[h=2]Legal Scholars Doubt President’s Authority to Wage War Against ISIL[/h]Claim regarding Islamic State 'particularly bizarre'
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Caroline Lee Smith
September 11, 2014 3:34 pm
President Obama promised a sustained military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in a speech Wednesday.
However, a group of scholars interviewed byU.S. News & World Report said they doubt he can legally order an open-ended campaign without congressional authorization.
But the War Powers Resolution of 1973–a resolution put in place after the president secretly expanded the Vietnam War–limits the president’s ability to use force abroad for more than 60 days without congressional authorization.
Despite the laws in place, Obama has claimed constitutional authority to protect the United States as commander in chief.
“When I represented the Democratic and Republican members [of Congress] challenging the Libyan war, the Obama administration took the position in court that the president alone defines whether something is a war and unless he uses that noun, neither the courts nor Congress have any role in determining whether combat operations can go forward,” he says. “It was a breathtakingly extreme argument–it effectively gutted that part of the Constitution.”
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Caroline Lee Smith
September 11, 2014 3:34 pm
President Obama promised a sustained military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in a speech Wednesday.
However, a group of scholars interviewed byU.S. News & World Report said they doubt he can legally order an open-ended campaign without congressional authorization.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 – enacted in response to the secret presidential expansion of the Vietnam War – limits the president’s ability to use force abroad to 60 days without congressional authorization.
The Obama administration has cited Congress’ 2001 authorization of military force against al Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, and the White House accordingly said the president already has congressional authorization to attack jihadists in Iraq and greater Syria.
But the War Powers Resolution of 1973–a resolution put in place after the president secretly expanded the Vietnam War–limits the president’s ability to use force abroad for more than 60 days without congressional authorization.
“I can’t think of a single plausible argument to say that the 2001 [resolution] provides authority for indefinite strikes in Syria,” says Louis Fisher, a Constitution Project scholar who previously worked as the Library of Congress’ senior specialist in separation of powers.
“To reach that conclusion,” Fisher says, “one would have to say that the [resolution] authorized presidents to act anywhere in the world against any group that can be called terrorist. It did not say that.”
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley also disagrees with the White House position. “The claim regarding Islamic State is particularly bizarre,” he says. “President Obama is claiming the right to fight al-Qaida by declaring a war on al-Qaida’s most lethal enemy – one could cause serious physical injury trying to reproduce that contorted logic.”
In January, the White House endorsed a repeal of the Iraq authorization. The House of Representatives rejected that repeal in June.“To reach that conclusion,” Fisher says, “one would have to say that the [resolution] authorized presidents to act anywhere in the world against any group that can be called terrorist. It did not say that.”
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley also disagrees with the White House position. “The claim regarding Islamic State is particularly bizarre,” he says. “President Obama is claiming the right to fight al-Qaida by declaring a war on al-Qaida’s most lethal enemy – one could cause serious physical injury trying to reproduce that contorted logic.”
Despite the laws in place, Obama has claimed constitutional authority to protect the United States as commander in chief.
“When I represented the Democratic and Republican members [of Congress] challenging the Libyan war, the Obama administration took the position in court that the president alone defines whether something is a war and unless he uses that noun, neither the courts nor Congress have any role in determining whether combat operations can go forward,” he says. “It was a breathtakingly extreme argument–it effectively gutted that part of the Constitution.”
It's going to be the US striking by air for the next few months. Ground forces from other countries will enter the theater and increase after that. I expect in the next two weeks a major ISIS leader will by killed by an airstrike. I also expect a lot of public denials from countries who are fighting alongside us. They want plausible deniability etc. but it's not what they say to Al Jazeera that matters. It's what they promise to do privately and whether they follow through.
ISIS as an entity will be eradicated. I give it 1-2 years. I don't think even Obama and Kerry can fuck this one up (Hi Dave
) And hopefully America will remember those countries who stepped up, and those who stepped away. Remnants of ISIS will try to strike at Europe and the US in the coming years. The destruction of ISIS will not end the WOT. Unfortunately the WOT will probably not end until the Arab World embraces freedom more than it coddles extremism. The real defeat of Jihad may have to be internal, not external.
Pull up a chair. Get that remote ready. Picture in Picture. On one side of the screen, US vs ISIS. The other side? Why, Willie vs Akphi, of course
ISIS as an entity will be eradicated. I give it 1-2 years. I don't think even Obama and Kerry can fuck this one up (Hi Dave
) And hopefully America will remember those countries who stepped up, and those who stepped away. Remnants of ISIS will try to strike at Europe and the US in the coming years. The destruction of ISIS will not end the WOT. Unfortunately the WOT will probably not end until the Arab World embraces freedom more than it coddles extremism. The real defeat of Jihad may have to be internal, not external. Pull up a chair. Get that remote ready. Picture in Picture. On one side of the screen, US vs ISIS. The other side? Why, Willie vs Akphi, of course
It's going to be the US striking by air for the next few months. Ground forces from other countries will enter the theater and increase after that. I expect in the next two weeks a major ISIS leader will by killed by an airstrike. I also expect a lot of public denials from countries who are fighting alongside us. They want plausible deniability etc. but it's not what they say to Al Jazeera that matters. It's what they promise to do privately and whether they follow through.
