Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

ISIS Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on October 17, 2014 3 Comments
The U.S. Military is on a mission to manage expectations regarding the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. military operations against Islamic State, gave an update at the Pentagon about the military campaign in Iraq, and emphasized that while U.S. forces have made gains against Islamic State militants, we still have a long way to go. From AP's Big Story:
Army Gen. Lloyd Austin said he believes the Iraqi government will successfully enlist the support of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province to turn the tide in that important region, where the militants have made recent gains. And he said he sees no imminent threat to the international airport west of Baghdad, where U.S. Apache helicopters are monitoring IS efforts to make inroads on the capital. "The campaign to destroy ISIL will take time and there will be occasional setbacks along the way," Austin told a Pentagon news conference, using another acronym for the Islamic State group, "and particularly in these early stages of the campaign as we coach and mentor a force that is actively working to regenerate capability after years of neglect and poor leadership."
I recently wrote a rather frustrated article about the actions of the Obama administration in conjunction with our mission in northern Iraq; the optics surrounding this administration are embarrassing on an international level, which is why I believe that it's a smart move for the military to temper expectations while emphasizing plans and progress.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 13, 2014 3 Comments
I was in high school when U.S. troops laid siege to Baghdad. My boyfriend at the time helped secure and eventually occupy several of the palaces, and his phone calls from the first warzone either of us had ever known helped me gain a deeper understanding into what it means to send our troops in to "take" a city. So you'll understand when I say that I find the recent developments in northern Iraq and Baghdad a little difficult to swallow. Today's report from Bloomberg details how ISIS militants are using their own unique tactics to push back against U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq:
Islamic State claimed responsibility for a triple suicide bombing in northern Iraq that killed at least 58 people as militants defied U.S.-led airstrikes to stage attacks across Iraq and Syria. The group said on a jihadist website that three foreign fighters carried out the attacks yesterday in Qara Tappah in the ethnically mixed province of Diyala, 75 miles north of Baghdad. A roadside bomb also killed the police chief of the western Iraqi city of Ramadi, where security forces are struggling to repel militant attacks. Islamic State has so far resisted efforts by the Iraqi military to wrest back control of Sunni areas of the country, while continuing its own offensive in Iraq and neighboring Syria. President Barack Obama’s senior military adviser warned that militants were blending with Sunni populations in communities near Baghdad, increasing the likelihood of attacks on the Iraqi capital. “I have no doubt there will be days when they use indirect fire into Baghdad,” the adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey, said in an interview yesterday with “This Week” on ABC. Indirect fire can refer to use of mortars or artillery fire.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 09, 2014 15 Comments
Plenty of conservatives have faulted President Obama for his handling of ISIS but now even President Jimmy Carter is jumping on board. Jonathan Topaz of Politico reported:
Jimmy Carter: President Obama blew it on ISIL Former President Jimmy Carter is criticizing President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, saying he has shifting policies and waited too long to take action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In an interviewed published Tuesday in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the 39th president said the Obama administration, by not acting sooner, allowed ISIL to build up its strength. “[W]e waited too long. We let the Islamic State build up its money, capability and strength and weapons while it was still in Syria,” he said, using an alternate name for the terrorist group. “Then when [ISIL] moved into Iraq, the Sunni Muslims didn’t object to their being there and about a third of the territory in Iraq was abandoned.”
Politico is referencing this article by Jim Jones:
Carter unhappy with Obama’s policies in Middle East Former President Jimmy Carter put down his hammer at a Meadowbrook Habitat for Humanity project Tuesday for a wide-ranging interview that touched on subjects such as the Obama administration’s use of drones, women’s rights and faith.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 08, 2014 19 Comments
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace, was released yesterday, and what it reveals has the media gaping---Democrats scrambling for a distraction. Panetta's memoir focuses on several aspects of Obama's foreign policy, but the section that's causing the most chatter highlights the complete lack of leadership shown after the attack on our embassy in Benghazi:
On the deadly 2012 siege of the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, Panetta said the administration had no indication of an attack coinciding with the Sept. 11 anniversary. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the violence. Panetta, who also served as director of the CIA, said he questioned "from the beginning" the CIA's initial assessment that the attack was the work of a mob of protesters rather than an organized assault. "It seemed to me that most spontaneous demonstrators don't arrive for a protest carrying rocket-propelled grenade launchers," he said. But Panetta defended the intelligence agency, saying such work is difficult and often contradictory. "It was not clear at the time that there were two separate incidents, separated by distance and by several hours," he said.
