"Obama says US underestimated rise of ISIS; Too much faith in Iraq military as Islamic State burgeoned" by Brian Knowlton | New York Times September 29, 2014
WASHINGTON — President Obama acknowledged in an interview Sunday that the United States underestimated the rise of the Islamic State militant group while placing too much trust in the Iraqi military, allowing the region to become “ground zero for jihadists around the world.”
When you recognize what the plan is, who created ISIS, and what is the goal, this all looks like rank propaganda.
In some of his most candid public remarks on the subject, Obama said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” it was “absolutely true” that the United States had erred in its assessments of both the Islamic State and the Iraqi military.
Another intelligence agency failure, 'eh?
And while describing a range of measures to sharpen military pressure on the extremists, he said the US strategy of airstrikes has drawbacks and, ultimately, a political outcome is necessary to ease frictions between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims “in Iraq and Syria, in particular.”
Now he is conflating the ISIS phenomenon with sectarianism with the political outcomes only being the installation of rulers favorable to the U.S.
A political solution in Iraq and Syria might help ease the broader tensions between the populations that “are the biggest cause of conflict, not just in the Middle East, but in the world,” Obama said.
He's sure rolling the hyperbolic log as he describes the government he leads.
The president acknowledged that the United States faces a dilemma in leading a military campaign against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria because it could inadvertently help Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, whom the United Nations has accused of war crimes.
‘‘I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance,’’ Obama said.
“We are not going to stabilize Syria under the rule of Assad,’’ whose government has committed ‘‘terrible atrocities,’’ he said.
‘‘On the other hand, in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group — those folks could kill Americans.’’
Too bad U.S. intelligence agencies created them with their Sunni Muslim allies and hired assets.
ISIL is an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group, which has broken with Al Qaeda as it has taken control of large sections of Iraq and Syria.
The Khorasan Group is a cell of militants that the United States says is plotting attacks against the West in cooperation with the Nusra Front, Syria’s Al Qaeda affiliate. Both groups have been targeted by US airstrikes in recent days; together they constitute the most significant military opposition to Assad.
Related: What's Nusra in Syria?
The fictional Khorasan and the Nusra front have now teamed-up with ISIS!
Obama said his first priority is degrading the extremists who are threatening Iraq and the West. To defeat them, he conceded, would require a competent local ground force, something no analyst predicts will surface any time soon in Syria, despite US plans to arm moderate rebels.
‘‘Right now, we’ve got a campaign plan that has a strong chance for success in Iraq,’’ the president said. ‘‘Syria is a more challenging situation.’’
Just before the president’s interview was broadcast, warplanes from the United States and allied Arab countries struck Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, including some in a besieged Kurdish area of Syria near Turkey. The administration has said the campaign could take years.
I can't tell you how angry I am at this man for leaving that legacy. What a sphincter!
Islamic State militants continued their attack on Kobane, Syria, pounding the strategic border town with artillery shells, the Washington Post reported.
‘‘Civilian casualties and damage to the city,’’ I'm told -- even as they never made it.
******************
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, suggested earlier Sunday that the airstrike campaign might not be enough to contain and then destroy Islamic State militants and that US ground forces might ultimately have to be deployed.
Already have, about 3,100 officially, so what up?
“We have no choice. These are barbarians,” Boehner said on ABC’s “This Week.” “They intend to kill us. And if we don’t destroy them first, we’re going to pay the price.”
Host George Stephanopoulos asked, “If no one else will step up, would you recommend putting American boots on the ground?”
“We have no choice,” said Boehner, who previously said only that “somebody’s boots have to be on the ground.”
How about yours and all the other alcoholic pukes like you pushing us to war all over the planet?
Obama, in the “60 Minutes” interview, reiterated his opposition to deploying any significant number of American ground forces. He has deployed 1,600 American advisers and special operations troops to Iraq.
Boots on the ground.
“We just have to push them back, and shrink their space, and go after their command and control, and their capacity, and their weapons, and their fueling, and cut off their financing, and work to eliminate the flow of foreign fighters,” Obama said of the Islamic State forces.
Would have been nice had "we" not set up the whole network as a boogeyman to launch wars then, 'eh?
However, Obama said, only the United States could lead such a coalition.
‘‘When there’s a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who’s helping the Philippines deal with that situation,’’ he said. ‘‘When there’s an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who’s leading the charge and making sure Haiti can rebuild. That’s how we roll. And that’s what makes this America.’’
OMG!!!!!!
The hubris of the man in the face of Haiti not rebuilt and Ebola allegedly running rampant.
Related:
US, Philippines hold joint military exercises
Preparing to seize some islands, are they?
The United States, along with most other Western countries, was taken aback by the rapid advances of the Islamic State as it seized control of sizable territory in Syria and Iraq. Obama said that the chaos of the Syrian civil war had been a key factor.
Uh-huh.
“Essentially what happened with ISIL was that you had Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was a vicious group, but our Marines were able to quash with the help of Sunni tribes,” he said.
“They went back underground,” he adds, “but over the past couple of years, during the chaos of the Syrian civil war, where essentially you had huge swaths of the country that are completely ungoverned, they were able to reconstitute themselves and take advantage of that chaos.”
As the group attracted foreign fighters from many countries, Obama said, “this became ground zero for jihadists around the world.”
Even as attention focused on the Islamic State, US intelligence agencies were still trying to determine whether the initial wave of airstrikes in Syria killed the leader of the Khorasan Group.
The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist social media sites, reported Sunday that an Al Qaeda-associated Twitter account declared Mohsin al-Fadhli, the Khorasan leader, had died.
Ah, the jihadi hunters that are nothing more than a magic act!
US officials said they believed that a senior Khorasan figure had been killed but were not sure whether it was Fadhli or Abu Yusef al-Turki.
Whatever. This propaganda is the real turkey.
