeda — would decide whether to use it to buy aspirin for children or ammunition for killers.

On June 10, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, moved on Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city. The advance blew the uniforms off hapless soldiers and police officers, and left prison cells and bank vaults emptied of their contents. In the largest bank holdup in recent memory, ISIS operatives reportedly stole up to $400 million in cash. Flush with money, ISIS will have the resources (as well as the territory) to establish itself as the hub of a global terrorist movement in the heart of the Middle East. There are no Treasury paratroopers to send in to seize the cash, or bank regulations to issue to stop ISIS from spending it.

These three episodes reflect a deep problem for the United States and its allies that has been evolving for several years. The campaign to disrupt and dismantle terrorist financing after 9/11, which met with much success and once caused Osama bin Laden to bemoan the lack of funding in Al Qaeda coffers, has given way to a new reality. The metastasized, Qaeda-inspired terrorist movements have learned to raise millions of dollars locally, while the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have resurrected the terrorist funding networks of old. Terrorist funding is now both local and global.

Donors and everyday citizens from the Persian Gulf and other sympathetic corners of the world, witnessing the humanitarian crisis in Syria, have been funneling money to the most effective forces fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad there, namely Qaeda-affiliated groups and ISIS. Smartly, these groups have realized they must match their brutal militancy with charitable services, akin to the governance and charity models of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. This makes it difficult to differentiate funding to alleviate the suffering of Syrian refugees from support for terrorism.

Alongside these global revenue streams, terrorist networks have gotten better at taking advantage of local moneymaking opportunities. In North Africa, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has the market cornered on kidnap-for-ransom and smuggling operations to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. It has used its resources to buy more weapons to assault Malian and French forces and to support the training of Boko Haram operatives, while Boko engages in its own hostage-taking for profit in West Africa.

The Taliban and Haqqani networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan also run smuggling and kidnapping operations, while profiting from the heroin trade. The Shabab movement in Somalia has developed a trade-based money-laundering system through the export of charcoal and import of sugar, while imposing taxes in areas it controls.

In earlier days, ISIS made plenty of money on petty crimes, bank robberies and oil smuggling. Today, with its control of territory growing in Syria and Iraq, it has established a war economy. ISIS militants have taken control of resources like granaries and oil installations and are extorting “taxes” from businesses and selling off government property and equipment (an inventory that now includes American-made Humvees). This has spawned a for-profit militant model that breathes life into insurgencies around the world.

ISIS is also a leader in using new technologies and social media to raise awareness and reach individual donors. Appeals for donations (or investments) are tweeted while money is raised and sent via the Internet, then withdrawn in the form of bags of cash to be transported into the war zones. The ISIS publication Al-Naba (The News) has kept donors informed about the progress of specific operations, while Twitter feeds are updated with body counts and photos of the equipment and territory fighters now control.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Kurth wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I think Al Qaeda would love to take them out.
Maybe, but who cares? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not with these guys.
Who cares if two of our nastiest enemies spend resources and personnel and attention fighting each other? I do!

Potentially less focus on other targets. I wonder if Al Qaeda has the strength to actually give any sort of decent opposition to them though.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Kurth »

Carpet_pissr wrote:
Kurth wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:I think Al Qaeda would love to take them out.
Maybe, but who cares? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Not with these guys.
Who cares if two of our nastiest enemies spend resources and personnel and attention fighting each other? I do!

Potentially less focus on other targets. I wonder if Al Qaeda has the strength to actually give any sort of decent opposition to them though.
Maybe "who cares" was too flippant. But the fact that Al Qaeda has a beef with ISIS doesn't mean we shouldn't take action against ISIS. These guys are even worse than Al Qaeda, and, unlike Al Qaeda, they are operationally on the rise and actually attempting to form a state! We cannot allow that to happen. We also can't allow them to continue beheading helpless minorities. I've seen it suggested that our decision to strike ISIS is somehow hypocritical or inconsistent with our reluctance to intervene on behalf of the resistance in Syria. The suggestion has been made that we'll go to bat for Christian minorities, but not Muslim minorities in need. That's crap. The situation facing the Yazidi in Iraq right now is nothing like what's been going on in Syria. From all I've read, the Yazidi are basically like lambs to the slaughter.