"I didn't have any specific information, but the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, there's something else going and. And I just---from the very beginning sensed that this was an attack...that this was a terrorist attack on our compound."

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 30, 2014 8 Comments
Do we really need to invent new terror groups to justify America's actions in the Middle East? Is the Obama administration so reluctant to admit that al-Qaeda still exists? If you ask Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, the answer to both of those questions is yes:
The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist We’re being had. Again. For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees. Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name. Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability. Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade. Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group. The who? There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize. You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the –Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it. The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda.
Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. As we all know, the Obama administration loves to fuss with nomenclature.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 28, 2014 13 Comments
Someone who will be mortified that I am citing him asks this question:
DID ALTON NOLEN JUST WIN THE SENATE FOR THE GOP?
Good question, though I don't think the answer is correct:
.... So if what we're reading is accurate, I'd say the narrative is this: man with a rap sheet converts to Islam in prison -- where Islamic identity is, to some extent, like gang membership (as is white supremacism). He's not the most stable person and Internet calls to violence speak to him. But it's hard to know whether something else would have made him snap sooner or later.... However, the right is going to tell us between now and November that eight-year-old Central Americans surrendering to the Border Patrol equal a beheading by a guy born in Oklahoma who never got closer to a Middle Eastern battlefield than a high-speed Internet connection could take him -- and America, I fear, will believe them. Will the GOP win all the close Senate races as a result? If so, I won't be surprised.
I don't think the Oklahoma beheading in itself will have any impact on the elections. With multiple ISIS beheadings of Americans all over the news, and with tales of ethnic and religious cleansing, torture and rape on a massive scale common knowledge, the beheading factor already is baked into the electoral cake. Obama's policy towards radical Islam and foreign policy generally has failed. The Middle East is as big a mess as it has been in several decades, maybe ever. Our President just went to the U.N. and equated a disputed shooting in Ferguson, MO, with ISIS mass terror.  That's the problem. The problem is not the Oklahoma beheading, it's an out of touch President, a polarizing Attorney General who finally is resigning, and an administration which picks and chooses its outrage in divisive ways:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 27, 2014 7 Comments
A Muslim civil rights lawyer and mother of three was found guilty of apostasy by an ISIS-founded sharia court in Mosul. Her offense? She posted a blog post to Facebook that was critical of ISIS' destruction of places of worship. She was then tortured for days and suffered a public executed by masked firing squad. According to Newser:
The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq says Samira Salih al-Nuaimi was seized from her home on Sept. 17 after allegedly posting messages on Facebook that were critical of the militants' destruction of places of worship in Mosul. According to the UN mission, al-Nuaimi was tried in a so-called "Sharia court" for apostasy, after which she was tortured for five days before the militants sentenced her to "public execution." She was killed on Monday, the UN mission said. Her Facebook page appears to have been removed since her death. "By torturing and executing a female human rights' lawyer and activist, defending in particular the civil and human rights of her fellow citizens in Mosul, [ISIS] continues to attest to its infamous nature, combining hatred, nihilism, and savagery, as well as its total disregard of human decency," Nickolay Mladenov, the UN envoy to Iraq, said in a statement. 
An AP wire story posted on Women of Grace has more details:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 26, 2014 52 Comments
A woman was beheaded by a fired co-worker, who recently had been trying to convert co-workers to Islam. Because the ISIS beheadings are so much in the news, one has to wonder if the perp was motivated by those beheadings, as opposed to "going postal" and using a firearm or just stabbing people. From USA Today:
A newly fired employee at a food processing plant in Moore, Okla., allegedly stabbed and beheaded a 54-year-old front office worker, police said Friday, according to local media. Police said the FBI was asked for assistance in the case because of the "manner of death" of the victim and reports from co-workers that the suspect, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, had recently started trying to convert several employees to Islam. Nolen had just been fired from Vaughan Foods on Thursday afternoon when he drove to the front of the building, hit another vehicle and walked inside, according to police, KFOR-TV reports. "Nolen encountered (fellow worker Colleen) Hufford with a knife," said Sgt. Jeremy Lewis with the Moore Police Department. "During the attack, Nolen severed the victims head."
Local television reports:

Posted by New Neo on September 24, 2014 20 Comments
The NY Times made a rather large error the other day, and then issued a correction:
"...[Our article] gave an incorrect comparison between efforts by the president to seek allies' support for this plans and President George W. Bush's efforts on such backing for the Iraq War. The approach Mr. Obama is taking is similar to the one Mr. Bush took; it is not the case that "Unlike Mr. Bush in the Iraq war, Mr. Obama has sought to surround the United States with partners."