ISIS as an entity will be eradicated. I give it 1-2 years. I don't think even Obama and Kerry can fuck this one up (Hi Dave
Pull up a chair. Get that remote ready. Picture in Picture. On one side of the screen, US vs ISIS. The other side? Why, Willie vs Akphi, of course
Both Bush the elder and Bush the younger had coalitions of over 30 countries for the Iraq wars.
Obama has 9.
There are leaders and then there are followers. If it weren’t for polling Obama would never make a decision.
And Scott, yes they can. If there is a way to fuck this up I’m sure they’ll find it.
Here’s an interesting analogy.
Former Air Force General Michael Hayden likened Obama's reliance on air strikes in Syria to the attraction of casual sex. Hayden is also the former direct of the CIA and the NSA.
Responding to Obama's decision to avoid putting troops on the ground in favor of conducting air strikes, Hayden said.
“The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex: It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone.”
But airstrikes are better than nothing, said Hayden, who has been critical of the administration’s slow pace in fighting the growing extremist threat in the region. As Obama pointed out in his Wednesday address, the U.S. must adapt to extremist fighters’ tactics of ignoring borders and establishing safe havens in Syria.
Former Air Force General Michael Hayden likened Obama's reliance on air strikes in Syria to the attraction of casual sex. Hayden is also the former direct of the CIA and the NSA.
Responding to Obama's decision to avoid putting troops on the ground in favor of conducting air strikes, Hayden said.
“The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex: It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone.”
But airstrikes are better than nothing, said Hayden, who has been critical of the administration’s slow pace in fighting the growing extremist threat in the region. As Obama pointed out in his Wednesday address, the U.S. must adapt to extremist fighters’ tactics of ignoring borders and establishing safe havens in Syria.
You were saying...
Breaking: TURKEY REFUSES OBAMA REQUEST to Use Its Airbases to Fight ISIS
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ma-request-to-use-its-airbases-to-fight-isis/
Turkey is in a tough spot. Turkey's diplomatic mission in Mosul, the only diplomatic mission in the city, was stormed by ISIS and 49 people, diplomats and their relatives, were taken hostage three months ago. Their fate remains much related to Turkey's policies. Plus you have the PM Erdogan, an Islamist and a wannabe dictator on the one hand who pulls his nation away from the West on the one hand and seeks US aid with the other.
Erdogan’s Turkey: unwilling ally in struggle against Islamic State
Cengiz Çandar Posted September 8, 2014
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3DDhgzuJ7
“In the fight against ISIS, the Western world will be able to see whether Turkey will be promoted from an ally to a friend or to be kept, still, as an intelligence target,” I concluded in my Al-Monitor article on Sept. 4, at the start of the NATO summit in Wales.
In the wake of the summit, how Turkey will act in terms of the coalition that US President Barack Obama promised to form is still unclear. Despite being a NATO ally, Turkey is not counted on as a backbone or a staunch member of such a coalition, given its closeness to the Islamic State (IS) that has been prioritized as a target by the Wales summit and by the US administration.
After the summit, Obama responded on NBC's "Meet the Press" to questions in a comprehensive interview with Chuck Todd on the conclusions of the summit. He was unequivocal on the issue of IS and said:
“Unless we have people we can work with who are Sunni in these Sunni regions, then we're going to continue to have these problems. And […] the strategy both for Iraq and for Syria is that we will hunt down [IS] members and assets wherever they are. … But in terms of controlling territory, we're going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that.”
In his response to Todd’s question, “I got a somewhat snarky email […] from a casual viewer who said, 'The United States gives a lotta military aid to Saudi Arabia. It's about time they use it.' What do you say to that?” Obama responded, “Well, I think that it is absolutely true that we're going to need Sunni states to step up, not just Saudi Arabia, our partners like Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey. They need to be involved. This is their neighborhood. The dangers that are posed […] are more directed at them right now than they are [at] us.
Sunni extremism, as represented by [IS], is the biggest danger that they face right now. And with that understanding, it gives us the capacity for them to start getting more active and more involved. And by the way, some of that's military. But some of it is giving political support to Baghdad and strengthening relations with [Shiite] leaders in Baghdad. … The question is, when are the moderate Sunni states and leadership going to work systematically to say, 'What [IS] represents isn’t Islam.' It is an abortion — a distortion — an abomination of that … somehow tied Islam to the kind of nihilistic thinking that any civilized nation should eliminate.”