I've been pretty critical of President Obama recently, but after I read a transcript of his statements on authorizing the strkes, I'll admit I felt a surge of pride:
I've said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there's a crisis in the world. So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now. When we face a situation like we do on that mountain -- with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help -- in this case, a request from the Iraqi government -- and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That's what we're doing on that mountain.

I've, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there. Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive. Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, "There is no one coming to help." Well today, America is coming to help. We're also consulting with other countries -- and the United Nations -- who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Kurth wrote:I've been pretty critical of President Obama recently, but after I read a transcript of his statements on authorizing the strkes, I'll admit I felt a surge of pride:
Agree, and thanks for posting that - have not had the chance to read the statement yet.

Still, waiting for Lindsey Graham's criticism of the decision in 5...4...3...
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Kurth »

Carpet_pissr wrote:Still, waiting for Lindsey Graham's criticism of the decision in 5...4...3...
2 . . . 1 . . . STATEMENT BY SENATORS JOHN McCAIN AND LINDSEY GRAHAM ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ANNOUNCEMENT OF MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST ISIS IN IRAQ:
Washington, D.C. ¬– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today released the following statement on President Obama’s announcement of humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians and military strikes against ISIS in Iraq:
“The President is right to provide humanitarian relief to the Iraqi civilians stranded on Mount Sinjar and to authorize military strikes against ISIS forces that are threatening them, our Kurdish allies, and our own personnel in northern Iraq. However, these actions are far from sufficient to meet the growing threat that ISIS poses. We need a strategic approach, not just a humanitarian one.

“A policy of containment will not work against ISIS. It is inherently expansionist and must be stopped. The longer we wait to act, the worse this threat will become, as recent events clearly show.

“We need to get beyond a policy of half measures. The President needs to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS. This should include the provision of military and other assistance to our Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian partners who are fighting ISIS. It should include U.S. air strikes against ISIS leaders, forces, and positions both in Iraq and Syria. It should include support to Sunni Iraqis who seek to resist ISIS. And none of this should be contingent on the formation of a new government in Baghdad.

“If ever there were a time to reevaluate our disastrous policy in the Middle East, this is it. Because of the President's hands-off approach, the threats in the region have grown and now directly threaten the United States. We are already paying a very heavy price for our inaction, and if we do not change course, the costs of our inaction will only grow.”
In related news, a second wave of strikes is now targeting ISIS convoys: U.S. jet fighters carry out second round of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Jesus, what a duo of shit bags.

So not just the lap dog barking about this one, his master is in on it as well, huh? His opinion polls must be slipping lately...
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by El Guapo »

eh, I genuinely don't think they're playing politics here. This is entirely consistent with their view of foreign policy, which is centered around a very active role for the American military killing all sorts of bad people around the world. If they were criticizing Obama for being too active and saying that America needs to stay out of foreign entanglements and build at home, etc., that would be pretty douchey. But I can't really call them jerks for advocating for the type of military policy that they've consistently believed in.

Also the administration has been refusing to give direct aid to Kurdish allies (because that would be somewhat contrary to the official position on a unified Iraq), or even allowing them to sell their oil (for the same reason), and have been generally skittish about aid to allied fighters in Syria (for fear that the aid would fall into the wrong hands). I think they're generally right to criticize Obama for that (especially refusing to directly aid the Kurds).

I don't know how far they're thinking the U.S. should go in fighting ISIS, though - would they want to put boots on the ground?
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Holman »

El Guapo wrote:
I don't know how far they're thinking the U.S. should go in fighting ISIS, though - would they want to put boots on the ground?
That will be interview question #1. I wonder how they'll handle it.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kurth »

Holman wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
I don't know how far they're thinking the U.S. should go in fighting ISIS, though - would they want to put boots on the ground?
That will be interview question #1. I wonder how they'll handle it.
Not sure, but hopefully not in song. I'm still recovering from Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Post War Iraq

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Carpet_pissr wrote:
Kurth wrote:I've been pretty critical of President Obama recently, but after I read a transcript of his statements on authorizing the strkes, I'll admit I felt a surge of pride:
Agree, and thanks for posting that - have not had the chance to read the statement yet.

Still, waiting for Lindsey Graham's criticism of the decision in 5...4...3...
As mentioned above, their response came out last night, after President Obama's speech.

I would tend to agree with Chris Edelson though, that President Obama cannot possibly know where military action against ISIL will lead and, under the Constitution, the decision ought not be his to make alone. There needs to be legislative debate regarding the current crisis in Congress:
Reason.com wrote:Last night, President Obama announced that he has authorized airstrikes to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by terrifying and brutal ISIS forces. U.S. strikes have apparently begun.