They were hopeful that both had been hit but added that it was unlikely both were killed.
An intelligence report distributed at the White House on Sunday said there were indications beyond the Twitter traffic that Fadhli had been killed but not enough to be conclusive.
Pffffft!
Officials said they worried the Twitter reports were part of a disinformation campaign to throw off the Americans.
Speaking of disinformation campaigns....
--more--"
That's one right there.
Related: N.Y. Times to cut 100 newsroom jobs
Their ‘‘new products are not achieving the business success we expected.’’
Times up on plan to cut newsroom jobs
Just ignore the contradictions and mixed messages. Times is getting as bad as the New York Post.
Seven key resources as US fight in Iraq resumes
Here is the first:
"In new front against Islamic State, dictionary becomes a weapon" by Dan Bilefsky | New York Times October 03, 2014
PARIS — After French mountaineering guide Hervé Gourdel was beheaded by an Algerian jihadist group aligned with the Islamic State last month, hundreds of Muslims gathered outside the Great Mosque of Paris to express their revulsion over the brutality of a group whose name and ideology, they said, is an insult to Muslims everywhere.
Some carried placards with the hashtag #NotInMyName, which has become a rallying cry on Twitter against the Islamic State.
Ahmet Ogras, vice president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, which called for the protest on Sept. 26, said that the now-common use of the name Islamic State threatened to stigmatize France’s Muslims, Europe’s largest Muslim community. He also said that the name conferred unwarranted legitimacy on a group carrying out killings in the name of Islam.
“This is not a state; this is a terrorist organization,” he added. “I call them terrorists because that’s what they are. One has to call a dog a dog. One can’t play with words.”
It is on my newsstand every morning.
As the US-led battle against radical forces rages in Iraq and Syria, a new linguistic front is emerging. Muslim groups in Europe and beyond are lashing out at the Islamic State in protests and on social media, advocating alternative ways to refer to the militants, now known by an alphabet soup of labels including ISIS, ISIL, IS, and SIC.
I'm calling them SILLI!
In a sign of the semantic war underway, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, railed against the Islamic State last week by calling it the “Un-Islamic Nonstate,” though few expect that the acronym UINS will have much staying power.
It really is nothing but a war-promoting pos, right down to the self-internalized values oozing out of the reporter.
Those kinds of protests against the Islamic State were echoed in Britain, where members of the Islamic Society of Britain and the Association of British Muslims wrote an open letter last month to Prime Minister David Cameron suggesting that the group should be referred to instead as the “Un-Islamic State” or UIS. Continued use of the name Islamic State would only further radicalize young Muslims, they said.
France, which has joined the United States-led airstrikes against the group in Iraq and is fighting a propaganda battle against the group at home, has been leading the rebranding.
The propaganda battle is here at home.
The Interior Ministry said Tuesday that the number of those who traveled or planned to travel to Syria or Iraq to fight in the region had risen to about 1,000, making it all the more urgent for the government to discredit the militants.
Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced last month that the government will eschew the term Islamic State or its alternatives, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and instead refer to the militant group as Daesh, the acronym many Arabic speakers use, which sounds like a word meaning to crush.
Addressing the National Assembly, Fabius declared that the Islamic State’s claim to represent a caliphate — a state governed by Islamic principles — in Syria and Iraq was geopolitically and linguistically false.
“This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims, and Islamists,” he said.
In the United States, Nihad Awad, executive director of Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, said his group had settled on ISIS.
Representatives of US Islamic associations said any of the names used for the group were acceptable so long as they did not include the term Islamic.
President Obama has made clear why he shuns the formulation Islamic State. “ISIL is not Islamic,” he said, later adding, “ISIL is certainly not a state.”
--more--"
A turd, by any other name....
Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’
So do actions:
White House will publicly display the ‘Armenian Orphan Rug’
More words:
"Biden calls UAE prince to clarify remarks on Syria" Associated Press October 06, 2014
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday called the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates to clarify that he did not mean to imply in his remarks last week that the Gulf ally was supporting Al Qaeda fighters in Syria.
************
It was the second time in two days that Biden had to call a key partner in President Obama’s coalition to walk back comments he made in Massachusetts on Thursday, when he said US allies — including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — funded and armed extremist groups linked to Al Qaeda.
See what happens when you speak the truth?
Earlier Sunday, an exasperated UAE requested ‘‘a formal clarification’’ from Biden on comments that America’s allies in the Middle East sent weapons and cash to extremists fighting in Syria.
Biden’s comments on Thursday came during a question-and-answer session at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge.
Biden said that ‘‘our biggest problem is our allies’’ who are engaged in a proxy Sunni-Shi’ite war against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
On Saturday, Biden already called to apologize to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the White House said.
‘‘The vice president apologized for any implication that Turkey or other allies and partners in the region had intentionally supplied or facilitated the growth of ISIL or other violent extremists in Syria,’’ the White House said, using an acronym for the Islamic State.
Biden even praised him as a rare example of turning tragedy into action.
The UAE’s official news agency carried a statement from Anwar Gargash, the minister of state for foreign affairs, calling Biden’s comments ‘‘far from the truth.’’
The White House said Biden clarified his remarks and recognized the UAE’s strong steps to counter extremists. The UAE is a key partner in the US-led coalition against the Islamic State and has targeted its fighters in airstrikes in Syria. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Jordan have carried out airstrikes against the group in Iraq and Syria.
--more--"
More troubles for Joe:
Biden’s son ‘embarrassed’ after Navy discharge due to drug use
“Six out of 10 jobs by the end of the decade are going to require a credential beyond a high school degree,” Biden said. “That’s why building a well-educated workforce is critical to widening the path to the middle class for millions of Americans. These grants will help do just that.”
If I didn't know better....