This is where Turkey and the United States are not on the same page. Differences were revealed right after the 80-minute meeting between Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — their first since the May 2013 meeting at the White House. Since then, allegedly, a great deal of bitterness has transpired between the two, despite previously having enjoyed a close relationship.
Erdogan, after his meeting with Obama, underlined specifically the “model partnership” between the two countries, a concept coined during Obama’s visit to Turkey in April 2009. That concept has never been referred to by the US side, apparently unhappy with Erdogan, particularly since the summer of 2013.
After the encounter between Obama and Erdogan in Wales, the US side not only omitted any reference to the “model partnership,” but on the contrary the meeting was defined in a way that might signal a critical stance vis-a-vis Erdogan.
“In a pointed summary, the White House said that at a meeting at the NATO summit on Friday, US President Barack Obama discussed with Mr Erdogan 'the importance of building tolerant and inclusive societies and combating the scourge of anti-Semitism.'”
It appears that, for the Americans, Obama used his meeting with Erdogan as an opportunity to raise the displeasure of Washington with Erdogan’s recent statements and his domestic policy.
Needless to say, if Obama would find an enthusiastic NATO ally in his quest to construct a coalition to deal with IS, his attitude toward his Turkish counterpart might be different. Yet, Turkey’s reluctance in taking part in the efforts led by the United States against IS is also confirmed by Turkey’s media outlets following the Erdogan-Obama meeting.
Sources close to Erdogan and who were in Wales reflected on the Erdogan-Obama meeting by emphasizing that Erdogan objected Obama’s idea of assistance to Baghdad with arms delivery in the context of the struggle against IS.
The following is an excerpt of the news that demonstrates the way the Turkish media outlets close to Erdogan interpreted the meeting, relying on the information received from the “horse’s mouth.”
“Erdogan stressed that Turkey is in the midst of a solution process and said these guns could turn around, affect the solution process and enflame sectarian conflict in the region.
"Erdogan stressed to Obama that Turkey opposes the idea of the coalition of the willing supplying weapons to the government in Baghad, because that could provoke sectarian clashes. Erdogan said, Turkey does not favor the idea of a coalition of the willing for Iraq.
It should not be a coalition, but an alliance. Such a coalition should not provide weapons to the Baghdad central government. The weapons that were provided before are now in the hands of [IS]. Having uncontrolled weaponry will endanger our domestic process and delay the solution process. The formation of an anti-[IS] should not reinforce [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad. Because of the coalition and its actions our citizens held in the hands of [IS] could be harmed. We don’t want our people to be killed like the US journalists. We hope you will understand us.”
Turkey’s prominent daily Hurriyet’s Washington correspondent Tolga Tanis wrote a detailed assessment, apparently relying on the information provided by US sources in the US capital, under the title, “Differences between Washington and Ankara.” He drew attention to the fact that “US President Barack Obama held a press conference in Wales after he met with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Out of the four questions asked, two of them were about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Turkey was not even mentioned once. Not only because of Ankara’s reluctance to appear on the frontlines of a struggle against ISIL, but it is also because of the differences …” Tanis arrived at a rather gloomy conclusion:
“While the danger of ISIL is growing, we are entering a very different phase. The Turkish-US relationship may undergo a very painful period, the first signs of which have appeared this week, as expected.”
This week, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will visit Ankara to discuss the cooperation against IS. The New York Times reported on Sept. 8: “The talks between Mr. Hagel and the Turkish leadership may be crucial in determining whether the United States will be able to count on Ankara on a number of fronts, including closing the Turkish border to foreign fighters who have been using Turkey as a transit point from which to go to Syria and Iraq to join militant organizations and allowing the American military to carry out operations from bases in Turkey.”
Most probably, the US side, when it comes to fighting against IS, finds once more that Turkey is a reluctant ally.
With such a reluctant ally, what will be the chances of success for the "coalition" against IS, and how will that affect the duration of the struggle against the “caliphate state," which emerged in the vast territories of Syra and Iraq?
Cengiz Çandar Posted September 8, 2014
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3DDhgzuJ7
“In the fight against ISIS, the Western world will be able to see whether Turkey will be promoted from an ally to a friend or to be kept, still, as an intelligence target,” I concluded in my Al-Monitor article on Sept. 4, at the start of the NATO summit in Wales.
In the wake of the summit, how Turkey will act in terms of the coalition that US President Barack Obama promised to form is still unclear. Despite being a NATO ally, Turkey is not counted on as a backbone or a staunch member of such a coalition, given its closeness to the Islamic State (IS) that has been prioritized as a target by the Wales summit and by the US administration.
