Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
BARACK OBAMA RETURNED to Washington after a brief family break in California to find himself confronted once again by the nightmare from which America thought it had escaped: Iraq.
Obama confirmed to congressional leaders that 275 US military personnel are being deployed there to help American personnel and protect the embassy in Baghdad.
The force “is equipped for combat,” he wrote.
Obama ran for the White House as a young leader who opposed the 2003 US invasion, and then won re-election as the steady hand who had finally withdrawn American troops eight years later.
But now his generals have brought out the old map once again and the 44th president — like the 41st, 42nd and 43rd — is contemplating new military action against targets in Iraq.
Without putting large numbers of US boots on the ground, Obama’s best option to counter a lightning offensive by Sunni extremist militants that have threatened the Baghdad government may be strikes from the air.
But, whether he limits action to drone strikes, cruise missile salvoes or bombardment from carrier-based aircraft, he will be taking a step he wanted to avoid: expanding US action in the Middle East.
’Range of options’
On Monday night, Obama met with his national security team after returning from California.
“The purpose of that meeting would be to hear from members of his national security team directly about their ongoing efforts to present him with a range of options,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters prior to the meeting.
Last week, Obama said he would take a few days to study his options. Since then, the ISIL militant group that had captured Mosul has only made further gains against Iraqi government forces.
The Sunni extremist faction, fighting civil wars on two fronts in Iraq and Syria, has boasted on Twitter of having killed 1,700 Shiite prisoners — a claim denounced in Washington.
Late last month, in a major foreign policy address delivered before a graduating class at the West Point military academy, Obama expressed caution about new military adventures.
“Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail,” the commander-in-chief insisted.
But since then, officials as senior as Secretary of State John Kerry have signaled that he has not ruled out some form of military response to ISIL’s brazen aggression.
We have been here before.
Last year, Washington was braced for Obama to announce air strikes to punish Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons. Obama declined.
For many, Obama’s reluctance to engage has proved a mistake. As Syria has plunged deeper into civil war, Assad’s opponent ISIL has gained in strength on both sides of the Syria-Iraq frontier.
When asked about the eventual deployment of American troops, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said: “The president was very clear that we will not be sending US troops back into combat in Iraq.”
But she noted that Washington had been “steadily increasing its security assistance” to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government over the past year, including in training and intelligence.
The Iran dilemma
Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said a proper response might involve Washington reaching out to a fairly unlikely sounding new regional partner.
“What’s happening in Mosul is a wake-up call for the administration that the crisis in Syria is never simply going to stay in Syria and that crisis management is going to entail American leadership,” she said.
“I think there is an onus on the administration to engage in problem solving rather than simply crisis management and that means talking to all the parties in the region, particularly the Iranians.”
Iran is a long-time US foe but has a shared interest in protecting Maliki’s Shiite-led government, and Washington has not ruled out talks on Iraq.
Yesterday, the US and Iran held “brief discussions” on the crisis in Vienna, on the sidelines of pre-planned negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
It is yet to be determined “if we want to keep talking to Iran about Iraq,” she added.
The idea of ongoing discussions will likely be anathema to many in Washington, and the idea has already come under attack from the right, which sees it as another sign of America losing its leadership role.
“The United States should be seeking to minimize greater Iranian involvement in Iraq right now, not encouraging it,” declared Senator John McCain.
“That means rapid, decisive US action to degrade (ISIL) and halt their offensive in Iraq. The longer we wait to act, the more our Iraqi partners grow dependent on the Iranian regime.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Where the hell is that Sadam guy when you need him
Saddam Hussein kept the lid on the dustbin… the same could be said for Colonel Gaddafi..
… something that these Western terrorist invaders are incapable of doing.
Frank there will always be those in this world that will try and do things to change something for the better and there will always be those that Will do nothing and criticise them for it . That’s you .
Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam’s second in command (the Red Haired General) is still at large and is in charge of The Iraq Revolutionary Command Council.
“Al-Douri and has been pointed out as one of the main commanders responsible for successful take over of North Iraq and the city of Mosul in June 2014 by rebel groups”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzat_Ibrahim_al-Douri#2014_and_the_fall_of_Mosul
Tommy……If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it….
Lies were fabricated by western powers to illegally invade these countries making them now far more volatile than they ever were to begin with.
Frank you don’t seem to give credit where it’s due . What about Bosnia , kosavo , sierra Leon . Three countries of many that had military intervention by western powers that change them for the better . Afganistan will be dicided by the people that live there whether they want to build on what they have and take there country forward . If they chose to go back to the old Afganistan then there will always be the franks in this world ready to blame the countries that went there that tried to make a difference .
Saddam, Ghadaffi and if the US has it’s way Asad will be gone. What chance for Syria then?
