US forces set to move into Syria

[superbeets]

[h=1]US forces set to move into Syria as Middle East crisis deepens: Obama authorizes recon flights ahead of possible strikes on ISIS - despite Assad warning that any attack will be viewed as 'aggression'[/h]

• The United States is preparing military options, including surveillance flights, to pressure Islamic State in Syria, US officials said on Monday
• Cautioned no decision had been made to expand US action beyond the limited airstrikes under way in Iraq

.

 

[superbeets]

President Barack Obama has authorized surveillance flights over Syria, a senior administration official said late Monday, a move that could pave the way for US airstrikes against Islamic State militant targets.
President Barack Obama has so far sought a limited military campaign in Iraq focused on protecting American diplomats and civilians under direct threat. Still, officials have not ruled out escalating military action against the Islamic State militant group, which has increased its overt threats against the United States.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that Islamic State would eventually need to be addressed on 'both sides of what is essentially at this point a non-existent border' between Syria and Iraq.

+7


Difficult decisions: President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, return to the White House with their daughter Malia on Sunday after his vacation in Martha's Vineyard. The president is said to be pondering air strikes within Syria against ISIS positions



.

 

[superbeets]

And on Monday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said that the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad could accept support from the United States to help fight 'terrorists'.
The war-torn nation has lost control of vast swathes of the northeast of the country to ISIS militants, but Moallem warned against unilateral action by the United States.
'Any effort to fight terrorism should be done in coordination with Syrian government,' Moallem said according to CNN.
However, when asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if the US would seek the permission of Syria to strike within its territory, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said they would not.
'Not getting into the hypothetical operations, there's no intention to coordinate with Syrian authorities,' said Kirby to CNN.

+7

+7




Defiance: Despite admitting Syria would welcome outside help in the battle against ISIS, President Bashar Al-Assad's regime has warned against unilateral US action within his borders against militants



.

 

[superbeets]

While the White House says Obama has not approved military action inside Syria, additional intelligence on the militants would likely be necessary before he could take that step. Pentagon officials have been drafting potential options for the president, including airstrikes.
The U.S. began launching strikes against the Islamic State inside Iraq earlier this month, with Obama citing the threat to American personnel in the country and a humanitarian crisis in the north as his rationale. Top Pentagon officials have said the only way the threat from the militants can be fully eliminated is to go after the group inside neighboring Syria as well.
Obama has long resisted taking military action in Syria, a step that would plunge the U.S. into a country ravaged by an intractable civil war. However, the president's calculus appears to have shifted since the Islamic State announced last week that it had murdered American journalist James Foley, who was held hostage in Syria. The group is also threatening to kill other U.S. citizens being held by the extremists in Syria.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that Obama has demonstrated his willingness to order military action when necessary to protect American citizens.
'That is true without regard to international boundaries,' he said.
The White House would not comment on Obama's decision to authorize surveillance flights over Syria.

+7


Expansion of airstrikes to Syria: A US Navy F/A-18 launches off from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf waters on August 15 to strike ISIS positions in Iraq



.

 

[superbeets]

'We're not going to comment on intelligence or operational issues, but as we've been saying, we'll use all the tools at our disposal,' said Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council.
The official who confirmed the decision was not authorized to discuss Obama's decision publicly by name, and insisted on anonymity.
The U.S. had already stepped up its air surveillance of the Islamic State inside Iraq earlier this year as Obama began considering the prospect of airstrikes there. And the administration has run some surveillance missions over Syria, including ahead of an attempted mission to rescue Foley and other U.S. hostages earlier this summer.
The U.S. special forces who were sent into Syria to carry out the rescue mission did not find the hostages at the location where the military thought they were being held. Officials who confirmed the failed rescue last week said the U.S. was continuing to seek out intelligence on the other hostages' whereabouts.
Administration officials have said a concern for Obama in seeking to take out the Islamic State inside Syria is the prospect that such a move could unintentionally help embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Islamic State is among the group's seeking Assad's ouster, along with rebel forces aided by the U.S.
The White House on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State could bolster the Assad regime, with Earnest saying, 'We're not interested in trying to help the Assad regime.' However, he acknowledged that 'there are a lot of cross pressures here.'
Dempsey's spokesman confirmed on Monday that options against Islamic State were under review and stressed the need to form 'a coalition of capable regional and European partners.'