After the summit, Obama responded on NBC's "Meet the Press" to questions in a comprehensive interview with Chuck Todd on the conclusions of the summit. He was unequivocal on the issue of IS and said:
“Unless we have people we can work with who are Sunni in these Sunni regions, then we're going to continue to have these problems. And […] the strategy both for Iraq and for Syria is that we will hunt down [IS] members and assets wherever they are. … But in terms of controlling territory, we're going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that.”
In his response to Todd’s question, “I got a somewhat snarky email […] from a casual viewer who said, 'The United States gives a lotta military aid to Saudi Arabia. It's about time they use it.' What do you say to that?” Obama responded, “Well, I think that it is absolutely true that we're going to need Sunni states to step up, not just Saudi Arabia, our partners like Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey. They need to be involved. This is their neighborhood. The dangers that are posed […] are more directed at them right now than they are [at] us.
Sunni extremism, as represented by [IS], is the biggest danger that they face right now. And with that understanding, it gives us the capacity for them to start getting more active and more involved. And by the way, some of that's military. But some of it is giving political support to Baghdad and strengthening relations with [Shiite] leaders in Baghdad. … The question is, when are the moderate Sunni states and leadership going to work systematically to say, 'What [IS] represents isn’t Islam.' It is an abortion — a distortion — an abomination of that … somehow tied Islam to the kind of nihilistic thinking that any civilized nation should eliminate.”
This is where Turkey and the United States are not on the same page. Differences were revealed right after the 80-minute meeting between Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan — their first since the May 2013 meeting at the White House. Since then, allegedly, a great deal of bitterness has transpired between the two, despite previously having enjoyed a close relationship.
Erdogan, after his meeting with Obama, underlined specifically the “model partnership” between the two countries, a concept coined during Obama’s visit to Turkey in April 2009. That concept has never been referred to by the US side, apparently unhappy with Erdogan, particularly since the summer of 2013.
After the encounter between Obama and Erdogan in Wales, the US side not only omitted any reference to the “model partnership,” but on the contrary the meeting was defined in a way that might signal a critical stance vis-a-vis Erdogan.
“In a pointed summary, the White House said that at a meeting at the NATO summit on Friday, US President Barack Obama discussed with Mr Erdogan 'the importance of building tolerant and inclusive societies and combating the scourge of anti-Semitism.'”
It appears that, for the Americans, Obama used his meeting with Erdogan as an opportunity to raise the displeasure of Washington with Erdogan’s recent statements and his domestic policy.
Needless to say, if Obama would find an enthusiastic NATO ally in his quest to construct a coalition to deal with IS, his attitude toward his Turkish counterpart might be different. Yet, Turkey’s reluctance in taking part in the efforts led by the United States against IS is also confirmed by Turkey’s media outlets following the Erdogan-Obama meeting.
Sources close to Erdogan and who were in Wales reflected on the Erdogan-Obama meeting by emphasizing that Erdogan objected Obama’s idea of assistance to Baghdad with arms delivery in the context of the struggle against IS.
The following is an excerpt of the news that demonstrates the way the Turkish media outlets close to Erdogan interpreted the meeting, relying on the information received from the “horse’s mouth.”
“Erdogan stressed that Turkey is in the midst of a solution process and said these guns could turn around, affect the solution process and enflame sectarian conflict in the region.
"Erdogan stressed to Obama that Turkey opposes the idea of the coalition of the willing supplying weapons to the government in Baghad, because that could provoke sectarian clashes. Erdogan said, Turkey does not favor the idea of a coalition of the willing for Iraq.
It should not be a coalition, but an alliance. Such a coalition should not provide weapons to the Baghdad central government. The weapons that were provided before are now in the hands of [IS]. Having uncontrolled weaponry will endanger our domestic process and delay the solution process. The formation of an anti-[IS] should not reinforce [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad. Because of the coalition and its actions our citizens held in the hands of [IS] could be harmed. We don’t want our people to be killed like the US journalists. We hope you will understand us.”
Turkey’s prominent daily Hurriyet’s Washington correspondent Tolga Tanis wrote a detailed assessment, apparently relying on the information provided by US sources in the US capital, under the title, “Differences between Washington and Ankara.” He drew attention to the fact that “US President Barack Obama held a press conference in Wales after he met with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Out of the four questions asked, two of them were about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Turkey was not even mentioned once. Not only because of Ankara’s reluctance to appear on the frontlines of a struggle against ISIL, but it is also because of the differences …” Tanis arrived at a rather gloomy conclusion:
“While the danger of ISIL is growing, we are entering a very different phase. The Turkish-US relationship may undergo a very painful period, the first signs of which have appeared this week, as expected.”