Tommy Whelan…. The regime change you are talking about in Bosnia , kosavo , sierra Leon is about placing puppet Governments and NATO military bases and having it “the Western Way” with no opposition…. (Just like the NAZIS) …..This can get very dangerous if it gets top heavy and it is certainly heading that way.
Of course they are frank . You keep taking the tablets Frank , things can only get better for ya .
Tommy, you lack intelligence. Please stop embarrassing yourself
Premium why don’t we hear ur intelligent opinion on the subject .
If the entire Middle East was nuked it would solve a lot of problems and everyone would get over it eventually. Just sayin.
I’ve heard the same said about the US.
Get all the lousy evil corrupt politicians banksters elites under one roof (A nice big Bilderberg conference) and then boom, ye got a legitimate target for a nuke.
hope you are in the neighboorhood when it happens
Me? Why? What did I ever do to you Jeremy?
Cos joe they dont like you. To be fair your not likable more laughable but someone needed to tell you. As a friend I felt it should be me.
you dont c much after all do you,no joe sorry that was for scar
They’re not going to get much done with 275 personnel. You’d have more than that at a world cup match.
Its just to bolster the existing security at their huge embassy.
275 military personnel can do a hell of a lot of damage….
..Only 12 crew members were on board Enola Gay…..
I doubt they’re deploying nuclear weapons against ISIS somehow
I would not put a pass on a false flag nuclear strike in the middle east.. Damascus is currently the oldest city the world. It has never been destroyed nor has it ever had its inhabitants displaced unlike other cities had down through the ages..
“Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap”. Isaiah 17
Its misleading headline. You can be sure every embassy has weapons and a marine or two. They are just boosting troops on technically their own soil.
Guys and gals at journal office you lot are more them ever going sensationalist and tabloid please please stop it.
How about ” US boosts its iraqi embassy strength with extra 250 troops”
Frank, it took a lot lore then 12 people to drop the bomb from the Enola Gay.
With the over 100,000 people working for the manhattan project, the 100′s on the ship which brought the bomb from the states, the people who made up the ground crew, engineers, fuelers and ATC, the planners and reconnaissance teams involved you’re looking at about 120,000. 10,000 times what you thought. For someone who puts such importance on numbers you should really make sure your numbers are accurate.
Frank I got this buddy.
Nuclear weapons are smaller these days suit case size and it could have been transported in the aircraft carrier and dropped by air to the embassy. They will them meet with isis and do a handover that bombs for assad and in retuen the usa get the patients for isis curry powder its that good apparently. So yes this whole thos is a false flag operation so the usa can expand its imperialist domination into the curry market.
Your welcome frank ;)
Why does the journal keep saying that Assad used chemical weapons when by now its clear he did not
Perhaps if Bush didn’t invade Iraq this sorry mess wouldn’t have arisen.
If Bush didn’t invade Iraq Obama would have done it anyway….
Birds of a feather.,….
Frank
Total nonsense.
Bush started an illegal war with backing from his republican neo con buddies.
He/ they created a mess killed 1000s for what?? OIL
Obama has been in office for five and a half years, almost as long as the whole of WW2. At what point does the current situation stop being Bush’s fault?
Never. That’s like saying Hitler has been dead since 1945, when does WW 2 stop being his fault. He started it, it will always be his fault.
That’s the answer to a different question.
Maliki is Obama’s man, the pull-out of troops was Obama’s policy and Obama backed the rebels in Syria. If he didn’t want to take ownership of the problems Bush created, why did he run for election?
It’s not. It’s the answer to the main question. What is the reason for Iraq being a complete hole, with thousands of people dying? George W Bush invaded the country in 2003. It really is that simple. Ever since everyone else is trying to sort out his mess, and failing, just like he did. Malaki was ear marked and put in position by the Bush administration. They never realised they were just installing another dictator, or they just didn’t care.
easy answer lads,bush started it obama perpetuated it
Bush started it, everyone else will have to deal with it. For a very long time. A failure of catastrophic proportions. This is becoming worse than Vietnam.
Obama is just a continuation of Bush, these guys are merely spokesmen for the people really pulling the strings.
http://youtu.be/VIMnIh10po0
Bush acted illegally by invading in the first place….The whole thing was based on lies told to congress as well as the U.N. Blair has to take the blame too….it will always be Bush’s fault (he threatened to kill my Daddy….remember that?)
America is supporting some rebels (not all) in Syria and only to a limited degree….they want a leadership change not a regime change.
Can’t believe some people are against stopping these nut job Isis crowd!!!! As a soldier I would have no problem going into Iraq to wipe these people out!! They need to be stopped quickly and permanently and there’s only one way to do that. If they are let continue other nut jobs are gonna start getting ideas closer to home
” Nut jobs “…..”wipe these people out “……..I think you are watching too many Bruce Willis movies , Mr. Sheehy. This is what got the yanks in the mire they now find themselves in.