What I do know is the answers to the ISIS problem appear in my Globe's op/ed section:
"Best hope for Iraq is a loose confederation; A broken country" by Leslie H. Gelb | October 17, 2014
Leslie H. Gelb is a former New York Times columnist and correspondent and a former senior official in the State and Defense departments. He is also president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
He is also Jewish!
THERE IS little hope now of restoring a unified Iraq, let alone creating a new counterweight to Iran or Syria. Iraq is broken. It’s broken into its three natural and historical parts — the vast majority of Shiites in the south up to the Baghdad area, the minority Sunnis in the center who ran the country for hundreds of years and are now flirting with the Islamic State extremists, and the even smaller minority Kurds in the north, an ancient people forever dominated by outsiders.
Each contingent is mostly on its own, fighting in different ways for its own survival. Few are giving much real thought to making the country whole again. Their energies are devoted to surviving the jihadi onslaught, which caught them all — not just Washington — off guard.
The shame of it all is that the external threat of Islamic extremism is not uniting them in any way, as outside threats usually do. In fact Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites never shared much of a sense of loyalty to something called Iraq. The Kurds and the majority Shiites stayed in line and obeyed Sunni rulers for centuries, not out of any commitment to a Baghdad state run by Sunnis, but out of fear. Insofar as it was a state at all, Iraq was backed for hundreds of years by the Sunni Ottoman Empire. In the 20th century, as Iraq grew to resemble what is generally termed a state, it was run first by the British and after independence by Sunni dictators, like Saddam Hussein, who maintained ruthless control of the security forces. The recent “liberation” of Sunnis from Shiite control by the jihadis was no liberation at all; it was and is a new and more terrible threat to their freedom and identity. The Islamic State doesn’t want to free Iraq’s ethnic and religious parts; it wants to permanently enslave them under its fanatical black banner.
Of course, it didn’t have to come to this. Had the administration of George W. Bush and the Shiite regime it helped to install in Iraq been wiser, things might have ended up differently. In 2003, I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times calling for a “Three State Solution,” for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. My preference was not for an actual breakup of Iraq, but for a loose confederation, which I thought was the most that could be achieved. A couple years later, I wrote two op-eds with then-Senator Joe Biden urging the parties to fashion a federal solution.
Under this proposal, not unlike early American federalism, the three major groups would have considerable autonomy in their regions to run their own affairs. That arrangement would meet their major worry of domination by the Shiites or any one group from Baghdad. The central government in Baghdad would retain power over the currency, distribution of oil monies according to population size, and protection of border areas. Iraq would stay whole, and the parts could stay true to their own traditions and beliefs.
Some ideas along these lines even made their way into the new Iraqi constitution in 2005. Nothing, however, was done to implement them. The Shiites under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki insisted on running the show, and they exhausted the loyalties of the Sunnis and the Kurds. And thus Iraq now exists in name only.
It’s a shame for them and for their neighbors. A single Iraq containing three constituent parts would mean stability for the country and the region. If Iraq remains a broken state, the parts will continue to fight each other as well as the Islamic State. And even after the Islamic State is checked years down the road, one can expect the Iraqis to fight among themselves over a distribution of the oil spoils, over territory, over trade, and what have you. These conflicts will tear the people apart on a permanent basis. We can see this now in the Kirkuk region. As soon as the Baghdad government was weakened, the Kurds moved in and claimed the oil rights and right of rule. None of these matters had ever been settled by negotiations, and certainly not with the considerable non-Kurdish population of Sunnis, Turkomen, and others.
Also, as much as Iraqi Shiites now look to and depend on Iran, they don’t want to be controlled by it. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs; Iranian Shiites are Persian. That difference means a lot to them, and their interests in the region don’t fully coincide. Iran wants to play a big role in the Middle East. Iraq would be satisfied with a more modest one and doesn’t want to be pushed into constant tensions with neighbors.
The George W. Bush administration had the chance to channel Iraqis in the direction of a federal state. Bush was calling the shots, but he didn’t do so. President Obama’s powers were much more limited as US forces were withdrawing and being asked to withdraw by Shiite leaders.
The new disaster gives rise to new possibilities. Washington can’t dictate a new, federal Iraq, but, for example, it can provide future arms and economic aid on condition that the Iraqi parties are mindful of somehow keeping their country whole.
It’s a hard task. But it needs to be pursued. Otherwise, Iraq will stay broken, neither a state nor a bunch of stable regions, only trouble.
--more--"
Splitting Iraq was also Biden's idea way back when.
"Fighting the Islamic State — how much will it cost?" by Linda J. Bilmes | October 08, 2014
Twelve years ago we stumbled into a war in Iraq with little thought as to how much it would cost or how we might pay for it. Trillions of dollars later, we are about to wade into another protracted conflict, and once again there is no financial strategy.
President Obama and his military top brass have pronounced that the effort to defeat the Islamic State will be “long” — translation: expensive. The Pentagon has admitted to spending over $1 billion so far, with the current pace running at some $10 million per day. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believes the annual bill for military operations will range from $4 billion to $22 billion, depending on duration, scope, and the extent to which ground forces get involved — which is becoming increasingly likely. Obama has ruled out sending troops, but it is clear the Pentagon has not given up on boots on the ground — they just may not be worn entirely by Americans.
The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan proves that the price tag may be steep. In addition to the bill for military operations, there are costs associated with veterans’ benefits, depreciation of equipment, humanitarian aid, covert action, and paying (as the US frequently does) for the military efforts of our coalition “partners.”
Caring for veterans is a major expense, even in a short conflict. In the 1991 Gulf War, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid for most of the upfront US military operations — but today the Department of Veterans Affairs pays $4 billion per year in compensation to US veterans of that conflict. For Iraq and Afghanistan, the veterans’ costs will be much higher. Fifty percent of the troops who served to date will receive medical and disability benefits for the rest of their lives — amounting to some $1 trillion that the United States owes but has not yet paid.
