Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 18, 2014

As Islamic militants continue their murderous advance in Iraq, the Pentagon is moving more firepower and manpower into the region to prepare for whatever U.S. President Barack Obama orders. Already at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, dozens of Marines and Army troops have moved in to beef up security. Another 100 personnel are in the region to provide support if needed, the Pentagon said. The aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush and five other warships are now in the Persian Gulf. More than 500 Marines and dozens of helicopters are on standby.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

gracieamazed

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Has anyone seen the Iraqi Army? They far outnumber these ISIS terrorists, they have all the weapons they could want, are they just cowards or what? I see pictures of them captured by ISIS preparing for execution, I have to ask myself, why wouldn't they fight and risk death rather than just accept execution?

#1 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-17 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Once again this nation has to pay for W's f up. Hey at least the neocon's are happy that their dream of never ending war is coming true.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-06-17 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

There will be no boots on the ground except the boots we put on the ground- Obama.

#3 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-17 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#3 "There will be no boots on the ground. I cut the budget for boots so I could let DHS buy 8 quadrillion rounds of ammunition for training. We will be using the term "feet on the ground" from now on." - Obama

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-06-17 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

There will be no boots on the ground except the boots we put on the ground- Obama.

#3 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-17 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

No. You guys have it all wrong. No boots on the ground means they will be wearing tennis shoes.

#5 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-17 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sandals would be better in the desert.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2014-06-17 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Arming ISIS in Syria … Then Bombing Them in Iraq?

So, it looks like the US will ultimately use aerial strikes (and undoubtedly, Special Forces and mercenaries) in Iraq against ISIS at the same time it is supplying them with lethal weapons in Syria.

This bears repeating. The US is arming ISIS in Syria and is now considering military action against them in neighboring Iraq.

"President Obama has crossed a moral red line. Recently, he did the unthinkable: He announced that the US government would directly arm terrorist groups in Syria," wrote Jeffrey K. Tuhner in the Washington Times last September.

How prophetic his warning turned out to be. Obama's decision to arm al-Qaeda related groups in Syria has come back to haunt him in Iraq.

And Washington added more fuel to the fire in Syria by announcing on June 6 that it would be sending "lethal aid" to the opposition there. National Security Advisor Susan Rice insisted that US weapons will only go to "vetted" opposition groups. No one really believes this, particularly with the porous Syria/Iraq border and Obama's previous waiver of the law preventing the US from arming terrorist groups.

The only question is, how many of the lethal weapons Washington sent to Syria are now inside Iraq? Talk about blowback – weapons the US provided are being used to take down US puppet-partners in Iraq.

AntiWar

#7 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2014-06-17 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

are they just cowards or what? "

i'm sure if they could drone them from afar they'd be plenty brave...

#8 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Has anyone seen the Iraqi Army? They far outnumber these ISIS terrorists, they have all the weapons they could want, are they just cowards or what? I see pictures of them captured by ISIS preparing for execution, I have to ask myself, why wouldn't they fight and risk death rather than just accept execution?

#1 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-06-17 10:17 AM | FLAG:

What's left of the Iraqi army is counter-attacking North of Baghdad. Their special forces in Mosul stood their ground and were wiped out. The regular army was led by officers appointed by cronyism instead of ability. They abandoned the troops they were supposed to lead. That wound up with the regulars milling around with no leadership, no orders. That's a death sentence when you do not have decades of training invested in building the principles of individual initiative and leadership.

ISIS came hard and fast. They were organized, well equipped, had a battle plan, and an occupational plan. Organization, speed, and morale will trump better equipment and numbers every time.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 08:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Organization, speed, and morale will trump better equipment and numbers every time."

well then, stick a fork in our side...

#10 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 08:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

and make no mistake, it's still anybody's fight, ISIS has not won. Iraqi militias are growing massively and rapidly. They've retaken towns to the North. The Peshmerga holds a position that can push less than 50 miles West, serving ISIS's lead elements lines of communication back to Mosul, giving them a chance to reduce that pocket and turn it into a war of attrition they can win, instead of a mobility war they suck at.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 08:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

ISIS has not won"

oh so? tell me then, what are their objectives, and have they been met?

#12 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 08:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

ok. let me help. american. made weapons, formerly in the iraqi army's hands, are now going to help fight assad in syria. antiaircraft weaponry are also being secured to protect the region from airstrikes. let's see how that affects america's penchant for airstrikes and drone attacks...

isis' objectives are as follows:

1. overthrow assad and syrian govt.
2. create a sunni corridor between damascus and baghdad
3. instill islamic law and declare independence form both syria and iraq.
4. shift focus to palestine, jordan, eastern turkey, egypt and the caucasus.
5. expand territorial holdings to include the above.

isis has its act together structurally. they aren't just a terrorist group in the traditional sense of the word-- they aren't al qaeda-- they are not formless and faceless. they are extremely well organized from top to bottom. they have leadership, plans, a police force, etc.

one only has to look around on the web and sift through the garbage posted on it daily in order to find diamonds of truth.

isis poses a long-term threat to both iran and israel. they also pose a longterm threat to-- russia.

#13 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 08:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

They've got a lot of goals. The ones in Mosul are more or less being met. They are the new local government, and apparently better liked than the last government.