This week, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will visit Ankara to discuss the cooperation against IS. The New York Times reported on Sept. 8: “The talks between Mr. Hagel and the Turkish leadership may be crucial in determining whether the United States will be able to count on Ankara on a number of fronts, including closing the Turkish border to foreign fighters who have been using Turkey as a transit point from which to go to Syria and Iraq to join militant organizations and allowing the American military to carry out operations from bases in Turkey.”
Most probably, the US side, when it comes to fighting against IS, finds once more that Turkey is a reluctant ally.
With such a reluctant ally, what will be the chances of success for the "coalition" against IS, and how will that affect the duration of the struggle against the “caliphate state," which emerged in the vast territories of Syra and Iraq?
[h=1]Australia commits military force to international fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq[/h]
The Federal Government is sending 600 Australian troops to the Middle East in preparation for military action against Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the United States had specifically requested Australia contribute to an international strike against the militants, who have captured large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Abbott said around 200 troops would be sent to the United Arab Emirates shortly, including a Special Forces contingent "that could act as military advisers to the Iraqi armed forces or to the Peshmerga".
They would be followed by around 400 Air Force personnel, up to eight super hornets, an early warning and control aircraft and an aerial refuelling aircraft.
Mr Abbott said the deployment was a "prudent and proportionate" contribution to the international coalition, and added that a final decision on committing the troops to combat action had not yet been made.
"Again I stress that this is essentially a humanitarian operation to protect millions of people in Iraq from the murderous rage of the ISIL movement," he said, using an alternative name for IS.
"Again I stress that this movement is neither Islamic nor a state. It is a death cult reaching out to countries such as Australia.
"This is about taking prudent and proportionate action to protect our country and to protect the wider world against an unprecedented terrorist threat."
[h=2]Force deployed to combat IS[/h]
Mr Abbott said Cabinet and the National Security Committee met earlier on Sunday to discuss the matter.
He said the action was part of an international coalition, "not simply something that is an American-Australian operation".
"So far, there are a number of countries, western and Middle Eastern, that have indicated that they are prepared to contribute to military operations inside Iraq," Mr Abbott said.
"The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Australia."
The Federal Government is sending 600 Australian troops to the Middle East in preparation for military action against Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the United States had specifically requested Australia contribute to an international strike against the militants, who have captured large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.
Mr Abbott said around 200 troops would be sent to the United Arab Emirates shortly, including a Special Forces contingent "that could act as military advisers to the Iraqi armed forces or to the Peshmerga".
They would be followed by around 400 Air Force personnel, up to eight super hornets, an early warning and control aircraft and an aerial refuelling aircraft.
Mr Abbott said the deployment was a "prudent and proportionate" contribution to the international coalition, and added that a final decision on committing the troops to combat action had not yet been made.
"Again I stress that this is essentially a humanitarian operation to protect millions of people in Iraq from the murderous rage of the ISIL movement," he said, using an alternative name for IS.
"Again I stress that this movement is neither Islamic nor a state. It is a death cult reaching out to countries such as Australia.
"This is about taking prudent and proportionate action to protect our country and to protect the wider world against an unprecedented terrorist threat."
[h=2]Force deployed to combat IS[/h]
- 8 super hornet aircraft
- 1 early warning and control aircraft
- 1 aerial refuelling aircraft
- 400 personnel to support air deployment
- 200 military officers, including a Special Forces contingent to act as "military advisors"
Mr Abbott said Cabinet and the National Security Committee met earlier on Sunday to discuss the matter.
He said the action was part of an international coalition, "not simply something that is an American-Australian operation".
"So far, there are a number of countries, western and Middle Eastern, that have indicated that they are prepared to contribute to military operations inside Iraq," Mr Abbott said.
"The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Australia."
[h=2]'Cruelty on an extraordinary scale'[/h]Australia has previously delivered weapons to outgunned Kurdish forces and dropped humanitarian aid to communities under siege from IS.
Mr Abbott said "there are obviously further decisions to be taken" before Australian forces commit to combat action against IS militants.
"Should this extend into combat operations, it could go on for some time," he said.
Mr Abbott said IS militants were responsible for "cruelty on an extraordinary scale".
PHOTO: Up to eight super hornets will be sent to the UAE(Australian Defence Force)
"We've seen beheadings, crucifixions, we've seen mass executions, we've seen hundreds of thousands of people driven from their homes, we've had women forced into sexual slavery, we've had the deaths of very young children, we've had tens of thousands of people besieged on Mount Sinjar," Mr Abbott said.
"What we have seen is an exaltation in atrocity unparalleled since the Middle Ages.
"Where does this come from, what evil in the human heart gives rise to this, I just don't know. All I know is that decent people everywhere regardless of their religion, regardless of their culture, should unite against it."
Mr Abbott will visit New York on September 24 and 25 to participate in the high-level UN Security Council meeting which is to be convened by US president Barack Obama.