Even bigger than the direct costs of the new campaign against the Islamic State is the dramatic U-turn in the political mood toward military spending. Twelve months ago, the wartime culture of “endless money,” as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates dubbed it, with its endless “emergency” funding from Congress (nearly $2 trillion in more than 30 special funding bills) — was finally coming to an end. The Beltway was filled with talk of belt-tightening at the Department of Defense, including a 10-year $497-billion cut imposed by the so-called sequester. The Pentagon was proposing to shrink the size of the armed forces, trim military compensation and benefits, and mothball expensive weapons and military installations left over from the Cold War.
But now that’s all so-last-fiscal-year. The new trend is ramping up Pentagon spending. At their press conference last week, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that they don’t have enough funding to conduct the operation against the Islamic State.
In addition, Congress is refusing to let the Pentagon make even modest changes to its current base benefit plan. This will surely encourage the department to ask for another blank check to pay for new operations. Requests are already mounting.
The combined cost of abandoning planned cutbacks at the Defense Department, new spending to combat the Islamic State, and extra foreign military assistance means that America will wind up spending up to $100 billion more on military activities than we had expected this year alone.
This amount should force Americans to debate the trade-offs between current spending priorities and the cost of expanding military operations against the Islamic State. But instead, Washington assumes that we will simply borrow whatever is needed — and continue to pass the cost of today’s wars onto future generations. This feckless approach has already led to much higher national debt, as well as rampant waste and corruption in our military appropriations. More importantly, the policy of paying for wars on the credit card has contributed to a widening gap between the small percentage of the US population who are serving in the volunteer force and the rest of us — who are neither serving nor bearing the financial burden.
Financing the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts with debt has hidden the true costs from public view. Over the past 14 years, it has seemed almost unpatriotic to question whether the nation could afford to continue spending 20 cents of every tax dollar on the military — regardless of whether the item in question was necessary or even good value. The United States is a wealthy country, but we are now coping with the legacy of two expensive wars. President Obama has just asked Americans to embark on another decade-long military engagement. He needs to propose a strategy for how it should be paid for, and what sacrifices will be required.
--more--"
"More war won’t help moral gridlock" by James Carroll | Globe Columnist September 29, 2014
Then President Obama arrived. He offered his own catalog of crises in his stirring address to the General Assembly,
yet when he personally chaired the Security Council leaders’ session —
only the second time an American president has done so — he made it
clear where the focus was for him. The president has gone to war. Having
just launched a ferocious air campaign against the so-called Islamic
State in Syria as well as Iraq, and having sounded the call to arms of a
large combat coalition that, crucially, included Arab nations, Obama
insisted on the urgency of his actions. “If there was ever a challenge
in our interconnected world that cannot be met by one nation alone, it
is this. Terrorists crossing borders and threatening to unleash
unspeakable violence.” Before the General Assembly he pledged that the
United States would “work with a broad coalition to dismantle this
network of death.”
It was Obama’s martial
fervor that seemed most notable, and his zealotry efficiently moved the
new Mideast war to the top of the week’s troubling agenda. If there was a
traffic jam of crises, one crisis would bull through them all: Cue the
trumpets! After nearly a quarter century of misbegotten American
interventions in what is now broadly counted as the Arab world’s historic, multi-phase, suicidal civil war, Washington had joined the fight again.
Obama
made the casus belli this time seem irresistible; the savage beheading
of US journalists embodied it. Yet when had the prior provocations not
seemed dire? Once again, a perverse but existentially minor enemy,
posing no real threat to North America, had succeeded in drawing from
Americans precisely the ill-considered reaction it wanted. And once
again, the United States had put its faith in bombing from the air — a
strategy that has only ever succeeded in unleashing ferociously
unintended consequences. In this, the initiating engagement of the new
American war, the Islamic State has its first victory.
It was as if, after a widely derided
appearance before the United Nations a year ago, coming on the heels of
his refusal to launch an air war against Syria for its use of chemical
weapons, President Obama had something to prove. Mark Landler of The New York Times observed,
“His remarks clearly seemed designed to get past months in which the
president appeared visibly conflicted about the proper use of US
military force in the Middle East — an ambivalence that opened him to
criticism that he was feckless and irresolute.”
That
criticism was wrong. The restraint that has characterized Obama’s
leadership until now was anything but “feckless and irresolute.” His
attempt to turn away from force was not rooted in ambivalence, but in a
wiser vision. As his victory in eliminating
Syria’s chemical arsenal showed, the refusal of war in a war-torn world
can be the real exercise of power.
Yet when confronted with seemingly
impossible conundrums, a gridlock of the moral imagination can make
recourse to violent force seem clarifying and empowering. So Obama
yields. But the outcome is sadly predictable. It is not only that war
trumped the other grave problems at the United Nations last week.
Environmental degradation, refugees, disease, resurgent nationalism,
proliferation: Visceral American war-making will make everything worse.
Again.
--more--"
US Ambassador Samantha Power said, “The United Nations was built for challenges like this?”
That's why they created Khorasan, to go around the UN Security Council so they could get at Syria.
Oh, she meant climate change and Ebola, oh.
Speaking of moral authority:
"Pope Francis convened his ambassadors from across the Middle East on Thursday for three days of meetings to find ways to better protect Christians targeted by Islamic militants and care for those who have been forced to flee their homes. The meeting brought together Vatican envoys from Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Turkey. They were joined by various heads of the Holy See bureaucracy."
Also see:
Vatican rep says 2015 ‘ideal time’ for pope NY visit
Pope Francis beatifies Pope Paul VI
Divided bishops water down welcome to gays and divorced Catholics
At synod, bishops take steps toward transparency, tolerance
Pope mulls removing marriage annulment charges
"Rome’s mayor defied Italy’s government Saturday and registered 16 gay marriages celebrated abroad. Gay marriage is illegal in Italy. Interior Minister Angelino Alfano recently sent a notice to local prefects saying any registrations of foreign gay marriages would be voided. But Mayor Ignazio Marino received applause at city hall, where couples gathered to make their marriages official in Rome’s city ledger. He transcribed the dates and locations of their weddings (AP)."