+7


President Barack Obama's military leadership made clear in recent days that the threat from the Islamic State militants, who murdered American journalist James Foley, cannot be fully eliminated without going after the group in Syria, as well as Iraq. 'This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated,' said General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on August 20



.

 

[superbeets]

'With Central Command, (Dempsey) is preparing options to address ISIS both in Iraq and Syria with a variety of military tools including airstrikes,' Colonel Ed Thomas said, using a different name for the Sunni Muslim group that has seized large areas of Iraq and Syria.
'The bottom line is that our forces are well postured to partner with regional allies against ISIS.'
A U.S. official said Washington was also preparing to launch intelligence and surveillance flights, including drones, over Syria.
Two other U.S. officials also acknowledged the preparation of strike options against Islamic State in Syria, with one saying planning had been under way for weeks.
Still, neither official suggested U.S. military action there was imminent.
'We're just not there yet,' said a senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of the anonymity.
Republicans called on Sunday for more aggressive U.S. action to defeat Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, accusing President Barack Obama of policies that have failed to thwart potential new threats on U.S. soil.


.

 

[superbeets]

At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama would consult Congress on whatever he decided on Syria, but would not necessarily seek congressional approval. He said Obama had not made any decisions on whether to use airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Syria.
Earnest said the Islamic State threat was a different situation from a year ago when Obama said he wanted Congress to approve the use of airstrikes to stop Syrian President Bashir al-Assad from using chemical weapons on his own people.
Obama sat down for talks on Monday with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
Dempsey, Thomas said, believed that Islamic State needed to be pressured in Iraq and Syria and that defeating the group would require a sustained effort over an extended period of time 'and much more than military action.'
Although the U.S. air campaign launched this month has caused some setbacks for Islamic State, they do not address the deeper problem of sectarian warfare that the group has fueled with its attacks on Shi'ites.
In retaliation for the airstrikes, Islamic State released a video showing one of its black-clad fighters beheading U.S. journalist James Foley.


.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]White House says Obama could attack ISIS in Syria 'regardless of borders' and WITHOUT approval from Congress[/h]

• Spokesman Josh Earnest compared the idea to killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan without permission from that nation's government
• 'I'm not going to speculate' about whether Obama would ask Congress before launching airstrikes in Syria, his press secretary said
• A House Armed Services Committee spokesman says Obama first needs to articulate a clear strategy to defeat ISIS – which he hasn't done
• A Senate aide told MailOnline that his boss, who sits on that body's Armed Services Committee, would be 'beyond upset' if Obama acts unilaterally
• Iraq's faltering government invited the US to take action against ISIS, but Bashar al-Assad hasn't rolled out Syria's welcome mat
• Earnest suggested Obama would follow the example of the Osama bin Laden kill raid – an operation he authorized without permission from Pakistan

The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is prepared to go it alone – 'regardless of borders' – if he decides to launch airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) inside Syria.

'I'm not going to speculate about what sort of congressional approval would be requested or required' if the president decided to chase ISIS across the invisible border between Iraq and Syria, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.
He noted that Obama 'has not made a decision to order additional military action in Syria.'
But 'the president has already demonstrated a willingness,' Earnest insisted, 'to use military force to protect the American people, regardless of borders.'

+4


No Congress, no problem: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest won't say what kind of permission Obama might need before attacking ISIS inside Syria

+4


Happy warrior: Obama headed back to Washington from his vacation paradise on Martha's Vineyard Sunday night, but not before posing for photos with a cheering airport throng



.

 

[superbeets]

America's recent mini-campaign of targeted airstrikes against ISIS positions in northern Iraq is in part the result of an engraved invitation from the topsy-turvy government in Baghdad.
No such welcome has been extended by Bashar al-Assad, the decidedly anti-American dictator in Damascus.



ISIS enjoys influence across a wide swath of land in both Iraq and Syria, presenting the Pentagon with the possibility that decisive victories in Iraq could drive the group to safe haven in Assad's country.
Defeating them there could present the Pentagon with an unwelcome outcome if the terror group's forces regroup inside Syria.



ISIS also represents a threat to Assad's rule, meaning that crushing ISIS once and for all could have the unintended consequence of strengthening the strongman.


Calling on the example of Navy SEAL raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil, Earnest suggested Monday that Assad's assent to chase ISIS past where Iraqi territory ends wouldn't be required.
'The United States was not invited in by the Pakistani government' to take out bin Laden, Earnest reminded reporters.



'That was a decision the president made.'
But members of Congress were kept in the loop about the bin Laden raid for months as tactical options were weighed.