Last week, in a speech broadcast live to the nation, Mr Obama said he would not send US combat troops to fight IS, and that the US would act in concert with a broad coalition including Western allies and Arab states.
"Our objective is clear: we will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy," the president said.
Mr Obama outlined a four-pronged strategy which included expanded air strikes and sending another 475 troops to train local forces.
Mr Abbott's announcement came after IS released a video purporting to show the beheading of captured British aid worker David Haines.
The footage, described by British prime minister David Cameron as "pure evil", followed the same pattern as videos of showing the murder of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
Mr Abbott said he reacted to the video with "shock, horror, outrage, fury", adding that it strengthened his resolve to defeat IS.
Mr Abbott said "there are obviously further decisions to be taken" before Australian forces commit to combat action against IS militants.
"Should this extend into combat operations, it could go on for some time," he said.
Mr Abbott said IS militants were responsible for "cruelty on an extraordinary scale".
"We've seen beheadings, crucifixions, we've seen mass executions, we've seen hundreds of thousands of people driven from their homes, we've had women forced into sexual slavery, we've had the deaths of very young children, we've had tens of thousands of people besieged on Mount Sinjar," Mr Abbott said.
"What we have seen is an exaltation in atrocity unparalleled since the Middle Ages.
"Where does this come from, what evil in the human heart gives rise to this, I just don't know. All I know is that decent people everywhere regardless of their religion, regardless of their culture, should unite against it."
Mr Abbott will visit New York on September 24 and 25 to participate in the high-level UN Security Council meeting which is to be convened by US president Barack Obama.
Last week, in a speech broadcast live to the nation, Mr Obama said he would not send US combat troops to fight IS, and that the US would act in concert with a broad coalition including Western allies and Arab states.
"Our objective is clear: we will degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy," the president said.
Mr Obama outlined a four-pronged strategy which included expanded air strikes and sending another 475 troops to train local forces.
Mr Abbott's announcement came after IS released a video purporting to show the beheading of captured British aid worker David Haines.
The footage, described by British prime minister David Cameron as "pure evil", followed the same pattern as videos of showing the murder of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff.
Mr Abbott said he reacted to the video with "shock, horror, outrage, fury", adding that it strengthened his resolve to defeat IS.
[h=1]ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels:[/h]Obama's plan is falling apart even before it starts. Forget about Turkey giving this notion of Obama's any consideration, Hilariously the Syrian Rebels who we are suppose to train & arm in Saudi Arabia already has struck a deal with their new partner ISIS.
'
As the United States begins to deepen ties with moderate Syrian rebels to combat the extremist group ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, a key component of its coalition appears to have struck a non-aggression pact with the group.
According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. Moreover, the leader of the Free Syrian Army said Saturday that the group would not take part in U.S. plans for destroying the Islamic State until it got assurances on toppling Assad.
The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups ag'The prospect of a group once supported by the U.S. now sitting down with ISIS raises fundamental questions about U.S. strategy in Syria. Why support Syrians who have a very different, clearly stated goal and who will act as they see fit to achieve it? What assurance does the administration have that fighters it trains and arms in Syria won't ally with ISIS if it seems like the most effective anti-Assad force?ainst ISIS. '
How bad can it get for Obama.
'
As the United States begins to deepen ties with moderate Syrian rebels to combat the extremist group ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, a key component of its coalition appears to have struck a non-aggression pact with the group.
According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army. Moreover, the leader of the Free Syrian Army said Saturday that the group would not take part in U.S. plans for destroying the Islamic State until it got assurances on toppling Assad.
The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups ag'The prospect of a group once supported by the U.S. now sitting down with ISIS raises fundamental questions about U.S. strategy in Syria. Why support Syrians who have a very different, clearly stated goal and who will act as they see fit to achieve it? What assurance does the administration have that fighters it trains and arms in Syria won't ally with ISIS if it seems like the most effective anti-Assad force?ainst ISIS. '
How bad can it get for Obama.
Gates: 'There Will Be Boots on the Ground If There's to Be Any Hope of Success in the Strategy'
ISIS Strategy Unrealistic.
7:29 AM, Sep 17, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
Robert Gates, President Obama's first defense secretary, said this morning on CBS that President Obama's strategy for defeating the Islamic State is unrealistic:
"The reality is, they're not going to be able to be successful against ISIS strictly from the air or strictly depending on the Iraqi forces or the Peshmerga or the Sunni tribes acting on their own," said Gates.
"So there will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in the strategy. And I think that by continuing to repeat that [there won't be troops on the ground], the president in effect traps himself.