They have just lost it.
Time to send in the troops:
"Peace Corps applications soar after red tape cut" by T. Rees Shapiro | Washington Post October 09, 2014
WASHINGTON — Applications to the Peace Corps have surged to a two-decade high after a series of recent reforms to the recruitment process at the country’s signature volunteer organization, officials said.
More than 17,000 people submitted applications to the Peace Corps this year, up 70 percent compared with the applications in 2013. The 17,336 new applicants in the 2014 fiscal year make up the largest field of candidates since 1992, when 17,438 applied.
‘‘This milestone reminds us that Americans today want to serve others and make a difference, and we are making great strides to reduce barriers to service and modernize the Peace Corps,’’ director Carrie Hessler-Radelet said in a statement.
The Peace Corps, established in 1961, is in the midst of a reformation under Hessler-Radelet, who took the helm of the organization in June and has focused on reducing the amount of red tape applicants face to attract more applicants.
In the half-century since its inception, the Peace Corps has sent more than 215,000 Americans overseas — to far-flung locales such as Madagascar and Macedonia — to perform good works on behalf of the US government. But interest has dwindled in recent years....
Maybe that was the intent when JFK created it; however, it has acted more like non-official cover for CIA agents over the years (just like USAID).
In July, Hessler-Radelet announced a top-down revision of the recruitment process.
Beginning this year, candidates could choose the country where they want to serve and their program specialty, such as education or health.
The new application was streamlined, allowing candidates to complete their packet within an hour.
--more--"
"Obama authorizes 1,500 more troops in Iraq" by Helene Cooper and Michael D. Shear | New York Times November 08, 2014
WASHINGTON — President Obama has authorized the deployment of an additional 1,500 US troops to Iraq in the coming months.
That would double the number of Americans meant to train and advise Iraqi and Kurdish forces as they plan a major offensive expected in the spring against Islamic State fighters who have poured into the country from Syria.
Pentagon officials said military advisers will establish training sites across Iraq in a significant expansion of the US military campaign in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State.
Thank God they are not combat troops!
A Defense Department official said a number of military personnel would deploy specifically to Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold in western Iraq that was the scene of bloody fighting for years after the 2003 US-led invasion.
In recent months Sunni militants with the Islamic State have been seizing and holding territory across Anbar.
That's the war-promoting narrative coming from my propaganda pre$$ anyway.
In addition, White House budget officials said they will ask Congress for $5 billion for military operations in the Middle East against the Islamic State, including $1.6 billion to train and equip Iraqi troops.
Already did that and those troops allegedly collapsed in the face of ISIS, but what the hell? It's government-imposed austerity at home though.
At its height in 2006 and 2007, the Iraq War was costing the United States more than $60 billion a year.
So I guess this round is a deal, huh?
Administration officials said the expanded effort was intended to help the Iraqis break the Islamic State’s occupation in northern and western Iraq, re-establish the government’s control over the country’s major roads and borders, and retake Mosul, a city of about 1 million people 250 miles north of Baghdad.
The timing of the announcement — three days after the midterm elections — raised the question of whether the administration, wary of angering a war-weary American public, decided to wait until after the elections to minimize damage to Democratic candidates.
It minimized nothing and just made us angrier!!
DISINGENUOUS DEMOCRATS!!
For several weeks now, administration officials have said they expected they would have to send additional troops to help the Iraqi forces, who initially disintegrated in the face of the rampaging Islamic State.
You know, after being trained and equipped by the U.S. to the tune of billions.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, acting on weeks-old advice from top generals, formally requested the additional troops this week, according to Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. Pentagon officials said that Hagel was responding to a request from the Iraqi government for the troops and that US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, had assessed the Iraqi units and determined that help was needed.
They ignored the Iraqi government when it was Maliki asking for help (until it was too late).
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Obama has authorized the additional personnel to operate at Iraqi bases, even those outside the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, and Irbil, the Kurdish capital.
Until now, US troops have been operating at a headquarters with Iraqi and Kurdish forces in those two cities.
Administration officials insisted Friday that the doubling to 3,000 US troops in Iraq was consistent with the president’s policy that the United States is not engaged in combat there.
Obama, who ran against the Iraq War in his 2008 presidential campaign and pulled all US troops from the country in 2011, has repeatedly ruled out sending ground troops back, even as he is deepening US military engagement in both Iraq and Syria.
It all depends on what you call them.
A senior administration official, who asked for anonymity under ground rules imposed by the White House, rejected suggestions that the doubling of forces amounted to mission creep.
“The mission is not changing at all for our service members,” the official said, adding that the president “made clear that we are not going to be putting US men and women back into combat. We will continue to assure people that this is a different kind of mission.”
I'm so sick of being LIED TO by THIS GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
During a conference call with reporters, senior administration officials denied that Obama waited until after the midterm elections to announce the deployment so as not to alarm an already skittish electorate.
The lies roll of their tongues every time they open their mouths!!!!!!
“It’s being done now, quite frankly, because the Iraqis have demonstrated the willingness and the will to go after ISIL,” Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, told reporters after the call, using another name for the Islamic State. Iraqi forces, he said, have “reached the point where they need additional help and guidance.”
Kirby said Iraq’s new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, had requested the help. “There was no political angle to the timing here,” he said.
Meaning there is a total political angle to the timing.
Administration officials did not express any heightened concern, at least during the conference call, about the military effort. So far it consists largely of US airstrikes on Islamic State artillery positions, vehicles and, in a few cases, small patrol boats on the Euphrates River.