One aide to a Republican who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee told MailOnline that if Obama were to make a unilateral move in Syria, his boss 'would be beyond upset.'
'No one wants it to come to that, given how much friction there already is between the White House and about half of [Capitol] Hill right now,' he said.
A spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee told MailOnline that Rep. Buck McKeon, the committee's chairman, is even more concerned with Obama's failure to present Congress and the American people with a coherent strategy for defeating ISIS.
Earnest took pains to point out that Obama had 'hosted a meeting here the last week that Congress was in town' in July, 'where he invited up members – both Democrats and Republicans, from both the House and the Senate – to talk through some of these issues.'

+4

+4




Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (L) could be a big winner if Obama sweeps into his country and rids it of ISIS, but Rep. Buck McKeon (R) says Obama hasn't come up with a plan to fight ISIS -- much less a request to Congress for military authority

'There's also consultation that can be done, and has been done, at the staff level,' Earnest said.
'But in terms of what may be required if the president were to take or order a specific action, I'm just not in a position to speculate.'
Obama sought permission from Congress nearly a year ago to launch military strikes against Assad, after international observers reported that his regime used chemical weapons against rebel groups that had opposed him since 2011.
'The military has positioned assets in the region,' he said in an August 31, 2013 speech. 'We are prepared to strike whenever we choose, and I am prepared to give that order.'
But he added that he would 'seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.'
Obama made it clear then that he believed he had the authority to strike without the say-so of Congress, but said that he believed America would emerge 'stronger' if he involved legislators.
Earnest said Monday that there are no lessons to be taken from that episode.
'That was a different situation, right?' he said, 'precisely because what the president was talking about in that scenario was ensuring that the Assad regime didn't use chemical weapons, or would pay a price for what the intel community had assessed was his use of chemical weapons.'
'What we're talking about now isn't the Assad regime, but about this threat that's posed by ISIL' – the White House's preferred name for ISIS – 'that's operating both in Iraq and in Syria.'
'These are complicated situations and they always will be,' Earnest added later.
'But what's not complicated is the president's willingness to act decisively and authoritatively in ordering military strikes to protect the American people.'


.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Revealed: The ISIS leaders in the sights of British and American special forces who have led its murderous rampage across Iraq and Syria[/h]

• Western leaders face growing pressure to step up action against militants
• But not much appears to be known publicly about leadership and structure
• A number of names have emerged online of suspected ISIS leaders

.
They have quickly become one of the world's most feared and notorious militant groups after carrying out a series of atrocities while leading a murderous rampage across parts of Iraq and Syria.
Yet, while western powers face growing pressure to step up military action against Islamic State militants, not much appears to be known publicly about its leadership, structure or even its size.
A number of names however have emerged of suspected leaders of the militant group, who are believed to have directed the group as it has taken control of parts of northern Iraq and Syria.

+8


It was only last month that the first image was seen in years of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, after he walked out of the shadows to deliver a sermon at the Great Mosque in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city

+8



Omar al-Shishani has been identified as one of the group's most prominent commanders and may even have risen to become its overall military chief, it has been claimed



.Despite the group's notoriety across the globe following its formation last year, its workings and structure has been difficult to pin down.It was only last month that the first image was seen in years of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, after he walked out of the shadows to deliver a sermon at the Great Mosque in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city.
He addressed the packed congregation – which included Isis fighters and local sympathisers – on the first Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in the heart of the city his fighters took control of barely a month previously.

.His sermon came only days after he declared himself caliph, or ruler, of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. He also declared large swathes of northern Syria and Iraq seized by his fighters as his new caliphate.Baghdadi is understood to rule the group through a hit squad ready to assassinate subordinates who appear disorderly, along with a religious authority, according to a report by Sam Jones in the Financial Times.
The report suggests the group is ruled by a shura council who divide responsibilities for specific areas among certain ministers.