"I'm also concerned that the goal has been stated as 'degrade and destroy' or 'degrade and defeat' ISIS. We've been at war with al Qaeda for 13 years. We have dealt them some terrible blows, including the killing of Osama bin Laden, but I don't think anybody would say that after 13 years we've destroyed or defeated al Qaeda. And so I think to promise that we're going to destroy ISIS or ISIL sets a goal that may be unattainable. as opposed to devastating it or as the vice president would put it, following them to the gates of hell and dealing them terrible blows that prevent them from holding territory. Those are probably realistic goals."
In fact, Gates's old boss, Barack Obama, has explicitly stated that "al Qaeda has been decimated."
ISIS Strategy Unrealistic.
7:29 AM, Sep 17, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
Robert Gates, President Obama's first defense secretary, said this morning on CBS that President Obama's strategy for defeating the Islamic State is unrealistic:
"The reality is, they're not going to be able to be successful against ISIS strictly from the air or strictly depending on the Iraqi forces or the Peshmerga or the Sunni tribes acting on their own," said Gates.
"So there will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in the strategy. And I think that by continuing to repeat that [there won't be troops on the ground], the president in effect traps himself.
"I'm also concerned that the goal has been stated as 'degrade and destroy' or 'degrade and defeat' ISIS. We've been at war with al Qaeda for 13 years. We have dealt them some terrible blows, including the killing of Osama bin Laden, but I don't think anybody would say that after 13 years we've destroyed or defeated al Qaeda. And so I think to promise that we're going to destroy ISIS or ISIL sets a goal that may be unattainable. as opposed to devastating it or as the vice president would put it, following them to the gates of hell and dealing them terrible blows that prevent them from holding territory. Those are probably realistic goals."
In fact, Gates's old boss, Barack Obama, has explicitly stated that "al Qaeda has been decimated."
[h=1]HYPOCRITE OBAMA DECIDES TO SEND TROOPS AGAINST EBOLA, NOT ISIS[/h]
by BEN SHAPIRO 17 Sep 2014 299POST A COMMENT
Obama Orders Military Response to Ebola
Calling the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a potential threat to global security, President Barack Obama is ordering 3,000 U.S. military personnel to the stricken region amid worries that the outbreak is spiraling out of...
[h=2]On Tuesday, President Obama announced a troop surge…in West Africa. Not to combat terrorism, of course – to combat Ebola virus. The plan would involve sending 400,000 Ebola homehealth and treatment kits, thousands more test kits, and logistical equipment to construct 17 treatment centers in Liberia, according to The New York Times. And the plan would involve 3,000 American troops.[/h]It’s not that the Ebola virus outbreak isn’t a serious issue. Obviously, it is – Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg said that five million people could die before containment of Ebola is achieved. But thus far, Ebola is far less of a health problem in Africa than malaria (well over 500,000 deaths each and every year on the continent) or AIDS (well over one million deaths in Africa in 2012). It is also worthwhile noting that we were warned that bird flu could kill “150 million” people in 2005, according to a UN health official; another official stated that the total dead could mount to between 2 million and 7.4 million. The grand total number of deaths from H5N1 virus from 2003-2014, according to the World Health Organization: 386 deaths.
Ebola is more dangerous than H5N1 because it is more deadly. But like H5N1, it is not airborne in transmission, which limits its transmissibility in areas where people do not frequently come into contact with the blood and stool of others.
And yet we are sending troops to Africa yesterday, propelled by a frighteningly urgent statement from the president.
President Obama’s refusal to place troops on the ground in Iraq has led to the rise of ISIS in the region; his placement of troops on the ground in West Africa may not do much against a foe that goes much deeper than a simple outbreak, extending to incrediblegovernmental incompetence, cultural ignorance, and structural instability. Undoubtedly, US troops can be used to build hospitals and act as a large-scale Peace Corps. But they are far better qualified to kill terrorists in the Middle East – and as both General Martin Dempsey and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, American boots on the ground will likely be necessary to defeat those terrorists.
Even if we endorse the idea of thousands of American troops administering treatment of Ebola in Africa, the irony of sending thousands of troops to Africa to fight a situation markedly less concrete than ISIS should be lost on no one. President Obama’s comments on the Ebola outbreak closely mirror his statements on ISIS – and yet Obama is sending troops to Africa, not to fight ISIS.
Yesterday, Obama explained, “If the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people affected, with profound economic, political and security implications for all of us.” The same could have been said about ISIS – and, indeed, ISIS has already impacted hundreds of thousands in both Syria and Iraq, with significant economic, political, and security implications. Yet troops head to West Africa, and Obama vows never to send troops to Iraq.
Yesterday, Obama averred, “[Ebola is] a potential threat to global security if these countries break down.” Of course, George W. Bush warned of exactly that over and over before leaving office; nonetheless, Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq, and the country predictably broke down. The same holds true in Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and a variety of other countries. But we’re supposed to believe that the breakdown of Liberia and Sierra Leone threatens global security?