It’s quite simple in my opinion any force that commits the acts that Isis are committing need stopping don’t care who stops them someone has to. If ye anti yank/Brit knob heads had you’re way Bosnia/Mali etc would still be massacring each other. Granted they don’t always get it right or even act in some cases but action is better than no action
Quiet paddy how dare you talk sense on the journal. What gives you the right?
whist up rambo will you and stop talking scutter,easy to give it billy big bollox on line,if you’d have no problem sorting these people out off you go,ill pay for your ticket and when your finished could you pop over to libya real quick ?? ive another few days work lined up for you there too
Jeremy why don’t you go you might learn something about the world .
Think the media worldwide are over reacting to this move. It’s only a security measure by the US..
Sadly the story is starting to turn from a worrying Islamic terrorist group taking over Iraq, to primarily how Obama will react to it..
Think it’s been alarmist since the very beginning. It was a broad Sunni alliance that took these cities, not just ISIL & ISIL are a distant 3rd in terms of size behind the Ba’athists and Tribal militia’s. I’m not saying ISIL haven’t gained influence of recent, they have. But, If you read the newspapers you would think that Islamists are single-handedly taking over all of Iraq rather than a diverse group of Sunni-interest groups gaining control over Sunni area’s
Invaders should be shown no mercy
Which Invaders
“Invaders” is a very subjective term.
Are you referring to ISIL invading Mosul, or the Americans invading Iraq?
Afghanistan is on same course. Billions of taxpayers money wasted in illegal wars, thousands of lives lost and nothing to show for it.
The leader for ISIS was under US custody and they let him free in 2009. Crazy when you let a lunatic go free but keep hundreds of innocent people detained in Gontanomobay without trial.
Murtaza have you been to afganistan . They have alot to show for it . It’s up to the people if they want to move forward and build on what they have .
Rest easy man I can assure you noone innocent is in g bay.
How was Afghanistan illegal? Were the Americans supposed to let the country train terrorists to fly into their skyscrapers and then do nothing about it? There is hardly and oil in Afghanistan so there was no reason for the Americans to go in but to genuinely try and protect themselves.
the highjackers were saudi and learned to fly in america,if it was really just about stopping them train(even though its not where they trained) why not bombing and drones like they use else where ??
Afganistan is not illegal or an invasions . 43 countries serve there under ISAF with the permission from the democratic elected governmet of Afganistan .
depends on who you ask is it illegal but it certainly is immoral and unethical and disgusting and how on earth isnt it an invasion ?? you really need to get a grip on yourself
How s a conflict immoral when afgan soldiers of that country serve next to soldiers of ISAF on the battlefield on behalf of the goverment .
So removing a tribe from government which has been responsible for such glorious acts as shooting a teenage girl in the head for wanting an education was “immoral and unethical”?
so much to say so little time,quickly to tommy,there were irish in the british army and ric,does that make britains domination,rape and pillage of us acceptable ??
jason the taliban were trained and funded by america its ally pakistan,have you ever seen pictures of afghanistan from the 60′s and 70′s ?? beautiful liberal country,not under the oppression of religious extremists and while your point is ridiculous let me ask you this,if america really cared about people being mutilated and religiously oppressed why doesnt it invade qatar and saudi arabia ??? in fact not only do they not invade them theya re allied with them,can you clear that one up for me please ??
Haliburton have built a huge pipeline through it plus they made billions supplying equipment like oil tankers tents rations even boots….they don’t just drill for oil
First Obama said that he would not send troops into Iraq and now he said that he will as a response to ISIS yet he intends to send them to the American embassy in Baghdad to protect it and its staff regardless of there being 160 troops there already and not to confront ISIS who are encroaching from the north which is the whole point of sending in these 275 extra troops.
What is the point in sending them in if they are not going to fight with ISIS? It kind of looks like he doesn’t know what he is doing.
America has a massive embassy there with hundreds maybe thousands there. I’m normally against the us, and I don’t believe in them invading Iraq in the first place. But I do agree with them defending there people that are there. I know I’d feel a lot better off with an extra 275 troops between me and the militants. Here’s hoping there only there for protection….
Well that is like waiting for a problem to happen, let it happen and then try to solve it. Would it not be better to prevent ISIS from getting to Baghdad in the first place?
First Obama said he would not send his troops into Iraq ……… then he said he would….
He lied…..that’s his nature..
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. ….James 1:8
Absolutely Frank! America needs a strong leader like Putin. A man of action who makes his mind up and then sticks to it. Changing your mind in response to changing circumstances obviously just makes you a dirty flip flopper
Not worth a reply
The narrative will quickly change now, from al-Assad being enemy number one to being someone they can work with. Malaki in Iraq was not the puppet the US had hoped for. Yet again, a horrifying result to failed American foreign policy unfolds in the Middle East. The Bush crew now have a lot of dead people on their hands. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I knew I was responsible for the deaths of so many. Maybe that’s why Bush is painting, to keep his mind off it.