+8

+8




An undated handout made available by the Iraqi Intelligence Service on December 29, 2013, allegedly show ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammad Al-Adnani (left). Abu Wahib, also known as Shaker Wahib al-Fahdawi, is believed to be pictured in an image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube in August last year (right)

A smaller military council is also said to exist, according to the report, below which are more officials with special responsibilities or expertise.
Anthony Cordesman, a former director of intelligence at the Pentagon who now works for Washington think-tank CSIS, told the Financial Times that members of the group had 'learnt' since the insurgency in Iraq in 2006.
He said: 'They have far more dispersed authority. They make sure they have two commanders on the scene at all times; they have a lack of a centralised control. Leaders set policy but they don’t attempt to plan every operation one by one.'
Last week, another of the group's leaders was named in a resolution adopted by the UN Security Council that sought to weaken militants in the region by cutting off the flow of foreign fighters and its financing capabilities
The resolution named six fighters accused of funnelling funds and helping foreign fighters travel to the frontline, including Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohamed al-Adnani.
In June, al-Adnani apparently appeared in a video which featured extremists urging followers to 'march to Baghdad - we have a score to settle', as ISIS fighters made their way across northern Iraq.

+8


Despite the group's notoriety across the globe following its formation last year, its workings and structure has been difficult to pin down








A voice said to be that of al-Adnani is heard in the video saying: 'Continue your march as the battle is not yet raging.
'It will rage in Baghdad and Karbala. So be ready for it. Put on your belts and get ready.'
Elsewhere, Omar al-Shishani has been identified as one of the group's most prominent commanders and may even have risen to become its overall military chief, it has been claimed.
The young, red-bearded Chechen is one of the suspected leaders who has appeared frequently in its online videos, unlike other leaders such as al-Baghdadi.
Al-Shishani has been the group's military commander in Syria, leading it on an offensive to take over a broad stretch of territory leading to the Iraq border.
But he may have risen to become the group's overall military chief, a post that has been vacant after the Iraqi militant who once held it - known as Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Bilawi al-Anbari - was killed in the Iraqi city of Mosul in early June.

+8


Islamic State militants embrace in celebration after taking over Tabqa air base near Raqqa city on Sunday







In a video released by the group early in July, al-Shishani is shown standing next to the group's spokesman among a group of fighters as they declare the elimination of the border between Iraq and Syria.
The video identified al-Shishani as 'the military commander' without specifying its Syria branch, suggesting he had been elevated to overall commander.
The group however has not formally announced such a promotion.
Another senior commander who appears to have few qualms over showing his face is Abu Wahib, also known as Shaker Wahib al-Fahdawi, understood to be one of the group's regional commanders.
Haji Bakr, whose real name was Sameer Abid Mohammed al-Halefawi, was believed to have been the group's head military commander and security chief before he was killed in January, according to the Financial Times.
Images which appear to be of a number of the group's leaders have been posted online, including on social media sites, but are difficult to verify.

+8


A man inspects damage at the entrance of a Tabqa hospital after a Syrian government air strike







United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay today condemned 'appalling, widespread' crimes being committed by Islamic State forces in Iraq, including killings, slavery, sexual crimes and targeting people on ethnic or religious grounds.
The persecution and systematic violations, documented by U.N. human rights investigators, would amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law, she said in a statement.
'Grave, horrific human rights violations are being committed daily by ISIL and associated armed groups,' Pillay said. 'They are systematically targeting men, women and children based on their ethnic, religious or sectarian affiliation and are ruthlessly carrying out widespread ethnic and religious cleansing in the areas under their control.'
Christians, Yazidis and Turkmen are among those targeted by the Sunni militant group, she said.

+8


United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay today condemned 'appalling, widespread' crimes being committed by Islamic State forces in Iraq. Pictured is an ISIS member in Raqqa in June this year







Up to 670 prisoners from Badush prison in the city of Mosul were killed by Islamic State on June 10 after being taken by truck to a vacant area and screened for non-Sunnis, she said, quoting survivors and witnesses to the 'massacre' as telling U.N. human rights investigators.
'Such cold-blooded, systematic and intentional killings of civilians, after singling them out for their religious affiliation, may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity,' Pillay said.
The al Qaeda splinter group seized control of the Iraqi city of Mosul on June 10, putting security forces to flight in a show of strength against the Shi'ite-led Baghdad government.
Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge, called on the Iraqi government and international community to protect vulnerable ethnic and religious communities, including at least 13,000 Shia Turkmen in Salahuddin province besieged by ISIL forces since mid-June amid 'fear of a possible imminent massacre'.


.

 

[The Guesser]

Idiotic Policy. Now We're going to help Assad, against the fighters that we were helping against Assad. Just ridiculously inept.face)(*^%^

 

[The Guesser]

[h=2]George Carlin > Quotes > Quotable Quote[/h] [h=1]“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.”[/h]
― George Carlin

 

[The Guesser]

Lionel always has a unique, out of the box viewpoint. He's right on about ISIS.

