Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

ISIS Tag

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."

Posted by Amy Miller on September 16, 2014 19 Comments
Code Pink protesters interrupted today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to disrupt testimony from top Administration officials about how U.S. military intervention will aid in the destruction of the Islamic State. From the Washington Free Beacon:
“No more war!” the protester shouted. “The American public does not want war! We do not want war! No military solution to this! No more war! No more war! No military solution!” “You’re acting very warlike yourself,” Levin said.
Code Pink is a liberal-progressive anti-war NGO, but it isn't strictly partisan. Earlier this month, they protested outside the White House while President Obama laid out his plan to roll back ISIS in the Middle East. (Then again, they also protest Israel's right to self defense, so let's not kid ourselves about where they stand generally.)

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 16, 2014 14 Comments
Our friends over at National Review pulled this little gem. We've officially entered foreign policy bizarro world when the Department of State is absolutely refusing to work with Syria, but is open to working with Iran to fight (however they're defining that) ISIS. Blitzer asked Department of State Spokesperson Marie Harf if Syria was receiving intelligence through a third party, to which she responded, "Not at all. I can categorically reject that. We will not work with the Assad regime, we will not share intelligence with them, we will not coordinate with them. Period. Full stop. I don't want to be any clearer than that."

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 16, 2014 9 Comments
Do you know what keeps Nancy Pelosi up at night? It isn't ISIS. Three days ago, she insisted that if Republicans take control of the Senate it would bring about the end of civilization. Now, she's claiming that America isn't at war with the Islamic State. The Washington Free Beacon reported:
Nancy Pelosi: We Are Not At War With ISIL If you have been following the ISIL crisis, you know our government officials have not quite decided if we are “at war” with the Islamic extremists or not. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) affirmed today that the U.S. is not at war with ISIL, though she called the matter “deadly serious.” “We have initiated hostilities against ISIS, that’s for sure,” Pelosi told MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow. “[War] would require a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States.” Pelosi echoed the Obama administration’s assurance that no U.S. troops would fight the extremists in a combat mission. She instead expressed support for arming and training “responsible” Syrian rebels.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 15, 2014 17 Comments
On June 25, 2014, 19 year-old Brendan Tevlin hopped into his car to return home after spending the evening at a friend's house. Minutes later, Ali Muhammad Brown approached the vehicle as it was stopped at a red light and fired ten rounds into the car, killing Brendan. Originally, the teen's murder was labeled an attempted robbery, allowing the media to remain silent. Now, court documents have revealed that Brown's motivation for killing Tevlin had less to do with thievery, and more to do with America's pushback against Jihadist terrorism in the Middle East. Via the New York Daily News:
According to court documents, Ali Muhammad Brown described his June murder of 19-year-old Brendan Tevlin as a "just kill" and said it was an act of "vengeance" meant to compensate for U.S. military killings in the Middle East.
Brown is a devout Muslim, and has been extremely vocal about his opposition to U.S. intervention in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
"All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life," he told investigators, according to the documents. Brown further justified killing Tevlin by claiming the shooting was a "just kill," meaning he targeted an adult man and did not put any women, children or elderly people in danger. In police interviews, Brown described the U.S.'s military campaign in the Middle East as evil and said if a "man sees evil, then he must take action against that evil," the court papers show.

Posted by New Neo on September 14, 2014 25 Comments
The families of James Foley and Steven Sotloff have complained that the Obama administration threatened to prosecute them if they tried to ransom their loved ones. It is completely understandable why the families would be upset about this: how could any family fail to do anything possible to save their loved ones from such a horrific fate? And how could any family not be horrified that their own government might try to stop them? I don't think there's anyone who could fail to sympathize. But that doesn't mean the government isn't rightr. Therein lies the terrible ethical, emotional, and practical dilemma. By paying ransoms, the behavior of the terrorists is rewarded, more kidnappings of Americans occur, and our enemies grow richer. Plus, there is no guarantee that a group such as ISIS is actually serious about such negotiations. Every now and then the Obama administration gets it right, and this is one of those times. However, Obama's staff being who they are, they were probably especially cold and insensitive in communicating with the families. That being said, it's not clear that under the circumstances there would have been any acceptable way to say "no," or that any approach short of complete cooperation would not raise the families' ire and frustration.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 13, 2014 7 Comments
Islamic State militants have set fire to Iraq's largest oil refinery, escalating tensions in the region and raising questions about how much control ISIS could potentially gain over the world's oil supply. This isn't the first time this particular refinery has been attacked; it's a favorite target of ISIS militants. They have attacked the refinery in the past as a way of securing fuel to smuggle to parties who fund their self-declared "caliphate" in northern Iraq and Syria. Via Bloomberg Businessweek:
“The fire could go on for two or three days as there is no civil defense to put it out,” police said in the statement, without indicating how much oil the tank contained. “The situation in the refinery’s perimeter is quiet now.” ... The Baiji refinery has an installed capacity of 310,000 barrels a day and the storage tank that came under attack belongs to a group that typically contain 100,000 barrels each, Saad Al-Obaidi, a protection force personnel at the plant, said by phone. The plant stopped working in June.
The Islamic State's control over the oil supply in the middle east is affecting oil prices all over the world. According to Fox News, the inflation caused by ISIS activities has raised the price per barrel by as much as ten dollars.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 13, 2014 29 Comments
Obama may be America's commander-in-chief, but he's not a leader who is interested in military strategy. Bearing all that in mind, this report from Dustin Walker of Real Clear Defense is nothing short of stunning:
Obama Rejected "Best Military Advice" As he laid out his strategy to combat the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria, President Obama rejected the “best military advice” of his top military commander in the Middle East. Quoting two U.S. military officials, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), said “that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants.” Austin’s recommendation was taken to the White House by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. The White House rejected CENTCOM’s “advise and assist” contingent due to concerns about placing U.S. ground forces in a frontline role. In a press briefing Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the president had rejected Austin’s recommendation because he believes “it is not in the best interest of American national security to send American combat troops in a combat operation to act on the ground in Iraq.”

Posted by Amy Miller on September 12, 2014 24 Comments
A new CIA report reveals that the the government's original estimates regarding the strength of the Islamic State's fighting force has fallen short. Previously, the Agency believed that if needed, ISIS could gather up to 10,000 troops. New information, however, has revealed that the group has between 20,000 and 31,500 readily available in Iraq and Syria alone. Via Fox News:
The spokesperson said the new figures were determined after a review of “all-source intelligence reports” on the group from May to August. ... [A CIA] spokesperson said the increase is likely due to the militant’s group recruiting gains after its success on the battlefield. “This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence,” the spokesperson said.
The release of this report comes on the heels of President Obama's address to the nation in response to growing concerns regarding the ability of the Islamic State to threaten American interests. That address---and the counterterrorism plan presented---did little to clear up what has been widely reported as "mixed messaging" from the Administration with regards to America's strategy in the Middle East.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 11, 2014 17 Comments
Barack Obama's address to the nation regarding the threat of ISIS was met with both cautious optimism and unbridled mockery from pundits on both sides of the aisle. No one was more optimistic than CNN's latest hire, former Obama Administration press secretary Jay Carney. Unfortunately for Carney, however, CNN had also invited Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who was more than a little irritated at the media's willingness to overlook the fact that Obama chose to ignore the possibility of the current crisis when he decided to pull the occupying force out of Iraq.
Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Carney. His entire national security team, including his Secretary of State, said we want to arm and train and equip these people and he made the unilateral decision to turn them down. And the fact he didn’t leave a residual force in Iraq, overruling all of his military advisers, is the reason we’re facing ISIS today. So the facts are stubborn things in history, and people ought to know them. And now the president is saying basically that we are going to take certain actions, which I would favor. But to say that America is safer, and that the situation is very much like Yemen and Somalia shows me that the President really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat of ISIS is.
Carney eventually managed to respond, in true Carney fashion:
It is a mis – basically a whitewash of history to suggest that there weren’t periods of enormous chaos and fighting and bloodshed in Iraq when there were tens of thousands of Americans troops on the ground. That is a fact. And that was true in 2004, it was true in 2007. And it was true even when we had the highest number of U.S. troops on the ground. We cannot – the United States of America – ask our military to be a permanent occupying force in a country like Iraq.
Accessibility by WAH