It is clear that President Obama believes he has the authority to act unilaterally, and members of Congress seem to either be acquiescing or else urging him to act even more aggressively. Senators McCain and Graham issued a statement last night calling on the president "to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS." The senators warned that "the longer we wait to act, the worse this threat [from ISIS] will become, as recent events clearly show."

It is a mistake for Congress to cede authority to the president in this area. There is simply no reason to do so, and Congress’s deference adds to the misconception that the president has legal authority to act alone. Unless there is an immediate threat to the United States that demands emergency action and allows no time for the president to consult with Congress, the Constitution does not permit the president to unilaterally order the use of military force. This is a position supported both by constitutional history and common sense. The framers of the Constitution rejected the then-prevailing British model, which assigned the king war power, and gave Congress the power to initiate war (outside of the emergency scenario where the president had authority to repel sudden attacks). In a system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch, it is essential for the president to consult and cooperate with Congress on decisions about the use of military force whenever possible. History shows us that presidents make terrible mistakes when they act alone, and that they sometimes mislead Congress into rubberstamping their actions. Iraq itself should be a cautionary tale: President Bush mislead Congress into authorizing the war that began in 2003, while Senators McCain, Graham, and others incorrectly predicted that U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators in an Iraq that would not fall prey to sectarian divisions.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Isgrimnur »

Yeah, there's absolutely no precedent for the president to act unilaterally as Commander in Chief. Nor has it been stipulated that he can do what he wants for 60 days.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Isgrimnur wrote:Yeah, there's absolutely no precedent for the president to act unilaterally as Commander in Chief.
Who claimed it was unprecedented?
Isgrimnur wrote:Nor has it been stipulated that he can do what he wants for 60 days.
Who said he could? Seems as if you're again refuting something that was never asserted.

The case for congressional authorization now was made by the President himself last year with regard to Syria:
President Obama wrote:"Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.

...

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

...

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

...

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.

...

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end.

...

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world.

...

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together."
The logic of the President’s speech on Syria so plainly applies to the situation with ISIL that if he does not now seek congressional authorization, it's only reasonable to question his sincerity last August – as plenty did at the time. On the other hand, seeking congressional authorization now would demonstrate that the President genuinely meant what he said last year.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by El Guapo »

Anonymous Bosch wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Yeah, there's absolutely no precedent for the president to act unilaterally as Commander in Chief.
Who claimed it was unprecedented?
Isgrimnur wrote:Nor has it been stipulated that he can do what he wants for 60 days.
Who said he could? Seems as if you're again refuting something that was never asserted.
uh, the article that you just quoted and linked to?
Unless there is an immediate threat to the United States that demands emergency action and allows no time for the president to consult with Congress, the Constitution does not permit the president to unilaterally order the use of military force. This is a position supported both by constitutional history and common sense.
Your article didn't say that the President should ask for congressional authorization to uphold the principles that he was advocating with Syria, it said that he legally *cannot* act without congressional authorization.

Also, there are significant differences between the situation with ISIS and with Syria. The military situation is far less stable in northern Iraq than it was in Syria at the time - my sense is that the Kurdish capital was (is?) in immediate danger, and on top of that the Yazidi are trapped, defenseless, and starving *now*. It doesn't seem like a situation that could stand to wait for congressional deliberation.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Isgrimnur »

And Congress has already been informed, and the loyal opposition are calling for even more aggressive actions.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by GreenGoo »

Syria is a civil war, I don't know what Iraq is, but there's only 1 side fighting it. It's not much of a fight.
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