Yesterday, Obama stated regarding Ebola victims, “These men and women and children are just sitting, waiting to die, right now.” He should talk to the Yazidis.
Yesterday, Obama said, “Right now, the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the United States is very low, but that risk would only increase if there were not a robust response on the part of the United States.” The same is obviously true of ISIS. Yet the Obama administration has repeatedly stated that the lack of risk to the American homeland makes ISIS a regional more than international threat.
So why Obama’s sudden desire to put troops in harm’s way in Africa? In order to look decisive, given the fact that his indecision in Iraq has blown back on him, Obama now paints himself as a bold leader going where others will not. “We have to act fast,” he warned yesterday at the Centers for Disease Control. “We can’t dawdle on this one.” But Obama has already waited six months to do anything about Ebola. This may be the right decision, but there is no question it is also a political one.
2200
1
189
by BEN SHAPIRO 17 Sep 2014 299POST A COMMENT
Obama Orders Military Response to Ebola
Calling the Ebola outbreak in West Africa a potential threat to global security, President Barack Obama is ordering 3,000 U.S. military personnel to the stricken region amid worries that the outbreak is spiraling out of...
[h=2]On Tuesday, President Obama announced a troop surge…in West Africa. Not to combat terrorism, of course – to combat Ebola virus. The plan would involve sending 400,000 Ebola homehealth and treatment kits, thousands more test kits, and logistical equipment to construct 17 treatment centers in Liberia, according to The New York Times. And the plan would involve 3,000 American troops.[/h]It’s not that the Ebola virus outbreak isn’t a serious issue. Obviously, it is – Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg said that five million people could die before containment of Ebola is achieved. But thus far, Ebola is far less of a health problem in Africa than malaria (well over 500,000 deaths each and every year on the continent) or AIDS (well over one million deaths in Africa in 2012). It is also worthwhile noting that we were warned that bird flu could kill “150 million” people in 2005, according to a UN health official; another official stated that the total dead could mount to between 2 million and 7.4 million. The grand total number of deaths from H5N1 virus from 2003-2014, according to the World Health Organization: 386 deaths.
Ebola is more dangerous than H5N1 because it is more deadly. But like H5N1, it is not airborne in transmission, which limits its transmissibility in areas where people do not frequently come into contact with the blood and stool of others.
And yet we are sending troops to Africa yesterday, propelled by a frighteningly urgent statement from the president.
President Obama’s refusal to place troops on the ground in Iraq has led to the rise of ISIS in the region; his placement of troops on the ground in West Africa may not do much against a foe that goes much deeper than a simple outbreak, extending to incrediblegovernmental incompetence, cultural ignorance, and structural instability. Undoubtedly, US troops can be used to build hospitals and act as a large-scale Peace Corps. But they are far better qualified to kill terrorists in the Middle East – and as both General Martin Dempsey and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, American boots on the ground will likely be necessary to defeat those terrorists.
Even if we endorse the idea of thousands of American troops administering treatment of Ebola in Africa, the irony of sending thousands of troops to Africa to fight a situation markedly less concrete than ISIS should be lost on no one. President Obama’s comments on the Ebola outbreak closely mirror his statements on ISIS – and yet Obama is sending troops to Africa, not to fight ISIS.
Yesterday, Obama explained, “If the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people affected, with profound economic, political and security implications for all of us.” The same could have been said about ISIS – and, indeed, ISIS has already impacted hundreds of thousands in both Syria and Iraq, with significant economic, political, and security implications. Yet troops head to West Africa, and Obama vows never to send troops to Iraq.
Yesterday, Obama averred, “[Ebola is] a potential threat to global security if these countries break down.” Of course, George W. Bush warned of exactly that over and over before leaving office; nonetheless, Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq, and the country predictably broke down. The same holds true in Ukraine, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and a variety of other countries. But we’re supposed to believe that the breakdown of Liberia and Sierra Leone threatens global security?
Yesterday, Obama stated regarding Ebola victims, “These men and women and children are just sitting, waiting to die, right now.” He should talk to the Yazidis.
Yesterday, Obama said, “Right now, the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the United States is very low, but that risk would only increase if there were not a robust response on the part of the United States.” The same is obviously true of ISIS. Yet the Obama administration has repeatedly stated that the lack of risk to the American homeland makes ISIS a regional more than international threat.
So why Obama’s sudden desire to put troops in harm’s way in Africa? In order to look decisive, given the fact that his indecision in Iraq has blown back on him, Obama now paints himself as a bold leader going where others will not. “We have to act fast,” he warned yesterday at the Centers for Disease Control. “We can’t dawdle on this one.” But Obama has already waited six months to do anything about Ebola. This may be the right decision, but there is no question it is also a political one.