White House officials said the request for $5 billion will be presented to Congress during the lame-duck session.
Meaning DEMOCRATS will be PUSHING IT THROUGH!
Officials said the decision to send additional troops was based on legal authority the president has from Congress. But they said the president wanted a new authorization from Congress for continuing US military action in Iraq and Syria, which Obama has said will last into the presidency of his successor.
That will be the war criminal's legacy. Not immigration, not healthcare, just ceaseless, endless war.
--more--"
"Pentagon says US troops’ role in Iraq could expand" by Donna Cassata and Lolita C. Baldor | Associated Press November 14, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon warned Congress on Thursday that the long, drawn-out military campaign against Islamic State militants is just beginning and could expand to include modest numbers of US forces fighting alongside Iraqi troops.
But they won't be combat boots on the ground, yada-yada-yada.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and delivered a cautious assessment of the progress in the three-month-old war against Islamic extremists who brutally rule large sections of Iraq and Syria.
It was more than a status report.
***********
President Obama is seeking congressional approval for $5.6 billion to expand the US mission in Iraq and send up to 1,500 more American troops. The administration is also pressing for reauthorization of its plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels, with that mandate expiring Dec. 11.
The rebels that have been routed, but since the U.S. is behind all the rebels.... and we are up to $5.6 billion now, huh?
Hagel said the coalition, which has grown with 16 new members since September, has made progress, with the militants’ advances stalling and in some instances, reversed by airstrikes and other military operations.
I'm sick of the same old bullshit, Chuck.
But he maintained that the struggle will be long and difficult in what could be a multiyear campaign.
And Obummer just did this, no vote, nothing. Committed us to decades more of war just like a.... dictator!
Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the United States has a modest force in Iraq now, serving as advisers and trainers, and ‘‘any expansion of that, I think, would be equally modest. I just don’t foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent.’’
But....
Dempsey’s comments echoed his testimony to Congress in September when he raised the possibility of an expanded US role. Obama has said the operation will not involve US ground troops. The types of troops likely to accompany Iraqi forces would be there to call in or direct airstrikes or other close air support.
In other words, they will be in the thick of the fight but not be combat troops. What will the cover story be when one is finally killed?
US and coalition forces have conducted about 900 air strikes in Iraq and Syria as they contend with a core militant force of 15,000 to 18,000 fighters.
That's all for fighters? And yet they have taken over huge cities along with vast swaths of land?\
Something is el stinko!!
‘‘This pressure is having an effect on potential ISIL recruits and collaborators — striking a blow to morale and recruitment,’’ Hagel said. ‘‘We know that. Our intelligence is very clear on that. And as Iraqi forces build strength, the tempo and intensity of our coalition’s air campaign will accelerate in tandem.’’
Pffffft!
Maybe it won't be years, huh?
He used the term ISIL, an acronym for the group’s former name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Who gives a f*** what he called them?
His testimony came as the leader of the Islamic State group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said in an audio recording posted Thursday that the organization will fight to the last man. It was his first public statement since coalition forces launched airstrikes against his fighters in Iraq and Syria, in which Baghdadi allegedly was wounded.
Pffft!
As part of the campaign, the administration announced that special presidential envoy John Allen and deputy special presidential envoy Brett McGurk will travel to France and the United Arab Emirates to discuss coalition efforts to defeat the militants.
Obama has authorized the deployment of advisory teams and trainers to bolster struggling Iraqi forces across the country, including into Iraq’s western Anbar province where fighting with Islamic State militants has been fierce.
The president’s plan could boost the total number of American troops in Iraq to 3,100. There are currently about 1,400 US troops there, out of the 1,600 previously authorized.
Lawmakers expressed skepticism about limiting the US deployment to advisers and trainers
Other lawmakers expressed concerns about the United States getting dragged back into the fight in Iraq, with Representative Niki Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts, pressing the Pentagon leaders about the exit strategy.
That is YEARS away!
Related: Mass. Democrats ever reluctant to back military action
Yeah, right.
--more--"
Must have rolled in a circle:
"US shouldering brunt of ISIS air campaign" by Bryan Bender | Globe Staff November 10, 2014
WASHINGTON — The military coalition attacking the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been heralded by President Obama as “almost unprecedented,” especially for the participation of Arab air forces. Indeed, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain have helped carry out strikes inside Syria.
But as the air operation enters its fourth month, most of the missions — including the vast majority of bombing runs — are still being conducted by US forces, with the majority of the others performed by Western allies, according to a Globe review of official statistics and interviews with officials from partner countries.
We knew that was going to be the case.
This has raised new questions about whether key Arab allies have completely bought into the US strategy, which could fail without strong — and visible — local support on the ground and in the air.
The issue is likely to play prominently when Congress reconvenes this week to debate Obama’s request for $5.6 billion in war funding and a formal vote to authorize the use of force.
That's from the LAME-DUCK DEMOCRATS!
You know, the party of peace in AmeriKa.
“This mission made sense if we are supporting regional actors willing to police extremism in their own region,” said Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee who recently visited the coalition’s joint air operations in Qatar.
“It makes no sense if the regional actors are not willing to stand up to it and we are being called on to do what regional actors should do.”
Kaine said the nature of the military coalition, including the readiness of Iraqi forces, Kurdish militias, and moderate Syrian rebels to wage an effective ground campaign, will weigh heavily on the minds of lawmakers in both parties.
“I do have some colleagues whose votes I think will depend upon the extent of the coalition,” Kaine said in an interview.
The New York Times reported that the Iraqi forces’ ill-preparedness to take on Islamic State in the field was also hindering the US’s ability to gather intelligence for the airstrikes.
Hagel just told me the intelligence is impeccable.
And as the Iraqis try to hold back the Islamic State advance on the ground, the United States is carrying most of the load from the air, at an estimated $8 million a day.