Hot Air points out that the Times is hardly alone in its egregious error (or was it a purposeful falsehood, otherwise known as a lie?) What's more, what took the Times ten days to figure it out, when the Times own contemporaneous coverage of the Iraq War easily refuted it? It's the old "fool or knave" question again. You might ask why we should care anymore, and I have to admit I care a lot less than I once did, because I have grown accustomed to the MSM's tendency toward stupidity/ignorance, reckless disregard for the truth, propensity to lie, blatant bias, and intense and shameless arrogance. But the process by which the Times and the rest of the MSM forms the opinions of the public (and it still is highly influential in doing so) remains a huge problem.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 23, 2014 10 Comments
President Obama has come under fire not only from voters but from Congressmen and members of the media over his strategy---or lack thereof---to roll back ISIS in the Middle East. The U.S. has already escalated involvement in the region by initiating air strikes as part of a joint U.S.-Arab offensive against ISIS strongholds:
The U.S. and five Arab nations attacked the Islamic State group's headquarters in eastern Syria in nighttime raids Monday using land- and sea-based U.S. aircraft as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from two Navy ships in the Red Sea and the northern Persian Gulf. American warplanes also carried out eight airstrikes to disrupt what the military described as "imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western interests" by a network of al-Qaida veterans "with significant explosives skills," said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
If what Dempsey says is true (and as blunt as he has been in his testimony and media hits, I tend to trust the veracity of what he's saying,) these missions are a necessary part of protecting American interests both in the Middle East and on U.S. soil. What isn't clear yet is how far Barack Obama will take these missions; he's declared time and again that he won't put boots back on the ground, but military officials and analysts are already asking questions about the possibility of doing so if airstrikes aren't sufficient to eradicate the ISIS network. One theory that pundits and academics are floating is troubling, but what's more troubling than the theory itself is its plausibility. Brit Hume laid it out on Monday's edition of Special Report with Bret Baier:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 22, 2014 1 Comment
After years of political opposition, conflict, and even comparisons to our infamous involvement in Vietnam and southeast Asia, lawmakers---especially those up for re-election this year---are hesitant to send another round of money and troops into Iraq. Last week, Congress approved the funding required to arm and train Syrian rebels opposed to ISIS as part of a continuing resolution to fund the government through mid-December. When the CR expires, so will the funding for Syria, and top leaders in Congress are questioning President Obama's long term strategy for the Middle East. Via the AP:
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., haven't said whether they'll take up a broader authorization. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who hopes to replace Reid as the Senate majority leader, also isn't committing to such a process; he was a major force in ensuring the training element of Obama's plan be kept on a short leash. "I lean toward giving the president more latitude, and some of my colleagues want to be more restrictive," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading proponent of even more forceful military action, said. "I don't know if we'll work out those differences or not." Still, McCain faulted the Obama administration for not explicitly asking for Congress' blessing on the larger war strategy. "This is going to be an extended conflict, and they're going to need an authorization," he said. "And they're being very short-sighted by not asking for it.
On the other end of the spectrum from Senator McCain is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who voted "no" on the funding for training and arms for Syrian rebels:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 20, 2014 7 Comments
Post-September 11, George W. Bush encouraged Americans to return to normalcy. Go shopping, go to restaurants, don't be afraid. When the dust settled and it became clear that our enemy was al Qaeda, the joke became, "don't let the terrorists win!" Not in the mood to grab a beer? "Don't let the terrorist win!" And so on. When I read this article, "don't let the terrorists win!" seemed an appropriate response. The Washington Post reported:
Busch Gardens — which operates parks in Williamsburg, Va., and Tampa, Fla. — said in a statement that it has stopped using the props during Howl-O-Scream, an event that is already underway at the Virginia park. “Many of the scenes depicted at Busch Gardens’ Howl-O-Scream are graphic in nature, but they are fictional and are not intended to provide commentary on current world events,” Busch Gardens Williamsburg communications manager Kevin Crossett said in a statement. “The props in this year’s event were designed and purchased several months ago. “In light of recent events, some of these props have the unintended consequence of appearing insensitive and are being removed. Busch Gardens apologizes for any offense they may have caused.” Howl-O-Scream is scheduled to open in Florida later this month, according to the park’s Web site.