 

[ScottL]

I originally posted this article in Dec 2002. As Willie says, "It never gets old."

Peacenik Warmongers
By Alex Epstein

There is an increasingly vocal movement that seeks to engage America in ever longer, wider, and more costly wars--leading to thousands and perhaps millions of unnecessary deaths. This movement calls itself the "anti-war" movement.

Across America and throughout the world, "anti-war" groups are staging "peace rallies" that attract tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of participants, who gather to voice their opposition to an invasion of Iraq and to any other U.S. military action in the War on Terrorism. The goal of these rallies, the protesters proclaim, is to promote peace. "You can bomb the world to pieces," they chant, "but you can't bomb it into peace."

If dropping bombs won't work, what should the United States do to obtain a peaceful relationship with the numerous hostile regimes, including Iraq, that seek to harm us with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? The "peace advocates" offer no answer.

The most one can coax out of them are vague platitudes (we should "make common cause with the people of the world," says the prominent "anti-war" group Not in Our Name) and agonized soul-searching ("Why do they hate us?").

The absence of a peacenik peace plan is no accident. Pacifism is inherently a negative doctrine--it merely says that military action is always bad. As one San Francisco protestor put the point: "I don't think it's right for our government to kill people."

In practice, this leaves the government only two means of dealing with our enemies: to ignore their acts of aggression, or to appease them by capitulating to the aggressor's demands.

We do not need to predict or deduce the consequences of pacifism with regard to terrorism and the nations that sponsor it, because we experienced those consequences on September 11. Pacifism practically dictated the American response to terrorism for more than 23 years, from our government's response to the first major act of Islamic terrorism against this country: when Iranian mobs held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days at the American embassy in Tehran.

In response to that and later terrorist atrocities, American Presidents sought to avoid military action at all costs--by treating terrorists as isolated criminals and thereby ignoring the role of the governments that support them, or by offering diplomatic handouts to terrorist states in hopes that they would want to be our friends.

With each pacifist response it became clearer that the most powerful nation on Earth was a paper tiger--and our enemies made the most of it.

After years of American politicians acting like peaceniks, Islamic terrorism had proliferated from a few gangs of thugs to a worldwide scourge--making possible the attacks of September 11.

It is an obvious evasion of history and logic for the advocates of pacifism to label themselves "anti-war," since the policies they advocate necessarily invite escalating acts of war against anyone who practices them.

Military inaction sends the message to an aggressor--and to other, potential aggressors--that it will benefit by attacking the United States. To whatever extent "anti-war" protesters influence policy, they are not helping to prevent war; they are acting to make war more frequent and deadly, by making our enemies more aggressive, more plentiful, and more powerful.

The only way to deal with militant enemies is to show them unequivocally that aggression against the United States will lead to their destruction. The only means of imparting this lesson is overwhelming military force--enough to defeat and incapacitate the enemy.

Had we annihilated the Iranian regime 23 years ago, we could have thwarted Islamic terrorism at the beginning, with far less cost than will be required to defeat terrorism today.

And if we fail to use our military against state sponsors of terrorism today, imagine the challenge we will face five years from now when Iraq and Iran possess nuclear weapons and are ready to disseminate them to their terrorist minions. Yet such a world is the goal of the "anti-war" movement.

The suicidal stance of peaceniks is no innocent error or mere overflow of youthful idealism. It is the product of a fundamentally immoral commitment: the commitment to ignore reality--from the historical evidence of the consequences of pacifism to the very existence of the violent threats that confront us today--in favor of the wish that laying down our arms will achieve peace somehow.

Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our enemies.

Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.
-- Ayn Rand

"The principle of using force only in retaliation against those who
initiate its use, is the principle of subordinating might to right."
- Ayn Rand

Pacifism necessarily invites escalating acts of war against anyone who
practices it.
- Alex Epstein (12/09/02)

 

[Dave007inVegas]

It would appear that Obama has stumbled into a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a serious hurt on terror in the Middle East.

Assad had to go, so we armed the rebels. Then the rebels became ISIS and are now our enemy.

Why not just run amok in Syria without regard as to which side we take out since they both appear to be our enemy.

With Egypt and the United Arab Emirates secretly launching air strikes against Islamist-allied militias in Libya
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/w...retly-carried-out-libya-airstrikes.html?_r=1# we should team up with them and once and for all end these terror groups.

It’s not often that Arabs step up the plate to clean up their neighborhood. We should applaud them and chip in by laying waste to the caliphate.