I was told the Islamic State had stalled and been roiled back, but whatever.
As for the $8 million a day.... austerity here at home, Americans.
The United States has also sent 1,500 military personnel to advise the Iraqis and secure US facilities and said Friday it will send 1,500 more to serve in a “noncombat” role in the coming months.
If you say so.
Statistics released by the military show the heavy reliance on US air power.
Disgusting. Reducing the planet to rubble over the cover of lies -- all in the name of world domination for the damn dollar.
Eighty-six percent of the 8,007 missions flown between Aug. 8 and Nov. 3 were carried out by the United States, according to US Air Forces Central Command. These include bombing runs, intelligence-gathering flights, and midair re-fuelings.
What is the CARBON FOOTPRINT on all this anyway?
The coalition expanded after Sept. 23, when the strikes were extended into Syria, to include the participation of the four Arab allies. But the United States is still flying more than 75 percent of the missions, according to the data — or 3,320 out of 4,410 since that date.
That comes even as Western allies such as Denmark, Australia, France, and Belgium have recently stepped up their role.
While the Western partners commonly discuss their role publicly, Arab governments have provided scant information since the widely publicized strikes in September.
One exception is Bahrain, which participated in the initial phase of airstrikes against ISIS in Syria in late September but has not dropped bombs since September, according to Salman Al Jalahma, a spokesman for Bahrain’s embassy in Washington.
“The airstrikes have been the extent of our military participation,” he said.
Related: Bahrain Bans Opposition
That and the U.S. Fifth Fleet is why the Bo$ton Globe doesn't bother much with Bahrain.
Other Arab participants in the military coalition declined to provide details, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan. The government of Saudi Arabia did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Even many of the attack missions attributed to Arab nations are limited in nature, according to US military officials.
For example, while the Gulf nations have participated in more than 20 percent of the fighter sorties in Syria, their pilots are often serving as “mission commanders” or “escorts.”
Mission commanders don’t always drop bombs and escorts generally never do, according to the command.
A US military spokesman, however, defended the Arab role in the military coalition.
“Their contributions to air operations have been significant,” said Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Edward Sholtis.
He said military officers from Gulf nations are also serving as liaison officers inside the so-called Coalition Air Operations Center in Qatar.
The total number of nations contributing financially or in the form of humanitarian aid to Operation Inherent Resolve is much larger than those engaged in military operations — some 60 nations, the US State Department said.
We were sold the same shit regarding Iraq -- as this latest foray gets a cute name!
But the military coalition, particularly the Arab role, has been seen as critical.
“Their contributions will not be on the level of NATO allies, let alone US forces, but they can be helpful,” said Christopher S. Chivvis, a military specialist at the government-funded Rand Corp.
You can discredit anything they say, then.
“In the 2011 Libya intervention, the participation of Qatar, UAE, and Jordan was viewed by US policy makers as a broader demonstration of Arab support.”
Yet the relatively modest contributions of the Arab partners, which all operate US-manufactured fighter jets outfitted with precision guided bombs, are viewed by some specialists as reflecting Arab leaders’ concerns about becoming too embroiled in the fight against the Sunni militant group that has adherents in some of their own countries.
Even our allies are not really with us.
“At the end of the day everybody wanted the United States to come and use the Air Force so everyone could have an alibi,” Soli Ozel, a professor of international relations and political science at Istanbul Bilgi University in Turkey, said at a conference convened late last month by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Carnegie was a self-proclaimed pacifist that sold steel to the U.S. Navy so they could build a fleet of warships.
Others expressed concern the conflict is being perceived by many people in the region — especially the young and unemployed who are considered potential recruits for the Islamic State — as another example of US military interventionism.
It's not just them; the entire world sees this for what it is!
“You talk to them and they clearly tell you ‘this is not our war,’” said Marwan Muasher, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment.
“They don’t see it as a cultural war; they don’t see it as a war for values. They see it as an American war against the region. And if it is an American war against the region, they are not going to side with the Americans.”
But their governments will, sort of.
Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank, said a major problem now is that when it comes to the United States’ regional allies, “you have a coalition of partners that all have different agendas.”
“They are in it now, but how long are they in it?” he asked.
I'm so glad my newspaper turns to Zionist war mongers for expert advice all the time. Really makes you think the issue through, you know?
--more--"
Time for me to roll on out of here for the night.
NEXT DAY UPDATES:
"Top US general in Iraq to assess anti-IS campaign" by Hamza Hendawi | Associated Press November 16, 2014
BAGHDAD — America’s top military leader arrived in Iraq on Saturday on a previously unannounced visit, his first since a US-led coalition began launching airstrikes against the extremist Islamic State group.
Still flying into the country in complete secrecy until after the press handout. Yes, things are going swimmingly well in Iraq.
The trip by Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came just two days after he told Congress that the United States would consider dispatching a modest number of American forces to fight with Iraqi troops against the extremist group.
The Iraqi military and security forces, trained by the United States at the cost of billions of dollars, melted away in the face of the group’s stunning offensive this summer, when it captured most of northern and western Iraq, including the country’s second-largest city, Mosul.
Dempsey said Thursday that Iraqi forces were doing a better job now, although an effort to move into Mosul or to restore the border with Syria would require more complex operations.
The "spring offensive" I've been reading about.
He also told the House Armed Services Committee that America has a modest force in Iraq now, and that ‘‘any expansion of that, I think, would be equally modest.’’
‘‘I just don’t foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent,’’ he said.
Doesn't foresee it, BUT.... !!!!
Dempsey’s spokesman, Air Force Colonel Ed Thomas, said the general planned to visit US troops, commanders, and Iraqi leaders. ‘‘The primary purpose of his visit is to get a firsthand look at the situation in Iraq, receive briefings, and get better sense of how the campaign is progressing.’’