El Guapo wrote:
Anonymous Bosch wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Yeah, there's absolutely no precedent for the president to act unilaterally as Commander in Chief.
Who claimed it was unprecedented?
Isgrimnur wrote:Nor has it been stipulated that he can do what he wants for 60 days.
Who said he could? Seems as if you're again refuting something that was never asserted.
uh, the article that you just quoted and linked to?
Unless there is an immediate threat to the United States that demands emergency action and allows no time for the president to consult with Congress, the Constitution does not permit the president to unilaterally order the use of military force. This is a position supported both by constitutional history and common sense.
I see nothing that equates to "the President gets to do whatever he wants for 60 days" in what you quoted. Much like the President himself did last year, contextually Edelson was simply elucidating why it makes sense for the POTUS to "seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress."
El Guapo wrote:Your article didn't say that the President should ask for congressional authorization to uphold the principles that he was advocating with Syria,
It didn't?
Chris Edelson wrote:Why can the president act unilaterally in Iraq when he could not in Syria—what’s different?
El Guapo wrote:Also, there are significant differences between the situation with ISIS and with Syria. The military situation is far less stable in northern Iraq than it was in Syria at the time
That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the 150,000 civilians now in Bashar al Assad's custody, all of whom are at risk of being tortured or killed by the state, would beg to differ. And I very much doubt the 171,509 that have died in the War in Syria, 56,495 of which are estimated to be civilians and 9,092 children, found their situation all that stable.
El Guapo wrote: - my sense is that the Kurdish capital was (is?) in immediate danger, and on top of that the Yazidi are trapped, defenseless, and starving *now*. It doesn't seem like a situation that could stand to wait for congressional deliberation.
Like Sen. Feinstein, my sense is that it's likely to take a great deal more than the President's minimalistic use of targeted airstrikes to deter an evil death cult like ISIL in any meaningfully significant way. But I certainly hope I am wrong.
Last edited by Anonymous Bosch on Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kurth »

I agree that combatting ISIS very well take more than the limited air strikes the President is contemplating. I also think he may end up going to congress to get authorization.

Notwithstanding strong statements from Senator Feinstein, I'm reading a lot of mealy-mouthed, finger in the wind, type of statements coming out of congress that worry me. So much so that I actually took a few minutes this morning to email my Rep. and Senators (first time I've ever done that).

I used to work in my Representative's office way back in the day, so I know how constituent services work. It's all about volume of constituent contacts on a given issue, but I figured I might as well add to the volume on this issue and urge my hard-working congress people to support combatting ISIS.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Defiant »

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
link

Not really inconsistent, but a little bit amusing.

I will admit that I hadn't really been following the ISIS thing until recently, and even then, I feel a little lost about it (looking briefly at the wiki page it seems like they've been around for a decade - have I just been completely out of it not to be aware of them until now?)

I've done a little bit of reading on them and they sound exceptionally vicious, so, yeah, it sounds like a good idea to do something against them, even if only for humanitarian reasons, not to mention stability.

But I am surprised at how successful they've been. I can understand a few thousand people causing lots of death and destruction against unarmed people, but how are they controlling such a large area? And are the Iraqi and Kurdish forces that incompetent? :(
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kraken »

Defiant wrote:it seems like they've been around for a decade - have I just been completely out of it not to be aware of them until now?)
Nah, they just broke out from the "militant groups" pack in the past few months. I don't know how they suddenly became the Sunni Tsunami and rolled across the region.

I want to believe the pundits who say that the same terror tactics that brought them this far will be their undoing -- they are thugs who don't enjoy popular support and can't govern. But I understand religious fanaticism just enough to know better than to expect logical outcomes.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Pyperkub »

Anonymous Bosch wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:
Kurth wrote:I've been pretty critical of President Obama recently, but after I read a transcript of his statements on authorizing the strkes, I'll admit I felt a surge of pride:
Agree, and thanks for posting that - have not had the chance to read the statement yet.

Still, waiting for Lindsey Graham's criticism of the decision in 5...4...3...
As mentioned above, their response came out last night, after President Obama's speech.

I would tend to agree with Chris Edelson though, that President Obama cannot possibly know where military action against ISIL will lead and, under the Constitution, the decision ought not be his to make alone. There needs to be legislative debate regarding the current crisis in Congress:
Reason.com wrote:Last night, President Obama announced that he has authorized airstrikes to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq created by terrifying and brutal ISIS forces. U.S. strikes have apparently begun.

It is clear that President Obama believes he has the authority to act unilaterally, and members of Congress seem to either be acquiescing or else urging him to act even more aggressively. Senators McCain and Graham issued a statement last night calling on the president "to devise a comprehensive strategy to degrade ISIS." The senators warned that "the longer we wait to act, the worse this threat [from ISIS] will become, as recent events clearly show."