The West has no intention of working with Assad….
They want him out and gone…
Bassar Al Assad is far too cleaver for them, he knows well not to collaborate with the Devil…. his sneaky tactics, he wants nothing of GMO, Rothschild, global corporates and contractors raping his country.
Jackie,was it not the case that chemical weapons *were* used by rouge elements within the regime,just not on Assad’s personal orders?
No emmet, it was not the case, the lies have been well and truly debunked on that accusation, why don’t you google East Ghouta MIT chemical weapon report and see for yourself.
2 things in this article, and I would like them addressed please:
1. The Regime did not use chemical weapons in the attack on East Ghouta in 2013, that is a downright lie.
2. ISIL are not gaining strength in Syria at the moment, they have been steadily retreating eastward for while now and practically all their resources are concentrated in Iraq now.
I wonder if a full contingent of the JSOC will be part of the 275 troops going in,and have they all ‘toured’ Iraq before? One of the worst outcomes would be a an overwhelming number of ‘enemy combatants’ storming and surrounding the embassy,resulting in a bloody battle/siege. Black Hawk Down:2. Kay Burley is so hot for all of this right now,I’d say.
Are the ISIL the new boogy men? First the english, then the spanish, then the blacks, then the mexicans, then the germans, then the germans again, then the japanese, then the commies, then the home grown commies, then the koreans, then the vietcong, then the commies again, then the toilet – Al Qaida, amd now the ISIL. Next will be the home grown insurgents (The US Citizens).
Its funny how this group are ‘rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters’ in Syria, and now they’re ‘terrorists’ in Iraq.
Make up your minds lads. . . .
Obama dithers again. Someone should donate a fiddle to him and a laurel wreath so he can do his Nero impression really well for the cameras.
Send more ammo over let them kill each other bloody Allah / religion bs
Why the hell were ISIS not bombed back across the border when they captured Fallujah six months ago? The USA has nearly 90 jets on the USS George H.W. Bush alone which is currently in the Gulf. The Iraqi’s don’t even have 1 jet so how could have they tried to retake the lost territory? If the Americans had got involved after Fallujah then ISIS would have been beaten back into Syria (where I suspect more and more US politicians are hoping for an Assad victory) and there would be no need for American boots on the ground.
Firstly, the Iraqi Air Force has a fleet of over 200 aircraft at its disposal so your whole “not one jet” claim is completely bogus. Secondly, defeating the ISIL is simply not the US’ job, that is the job of the Iraqi security forces. Once again people complain when the US gets involved and complains again when they don’t.
Firstly, the Iraqi Air Force does has a fleet of over 200 aircraft but not one of them is a jet capable of combat. The Iraqi’s received their first trainer F-16 in America last week which still is not capable of ground attack operations. Look at this complete list of Iraqi aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force#Current_inventory
Whos claim is bogus now?
This is the norm
It’s hard to keep up. This option was ruled out a couple of days back.
My parents taught me some good morals.
#1 mind my own business
#2 keep my nose out of where it don’t belong.
Now if I went over to my neighbors house and beat him up id be charged with assault, trespassing, etc!
How could I claim I was protecting myself by entering his house!!!
Back to point 1 and 2 !
Leave the east to its own Shiite!!!
America never escaped IRAQ- they were kicked out of it after a bloody war-all America technology means nothing if they can’t control the ground-they would need to have a good escape plan for them and the embassy staff because they are going to need it soon-
Mick all due respect come off the beer. Aint doing you any good
Kicked out by who exactly?
Its funny how that group were ‘rebels’ and freedom fighters in Syria, now they’re terrorists in Iraq.
Make up your mind lads . . . .
When will they drop the farce about “freeing the Iraqi people” and “creating peace in the middle East” when every man and his dog knows what these conflicts are really about. #control #oil and #profit
Is this an act of violence for political gain… Does anyone know the definition of terrorism?
my heart goes out to BO. i’ll bet he can’t wait to get out of the White House. what a mess. fecking religion…..all over the world it brings nothing but death, destruction, un human behaviour, torture for women, children, the elderly and disabled…….religion is a man made institution for men to control all around them.
having said all that i have a brother who is a RC priest. he is genuinely a good man doing a very difficult, lonely job. he has a battle with people like me who find very little positive about any religion. he has been so disheartened at times and struggles to go on under the weight of what has been done in the name of religion. he does separate religion from faith it is that and good people around him that keep him going. i do feel for him but i think the world would be a much better place without ‘religion’.
have your say