It's a multiyear effort, meaning this is officially now WWIII. It's the last act.
The visit included talks in Baghdad with Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and US Ambassador Stuart E. Jones, Thomas said.
Dempsey later flew to Irbil, capital of Iraq’s largely autonomous northern Kurdish region, where he met with Kurdish President Massoud Barzani.
Dempsey also visited the US joint operations center in Irbil, got a briefing on the Kurdish offensive against the Islamic State group, and held a town hall meeting with troops there, Thomas said.
The Pentagon has plans to establish a center in Irbil where US troops will provide assistance to Iraqi forces at the brigade and higher levels. The United States also is planning to set up a training site near Irbil.
After all the billions already spent, it is pour in more to fight the phantom menace, blah, blah, blah!! $een this movie before!
According to plans laid out last week, the United States expects to train nine Iraqi security forces brigades and three Kurdish Peshmerga brigades.
Dempsey’s visit to Iraq comes a day after Iraqi forces drove Islamic State militants out of a strategic oil refinery town north of Baghdad, scoring their biggest victory yet.
Yeah, we are always winning -- unless troops need to be deployed, then it's urgent and we are losing. Whatever works to push forward the war agenda, doncha know, even if that means self-created self-serving demons of Islam, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah.
The loss of Beiji marks the latest in a series of setbacks for the jihadi group, which has lost hundreds of fighters to US-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, particularly in the group’s stalled advance on the Syrian town of Kobani. On Friday, activists there reported significant progress by the town’s Kurdish defenders.
This garbage war propaganda has really lost its luster (like the shine coming off a turd).
Meanwhile on Saturday, two parked car bombs exploded minutes apart north of Baghdad, targeting a security checkpoint, authorities said. The attack killed nine people and wounded 32, according to police and hospital officials.
Oh, yeah, the war and loss of life, ho-hum, afterthought paragraph.
--more--"
"Sending US troops to fight ISIS will end in failure" by Stephen Kinzer | November 14, 2014
How wonderful that the United States wants to help victimized people in Iraq and Syria! We played no small role in casting their region into its present chaos, so trying to repair some of the damage makes sense. But sending more American troops there, as President Obama did last week, will repair nothing. It will do the opposite: prolong the war, guarantee more human suffering, and serve the interests of the Islamic State and our other extremist enemies.
Most American interventions in the Middle East over the last half-century have been aimed at resolving problems created by previous interventions. This one fits the pattern perfectly. It is not “a completely different game,” as Admiral John Kirby claimed in announcing the new deployment. It is the same old game. Washington remains gripped by the astonishingly durable fantasy that there is a military solution to problems afflicting the Middle East. In fact there is none. It is time to break the cycle of intervening, withdrawing, and then returning to clean up the unexpected mess.
Americans, like everyone else in the world, wish to be rid of enemies. We are led to believe that we command the world’s most powerful army. So the solution seems obvious: use the powerful army to crush the enemy. According to last week’s announcement, our troop strength in Iraq is to be doubled to 3,000, and we will spend $5 billion to fight there over the next year. With that commitment of soldiers and cash, we hope to accomplish what we failed to accomplish in Iraq a decade ago while spending $60 billion per year and fielding a force of more than 150,000. Only willful self-deception allows us to imagine that such an enterprise can succeed.
Although we will hear various euphemisms in the coming months, this is a new war. American soldiers are headed for the battlefield and will fight back if attacked. American planes are firing missiles at human targets every day. After the recent escalation was announced, a White House aide was quoted as saying, “The mission is not changing.” That was a howler on a level with Donald Rumsfeld’s declaration that our last invasion of Iraq had “literally nothing to do with oil.”
By cleverly using grotesque theatrics, the Islamic State seems to be achieving its goal of luring the United States back into war.
Uh-huh. So we can overthrow Assad like "we" -- I don't include myself in the group of psychopathic, war criminal leaders or propaganda pre$$titutes -- have been trying to do for over three years now.
It knows that the presence of American soldiers in the Middle East will attract more radicals and misguided idealists to its cause.
And the CIA will help facilitate such things at every turn (if the ghosts even exist and are not just funny names thrown at us in a propaganda sheet called a paper).
For many of these young men and women, fighting Kurds or Shiite militias may not seem especially glorious. To face the mighty United States on Middle Eastern soil, and if possible to kill an American or die at American hands, is their dream. We are giving them a chance to realize it. Through its impressive mastery of social media, the Islamic State is already using our escalation as a recruiting tool.
As opposed to the institutions that are bringing me this slop.
This war is doomed to failure.
But at least a few will get rich and a useless population will be culled. Gotta look on the bright side.
We do not know the territory where we will be fighting. Many Iraqis and Syrians fear, mistrust, or hate us. Our putative allies are not reliable — nor should they be, since “reliable” implies putting American interests ahead of their own. By fighting, we extend the war we say we want to stop. We may even attract terrorist retaliation.
Look at that. Saying there will be a new false flag on America!
Americans should finally give Middle Easterners a chance to shape their own future. We have a moral and strategic duty to help them — but through an intense political and diplomatic effort, not by fighting. Over the past couple of years we have all but ignored this option. We set so many conditions for discussions among warring factions in Syria that we were never even able to entice them to the table. Instead of sending more troops and more billions of dollars, we should drop our shortsighted refusal to negotiate with powerful countries and factions without whom these conflicts can never be settled.
The Islamic State is a brutal force that poses a serious threat to Iraq and Syria. In the months and years ahead, it will either become more moderate or be defeated by local uprisings. Neither will happen immediately. A period of terror may well lie ahead for some Iraqis and Syrians. That is awful, but the US Army is no solution. Our own history shows that nations, cultures, and civilizations emerge from conflict. Only Middle Easterners can stabilize the Middle East. Our new war prevents them from doing it.
--more--"
And now we got a new fake video. Sigh.