Octopus Overlords

Iraq's president nominated a new prime minister on Monday, further complicating the country's intense power struggle amid a dire humanitarian crisis and a militant threat strong enough to draw U.S. air power back to the fray.
President Fuad Masum nominated Haider al-Abadi to succeed a defiant Nuri al-Maliki, who had earlier vowed to hang on to power.

The new Prime Minister-designate, al-Abadi, is the deputy speaker of the Iraqi Parliament and a former aide to al-Maliki.
Masum appointed the prominent Shiite politician as prime minister on Monday despite al-Maliki's pronouncement earlier in the day that he intends to stay in office for a third term.
On Sunday, Iraqi forces and tanks surged into some Baghdad neighborhoods as a wave of troops swarmed Baghdad's green zone, the secure area where many government buildings and the U.S. Embassy are located, two Iraqi police officials said.
Exactly what led to the surge remains unclear. But some believe the beefed-up military presence was part of a power struggle between al-Maliki and Masum.
Al-Maliki has accused Masum of violating the country's constitution by extending the deadline for Iraq's biggest political coalitions to nominate a candidate for prime minister.

Rip wrote: I'm thinking there are problems far beyond dealing with ISIS.

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.

Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: I'm thinking there are problems far beyond dealing with ISIS.

ISIS's success is in large part due to the mess that is Iraq.

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.

Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.

Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.

Kurth wrote:

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.

Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.

Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.

Well, it's pretty clear that he's a dead-man walking once he steps down, so I'm not surprised he's not inclined to relinquish power. Isn't this the sort of situation where he needs to be granted safe passage out of Iraq? So many issues with that, though. What a mess.

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: I'm thinking there are problems far beyond dealing with ISIS.

ISIS's success is in large part due to the mess that is Iraq.

And Syria.

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote: I'm thinking there are problems far beyond dealing with ISIS.

ISIS's success is in large part due to the mess that is Iraq.

And Syria.

They were stalemated in Syria.

Rip wrote:I guess we are just lucky they are only a JV team.

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:I guess we are just lucky they are only a JV team.

Depends. Where are their arms and other methods of support coming from? In my mind, this circles back to Putin and Russia, but I haven't done the research to put much weight into that thought.

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.

Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.

Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.

Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.

Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.

The US can't openly back the Iraqi army as long as Iraqi Sunnis see it as a Shiite occupation force, as it will be for as long as Maliki's in the saddle. That's why we're backing the Kurds instead of the army that we spent all those years and dollars building up.

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Oh yeah, Iraq's fucked up five ways from Sunday. Still probably good news that another candidate was picked by the President since Maliki is terrible, but the political situation is not great at all.

Really a total U.S. victory at this point is for the Kurdish government to survive, for ISIS to be significant reduced in territorial scope (at least confined to Sunni areas), ideally just to Syria, and for Iraq to be only 70% fucked up.

Agree that appointing a new PM is or could be a great thing. Really concerned that Al-Maliki may not be all that interested in stepping down at this time. Hopefully the US will make it clear that staying in office isn't an option.

The US can't openly back the Iraqi army as long as Iraqi Sunnis see it as a Shiite occupation force, as it will be for as long as Maliki's in the saddle. That's why we're backing the Kurds instead of the army that we spent all those years and dollars building up.

The Iraqi President is a Kurd.

The Hill wrote:Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Tuesday that open-ended military actions, like President Obama's airstrikes in Iraq, should require congressional approval and that a bill he's proposed would ensure that is the case.

Kaine said that while he supports the U.S. humanitarian mission underway in Iraq, "it is now up to the administration to receive Congressional authorization for the current air campaign against” the group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“This is especially the case since the president has indicated that our renewed military engagement in Iraq could be a long-term project,” Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, said in a statement.

“I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action,” the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee added.

Kaine joins a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers who have warned the president that he must get their stamp of approval if he chooses to expand the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.

NYT wrote:WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has sent an additional 130 military advisers to northern Iraq to help plan the evacuation of thousands of displaced people trapped by Sunni militants on Mount Sinjar, Defense Department officials said Tuesday, raising the possibility that a larger American force may eventually be needed in the rescue attempt.