It is a mistake for Congress to cede authority to the president in this area. There is simply no reason to do so, and Congress’s deference adds to the misconception that the president has legal authority to act alone. Unless there is an immediate threat to the United States that demands emergency action and allows no time for the president to consult with Congress, the Constitution does not permit the president to unilaterally order the use of military force. This is a position supported both by constitutional history and common sense. The framers of the Constitution rejected the then-prevailing British model, which assigned the king war power, and gave Congress the power to initiate war (outside of the emergency scenario where the president had authority to repel sudden attacks). In a system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch, it is essential for the president to consult and cooperate with Congress on decisions about the use of military force whenever possible. History shows us that presidents make terrible mistakes when they act alone, and that they sometimes mislead Congress into rubberstamping their actions. Iraq itself should be a cautionary tale: President Bush mislead Congress into authorizing the war that began in 2003, while Senators McCain, Graham, and others incorrectly predicted that U.S. forces would be welcomed as liberators in an Iraq that would not fall prey to sectarian divisions.
Has the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq actually expired? AFAIK, the AUMF is still being used for a lot of questionable activities elsewhere, and this could easily still be authorized. ..
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Pyperkub wrote:Has the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq actually expired? AFAIK, the AUMF is still being used for a lot of questionable activities elsewhere, and this could easily still be authorized. ..
Edelson goes into the specifics of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq in an earlier US News piece (linked to in the article above):
The 2002 authorization, of course, was passed to give the Bush administration authority to take action against the Saddam Hussein regime. It had nothing to do with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL or ISIS, a group which did not even exist in 2002. The law specifically describes concerns about weapons of mass destruction and provides that “[t]he President is authorized to use [military force] … to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” Moreover, the administration gained congressional support for the law based on false statements.

The Obama administration should not feel comfortable in relying on the 2002 authorization (or, for that matter, the 2001 authorization against al-Qaida, which also would not apply here) as the legal basis for possible military action in Iraq. The 2002 authorization is as illegitimate as the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution or the declaration of war against Mexico in 1846. All three were congressional authorizations for military force purchased with false currency. The 2002 law should be seen as a cautionary tale about the danger of congressional deference to the executive, not relied on as authority for new military action.

If the Obama administration does decide military action in Iraq is a good idea (whether such action would in fact be helpful is unlikely, and it could make things worse), it ought to seek approval from Congress, as the administration did as it was considering military action in Syria last summer. It will be up to members of Congress to insist on this. Instead of deferring to an implausible reliance on the 2002 authorization, members of Congress should insist on the need for legislative debate regarding the current crisis.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Pyperkub »

Well, they obviously do feel comfortable using it so it would probably come down to another lawsuit, if so desired. .. especially if Edelson's position is that it was never legal in the first place - a pretty tough sell now.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kraken »

The last thing Obama wants is ownership of a renewed Iraq war. If there's a military justification for an ongoing campaign (not a political justification, because politically Iraq is a Republican albatross) he will ask for Congress' buy-in...probably weeks before the November elections. That's going to be a wild card.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Pyperkub »

I was referring more to the willingness to use the AUMF as the justification for Drone Attacks and other questionable behavior. Given that the article's source is making the case that the AUMF's in question were null and void as of 2002, I'm having a hard time buying the argument that they've expired because they were never in effect.

As to whether Obama wants to get involved - of course he doesn't. He doesn't want to get involved in Syria or Israel either. However, with an army of 40,000 (allegedly) zealots marching and beheading people, I don't think he (and his cabinet, and the Pentagon) feels the US has much choice.

Is there a bit of political calculus to this? Probably, but really not very much. Realistically, the best we can hope for is to keep things at a low boil now. It's either that or follow a policy of staying the heck away until it all blows up in an insanely bloody tribal-religious war and somebody like Saddam or the Ayatolla wins out, and then either support/negotiate with them, or pull a Roman conquest of the region. And who knows what Russia and China's policy would be in that case.

On the good news side of that, it doesn't *appear* as if we will be as dependent upon Middle East Oil over the next 50 years as we have been over the past 50 years, so letting it all go to hell won't be as traumatic to our economy - in which case the Middle East problems become as important as Africa's messes to us.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by El Guapo »

Kurth wrote:I agree that combatting ISIS very well take more than the limited air strikes the President is contemplating.
This is a situation where air strikes can be extremely effective, so I doubt that more than air strikes will be necessary to achieve our objective (rolling back ISIS). We have boots on the ground, in the form of ISIS's various enemies (the Kurdish forces, the Iraqi army, Shia militias, anti-ISIS forces in Syria).

The recent track record of U.S. airstrikes in support of local allied ground forces is pretty remarkable. In Afghanistan the Northern Alliance was reduced to controlling less than 10% of the country (IIRC) was pretty clearly doomed before air strikes began - those plus some special forces then allowed that previously doomed force to roll over the entire country pretty quickly.

Same with Libya. Government forces were rolling over the opposition before NATO airstrikes began, then the situation quickly reversed.

And indeed, Kurdish forces have already retaken two key towns from ISIS since the air strikes began.

So I'm optimistic that an air strike campaign should at a minimum prevent substantial future gains by ISIS, and probably should allow for them to be rolled back. Whether they can be destroyed entirely is another matter (I don't think we can reliably operate in Syrian air space, for one), but as long as we keep up air strikes they're probably already at their high water mark in Iraq.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by Kurth »

El Guapo wrote:
Kurth wrote:I agree that combatting ISIS very well take more than the limited air strikes the President is contemplating.
This is a situation where air strikes can be extremely effective, so I doubt that more than air strikes will be necessary to achieve our objective (rolling back ISIS). We have boots on the ground, in the form of ISIS's various enemies (the Kurdish forces, the Iraqi army, Shia militias, anti-ISIS forces in Syria).

The recent track record of U.S. airstrikes in support of local allied ground forces is pretty remarkable. In Afghanistan the Northern Alliance was reduced to controlling less than 10% of the country (IIRC) was pretty clearly doomed before air strikes began - those plus some special forces then allowed that previously doomed force to roll over the entire country pretty quickly.

Same with Libya. Government forces were rolling over the opposition before NATO airstrikes began, then the situation quickly reversed.

And indeed, Kurdish forces have already retaken two key towns from ISIS since the air strikes began.

So I'm optimistic that an air strike campaign should at a minimum prevent substantial future gains by ISIS, and probably should allow for them to be rolled back. Whether they can be destroyed entirely is another matter (I don't think we can reliably operate in Syrian air space, for one), but as long as we keep up air strikes they're probably already at their high water mark in Iraq.
That may have been worded poorly. The emphasis was intended to be on "limited" - I'm not suggesting, at this point, that we should be reintroducing ground forces. It just seemed that with the first announcements, the air strikes were made to appear to be very limited in scope and duration. Subsequent statements seem to have changed direction to indicate a prolonged air support mission for the Kurdish troops on the ground and aimed at protecting the civilian populations.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Post-Withdrawal Iraq

Post by El Guapo »

Kurth wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
Kurth wrote:I agree that combatting ISIS very well take more than the limited air strikes the President is contemplating.
This is a situation where air strikes can be extremely effective, so I doubt that more than air strikes will be necessary to achieve our objective (rolling back ISIS). We have boots on the ground, in the form of ISIS's various enemies (the Kurdish forces, the Iraqi army, Shia militias, anti-ISIS forces in Syria).

The recent track record of U.S. airstrikes in support of local allied ground forces is pretty remarkable. In Afghanistan the Northern Alliance was reduced to controlling less than 10% of the country (IIRC) was pretty clearly doomed before air strikes began - those plus some special forces then allowed that previously doomed force to roll over the entire country pretty quickly.

Same with Libya. Government forces were rolling over the opposition before NATO airstrikes began, then the situation quickly reversed.

And indeed, Kurdish forces have already retaken two key towns from ISIS since the air strikes began.

So I'm optimistic that an air strike campaign should at a minimum prevent substantial future gains by ISIS, and probably should allow for them to be rolled back. Whether they can be destroyed entirely is another matter (I don't think we can reliably operate in Syrian air space, for one), but as long as we keep up air strikes they're probably already at their high water mark in Iraq.
That may have been worded poorly. The emphasis was intended to be on "limited" - I'm not suggesting, at this point, that we should be reintroducing ground forces. It just seemed that with the first announcements, the air strikes were made to appear to be very limited in scope and duration. Subsequent statements seem to have changed direction to indicate a prolonged air support mission for the Kurdish troops on the ground and aimed at protecting the civilian populations.
Yeah, I think that was mostly spin. I think Americans are terrified about possibly getting involved in another war in Iraq, so I think Obama was putting in every caveat he could think of in order to emphasize that we're not getting into another ground war (at least, American troops aren't).

I think the air strikes are going to continue at least until ISIS is rolled back in Iraq.
Black Lives Matter.
Post Reply