But it looks like this was all the fault of the Virginia Gazette who posted pics of the exhibit on their front page:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 19, 2014 10 Comments
The BBC reports:
A statement said planes had attacked an IS logistics depot in north-east Iraq. France was already carrying out reconnaissance flights over Iraq and providing weapons to Kurdish fighters. President Hollande said on Thursday that French air strikes would only target the jihadist group's positions in Iraq, and not neighbouring Syria. He also insisted that he would not send ground troops. On Friday, Mr Hollande's office said Rafale planes had carried out the attack and "the objective was hit and completely destroyed".
Yesterday, French President François Hollande pledged his support to the U.S.-led campaign in the Middle East, citing an international duty to confront "unremitting brutality:"
The Islamic State, also known by the acronyms ISIS or ISIL, “massacres anyone who resists it; hunts minorities, notably Christians; commits atrocities against civilians; decapitates journalists; crucifies opponents; kidnaps women,” he said. “That is the movement we are up against.” Mr. Hollande traveled to Baghdad last week to help mobilize support for military strikes against Islamic militants. On Thursday, he said he had met with his top miliary advisers and had agreed to Iraq’s request for air support to reinforce Iraqi soldiers and Kurdish fighters. He said French fighter jets would strike once targets had been identified. “That means in a short time frame,” he said.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 18, 2014 11 Comments
Luis Gutiérrez is a Democratic representative from Illinois who frequently attacks anyone who is not for amnesty. As an example, here he is on Sean Hannity's show claiming that securing the U.S. border would be a dereliction of his duty. Transcript and video via Real Clear Politics:
Gutierrez: Voting to Secure Border First "Would Be Derelict In My Duty to Protect America" SEAN HANNITY: Last word. You can pass a bill, secure the border first, would you support that? REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D-IL): No. Because it would be folly. It would be derelict in my duty to protect America. HANNITY: In the mean time, every day you don't pass that bill -- you're demanding amnesty. GUTIERREZ: I would be derelict to my duty. [CROSSTALK] GUTIERREZ: It sounds great. It sounds good. HANNITY: It doesn't sound great. GUTIERREZ: It sounds good, but it isn't an effective -- HANNITY: If you don't do it, it's a dereliction of duty, sir.
Here's the video:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 17, 2014 21 Comments
Today, the House approved a $500 million measure dedicated to the arming and training of Syrian rebels.
The authorization is limited in scope to training up to 5,000 members of the Syrian opposition in Saudi Arabia. It provides no new funding and requires the administration to provide status reports to Congress. The Obama administration said the mission may be funded by international contributions, but the resolution authorizes the Pentagon to shift funds from other accounts if necessary.
Although the vote was bipartisan (273-156), both Republicans and Democrats have serious concerns about the President's plan to roll back ISIS. Via the Washington Post:
Democrats are concerned that without clearly defined parameters passed by Congress in the coming months, new U.S. military operations in the Middle East could fester for several years with no clear strategy or definition of success. Republicans have worried that Obama's plans so far are too limited. One top GOP leader suggested Congress could go as far as giving the president blanket military authority, even if Obama doesn’t want it, when Congress holds a much broader debate after the November elections about the fight against Islamic terrorists.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 16, 2014 9 Comments
Back in September, we reported on word out of Iraq suggesting that members of our military currently stationed in Baghdad were receiving mixed messages about the point and purpose of their mission:
Officials overseas are calling out the Obama Administration on their jumbled approach to current actions being taken against the Islamic State in Iraq. The current mission against ISIS calls for diplomatic protection in addition to airborne and humanitarian missions, and military leadership can’t get a clear read on just how far President Obama is willing to go to destroy (or shrink, he can’t decide) Islamic extremism.
Via Fox News: Biden on Wednesday delivered what was probably the toughest statement to date from the administration, declaring, after another U.S. journalist was beheaded by the Islamic State, “we will follow them to the gates of Hell until they are brought to justice.” But his tough talk was at odds with a message delivered earlier in the day by President Obama, who said that while his administration’s goal is to “destroy” ISIS — it also is to “shrink” it to a “manageable problem.” Amid the mixed messages, a source in contact with special operators in Iraq told Fox News that “frustration and confusion reign” among Americans on the ground there. The source relayed the complaint of an unnamed special operator: “Chase them to the Gates of Hell? How the [f---] are we going to do that when we can’t even leave the front gate of our base!?”
Since then, the messaging coming out of the White House has spiraled to the point where not even high-ranking members of Congress can agree (semantics aside) about the nature of America's involvement in the Middle East. Today's Senate Armed Services hearing only added to the confusion of both military personnel and civilians when Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey put to bed once and for all the idea that "boots on the ground is not an option."
Accessibility by WAH