While military officials said the Pentagon planned to continue aid drops of food and water, United States officials said they believed that some type of ground force would be necessary to secure the passage of the stranded members of the Yazidi group. The military is drawing up plans for consideration by President Obama that could include American ground troops in what is expected to be an international effort to rescue the refugees, a senior administration official said.

Mr. Obama has insisted, most recently on Monday, that he will not send American ground troops back to Iraq. But as the Yazidi crisis has deteriorated, American officials say they have become increasingly convinced that a humanitarian corridor will have to be established soon, with troops on the ground to help ensure safe passage for the displaced.

Isgrimnur wrote:And how is the president supposed to get Congressional approval? They're only holding those wonderful pro forma sessions until the week after Labor Day.

Isgrimnur wrote:And how is the president supposed to get Congressional approval? They're only holding those wonderful pro forma sessions until the week after Labor Day.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Isgrimnur wrote:It might give the Sergeants at Arms something to do and rack up frequent flier miles trying to drag them all back to town.

El Guapo wrote:Are you arguing that the President should be required to obtain congressional authorization before committing U.S. military forces to protect U.S. government personnel?

El Guapo wrote:You're admitting that there is an imminent threat to U.S. personnel, it just sounds like you think that shouldn't be enough.

The Hill wrote:Most constitutional law experts say Obama acted within his authority to defend Americans in Erbil from immediate danger. But critics say Obama should have sought congressional approval before expanding a fight with ISIS that could last months or even years.

“I think any conflict of a couple days in nature could be justified,” said Louis Fisher, a scholar at the Constitution Project, “but as President Obama said last weekend, this is not going to be for just a couple days or weeks, it could go on for a year or two.

“For anything of that scope, he should come to Congress for their approval,” Fisher added.

Fischer and other constitutional scholars believe Obama is toeing a fine line by engaging ISIS forces in Iraq.

“Defensive power is limited to an immediate response to an attack,” said Peter Raven-Hansen, a national security professor at George Washington University’s law school.

“No one would doubt that President Roosevelt could order the Navy to shoot back at the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but that doesn’t mean he could wage a war for five years without congressional authority,” he continued.

“The longer the conflict goes on, the broader the intervention, the greater the need for congressional approval.”

El Guapo wrote:Also Obama's remarks about this being a long-term project is not directed solely at military action against ISIS, but about fixing the broader situation in Iraq (of which these military strikes are one part).

Fireball wrote:The Iraqi government asked us to act, and it was a humanitarian crisis that also threatened the lives of US citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan. That's exactly the sort of situation the 90 day window in the War Powers Act is made for. Expect Congressional approval of action in Iraq to be on the agenda in September when Congress reconvenes.

Rip wrote:

Fireball wrote:The Iraqi government asked us to act, and it was a humanitarian crisis that also threatened the lives of US citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan. That's exactly the sort of situation the 90 day window in the War Powers Act is made for. Expect Congressional approval of action in Iraq to be on the agenda in September when Congress reconvenes.

90 days? When are you guys going to stop rewriting laws?

Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

Zarathud wrote:Obama defers action against Russia and the Republicans call him a pussy. Now he acts like a cowboy, engaging Muslim terrorists, and now the Republicans complain? During a recess...er, a pro forma session? Pick a complaint and stick with it. Stop waffling.

Or were you for it before you were against it? Because Kerry is still waiting for an apology.

Republicans blasted President Obama’s decision to launch airstrikes against the International State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) Sunday, calling them too soft. They warned that the group posed a dire threat to the United States.

Zarathud wrote:Obama defers action against Russia and the Republicans call him a pussy. Now he acts like a cowboy, engaging Muslim terrorists, and now the Republicans complain? During a recess...er, a pro forma session? Pick a complaint and stick with it. Stop waffling.

The Hill wrote:Kaine joins a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers who have warned the president that he must get their stamp of approval if he chooses to expand the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.

GreenGoo wrote:Uh, the republicans are throwing everything against the wall to see what'll stick. If you think there is a principled approach to their criticism, you haven't been paying attention for the last 6 years. The fact that they occasionally get one right is random luck.

edit: directed at defiant.

GreenGoo wrote:Uh, the republicans are throwing everything against the wall to see what'll stick. If you think there is a principled approach to their criticism, you haven't been paying attention for the last 6 years. The fact that they occasionally get one right is random luck.

edit: directed at defiant.