On the bigger picture, strategically, they were pushing on 3 fronts. The Peshmerga halted them and drove them back on the NE front. The push on the West from Fallujah has made no gains in 7 months. The central North front is stopped at Samarra and facing counter-attacks from an Iraqi army with something to prove and rapidly reinforcing Iraqi loyalist militia. Over in Syria, they are losing to Assad forces who are slowly but surely grinding them down.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-06-18 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

The regular army was led by officers appointed by cronyism instead of ability.
#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg

They must have learned that from W's reconstruction staff.

#15 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-18 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

On McLaughlin they stated ISIS is now the richest terrorist group on the planet. Besides funding from Sunni Government's and private parties, ISIS emptied one Bank in Mosul of half a billion dollars and collects "taxes" from local business's.

#16 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-18 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

"On McLaughlin they stated ISIS is now the richest terrorist group on the planet"

people are only rich if they have the ability to spend the money they own.

so the terrorists can go into the average middle eastern wal-mart and buy 500,000 lawn dart kits.so what?

it's not like they can give that money to the usa to buy arms...

come to think of it, they don't have to. americans will find a way to "unintentionally" get them into their hands anyway...

#17 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

As far as the arming of ISIS in Syria, I think we all know EXACTLY who was pressing for that, and you'll have to look LEFT to see em.

There is a reason so many on the right (and even some left) have been rabid about NOT getting involved in Syria. Assad may be horrible, but it does not take a crystal ball to have a hint as to what would probably replace him.

And weapons in Syria could not doubt be given to middle eastern "Howard Deans", but we all know exact who would end up actually USING those weapons (which if any arming happened, is almost certainly how it went down....).

So, as I and others, have been saying since DAY ONE in Syria: Assad, crappy and horrible as he is, is almost certainly the LEAST BAD option in Syria.

And in Iraq, even a greater Iranian presence, with all its absolute CERTAIN downsides, INCLUDING terror export, is probably the 'least bad' option.

But if we can find another Saddam, or Assad, or Khadafy, and get him in charge in Iraq, that would probably be a 'least bad' option.

THE OPTION THAT DOES NOT EXIST:
--No terror export ==AND== no LARGE NUMBERS of U.S. troops on the ground for pretty much forever. (and even then there would probably be terror export....).

There is no action the U.S. can take, and there is no action that the U.S. can refrain from taking, that will lead to a terror free and dictator free outcome.

But the options WITH dictators have a long record of significantly less terror. Not zero terror by any means, but less.

And NONE of the above rules out large numbers of U.S. cluster bombs.

#18 | Posted by USAF242 at 2014-06-18 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is no action the U.S. can take, and there is no action that the U.S. can refrain from taking, that will lead to a terror free and dictator free outcome."

but, there are choices that have been made in the past, choices that are currently being made, and choices that will likely be made in the future that ultimately left, leave, or will leave other choices un-made, which effectively demolishes the queer logic behind the above statement.

#19 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-06-18 12:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's something that doesn't ring-true about the coverage of crisis in Iraq. The whole fable about 1,500 jihadis scaring the pants off 30,000 Iraqi security guards to the point where they threw away their rifles, changed their clothes and headed for the hills, is just not believable. Here's a different take:

"…the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's primary theoretician and Saddam's right-hand man, ‘Izzaat Ibraaheem Al-Douri, himself a native of Mosul…was searching out allies in a very hostile post-Saddam Iraq … Still on the run and wanted for execution by the Al-Maliki government, Al-Douri still controlled a vast network of Iraqi Sunni Ba'athists who operated in a manner similar to the old Odessa organization that helped escaped Nazis after WWII … he did not have the support structure needed to oust Al-Maliki, so, he found an odd alliance in ISIS through the offices of Erdoghan and Bandar. Our readers should note that the taking of Mosul was accomplished by former Iraqi Ba'athist officers suspiciously abandoning their posts and leaving a 52,000 man military force without any leadership thereby forcing a complete collapse of the city's defenses. The planning and collaboration cannot be coincidental."

The Shrub era RAND Corp plan to stabilize the Middle East by opening up the Government to the Shias has backfired. It has destabilized the M.E. and strengthened Iran.

This whole fiasco is about Iran, who turned out to be the biggest winner in the Iraq War sweepstakes. Naturally, that pisses off people in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to no end, so they've cooked up this goofy plan to either remove Maliki altogether or significantly trim his wings. Isn't that what's going on? And that's why Obama is holding a gun to Maliki's head and telling him what hoops he has to jump through in order to get US help. Because he's determined to weaken Iran's hegemonic grip on Baghdad.

ISIS is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests, but without Western forces directly participating. The West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to ISIS. Is Obama's reluctance to launch an attack on ISIS indicate that he wants to diminish Iran's power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders? Yes, yes and yes. (Mike Whitney)

#20 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-18 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Islamic militant = freedom fighters who believe that they own their own country, not in the employ of the american empire.

#21 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-18 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope the idiots that supplied ISIS with AntiTank Guided Missles and MANPADS in Syria are in the lead US tank that rolls thru Iraq if we get involved on the ground. Obama and McCain can take driving lessons from Dukakis.....

#22 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-18 07:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort