Latest Breaking News

jakeXT

(10,575 posts) Thu Feb 5, 2015, 07:49 AM Feb 2015

Official: U.S. Military moved search and rescue assets to Northern Iraq

Source: CNN

(CNN)The U.S. military has moved some search and rescue assets into Northern Iraq, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.

The move was described as part of a constant rebalancing of search and rescue assets that are moved depending on the evolving airstrike mission. The source did not suggest it was a response to United Arab Emirates concerns about proximity of rescue assets and did not say when this latest rotation happened.

The reshuffling comes after news that UAE had suspended participation in coalition strikes out of concern that search and rescue assets were not placed close enough to ensure a timely effort to rescue, a claim disputed by U.S. military officials.

CBS News was first to report the adjustment.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/04/politics/isis-iraq-u-s-military-moved/

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Official: U.S. Military moved search and rescue assets to Northern Iraq (Original Post) jakeXT Feb 2015 OP

Meanwhile, recall that Obama ended the war in Iraq. delrem Feb 2015 #1

A necessary step if US/NATO is planning on ramping up the campaign against ISIS. leveymg Feb 2015 #2

delrem

(9,688 posts)

1. Meanwhile, recall that Obama ended the war in Iraq.

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Thu Feb 5, 2015, 08:57 AM

Feb 2015

Exactly according as the agreement that W. signed with Iraq before Obama assumed office.
Nevertheless, let's give Pres. Obama the credit for not reneging.

Now, it's 2015 and the USA is free to bomb in both Iraq and Syria, against "IS", which came out of nowhere like a deus ex machina and nobody could have known. Nobody could have asked a question, then or since. Not that the US hasn't wanted to bomb Syria for some time previous... Not that there isn't a neocon agenda somewhere in the background, that explains the whole damn thing. Certainly nobody can ask any worthwhile questions.

Because there's a Dem in the executive office, and all is well.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

2. A necessary step if US/NATO is planning on ramping up the campaign against ISIS.

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Thu Feb 5, 2015, 09:59 AM

Feb 2015

Any serious effort to eradicate ISIS will have to entail cutting off its funding at the sources in KSA, Qatar and the GCC states. Presents a policy dilemma that may soon find a resolution.

Of course, there are the ever-present neocons who see this as a possible two-fer, where the US would attempt to take out the Shi'ites in Syria and Lebanon and ultimately Iran, as well as culling the Sunni militias. I think that pushes the bubble past the bursting point.

Reply to this discussion