Kerry Says ISIS Threat Could Hasten Military Action
Source: The New York Times
BAGHDAD — Winding up a day of crisis talks with Iraqi leaders, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that the Sunni militants seizing territory in Iraq had become such a threat that the United States might not wait for Iraqi politicians to form a new government before taking military action.
“They do pose a threat,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “They cannot be given safe haven anywhere.”
“That’s why, again, I reiterate the president will not be hampered if he deems it necessary if the formation is not complete,” he added, referring to the Iraqi efforts to establish a new multisectarian government that bridges the deep divisions among the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis, Kurds and other smaller groups.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/middleeast/kerry-in-baghdad-to-urge-iraqis-to-form-new-inclusive-government.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)I could swear I heard Obama on TV stating that the U.S. isn't going to play "whack-a-mole" by sending troops into these regional conflicts and that a political solution involving the various Iraqi factions is the only way out. What military action is Kerry referring to if the Iraqis can't form a new government?" I don't like the sound of this.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)Likely air strikes and/or drone strikes.
It's horrid either way....
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)not that air strikes ever won a war, with the exception of the nuclear strikes on Japan at the end of WWII.
The aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush is in the Persian Gulf along with a guided-missile cruiser.
The carrier strikes would be in addition to the 300 advisers, who would be the ones to call in the strikes.
But the whole thing gets messier because it is the time in the Iraq governing structure to elect a new prime minister, and that could go on for months.
In the meantime, as the article points out, ISIS could strike at the Shia shrines in Samarra and elsewhere. The last time those shrines were attacked by the Sunnis, an intense fight between Sunni and Shia ensued that was only stopped by the surge.
Iraq is a real snake pit, and it seems that Kerry is ready to push us into it. Perhaps Obama will pull back from the brink like he did from bombing Syria.
We must accept that there is just nothing that we can do here that won't mess things up even worse than they now are.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)If Kerry is pushing for Maliki to step down and if there is no new Iraqi government in sight, then will there be a grant of immunity for U.S. troops that was supposed to be a condition for air strikes? Or has Obama changed that requirement?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)You may very well be right, though, and that might save us.
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)When the United States pulled all but a handful of its remaining troops from Iraq in late 2011, it was in large part because Baghdad and Washington could not reach an agreement that would have granted U.S. troops legal immunity from Iraqi prosecution. Not having such an agreement left open the possibility that Americans could have been tried and imprisoned by Iraqi authorities for the messy results of a firefight, rather than facing the U.S. military’s Uniform Code of Justice.
Times have changed. With no end sight to the spiraling Iraqi security situation, President Obama signaled Thursday that he would send up to 300 U.S. military advisers — likely elite Green Berets — to assist and advise floundering Iraqi security forces. That raised the question whether legal immunity was coming with it, since it was widely believed it would require approval from the Iraqi parliament.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby indicated Monday that isn’t the case. The United States has now received “acceptable assurances” on the legal protections the new military advisers there will have, and it came through a diplomatic note, rather than parliamentary vote, he said.
“Specifically, Iraq has committed itself to providing protections for our personnel equivalent to those provided to personnel who were in country before the crisis,” Kirby said. “We believe these protections are adequate to the short-term assessment and advisory mission our troops will be performing in Iraq. With this agreement, we will be able to start establishing the first few assessment teams.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/23/washington-shifts-accepts-iraqi-promise-of-immunity-for-u-s-military-advisers/
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)We can't put Iraq back together and make them like each other, which is what Kerry seems to be talking about. If we drop bombs, the people on the receiving end will hate us all the more, and if we send in advisers, they really won't be able to whip the Shia militias into shape, even if those militias don't try to kill our advisers, as some Sadr-led militias have.
What a waste.
hibbing
(10,096 posts)So now what, I don't like the sound of it either.
Peace
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)the first bullet is delivered, low-info voters will forget all about the Bush-Cheney gang and blame will shift to Obama. Now, of course, that won't happen here, but then the people here are not low-info voters.
PFunk
(876 posts)As this will drive more dems to not vote in November. Great (not)!
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)you imagine the military turn-out?
Javaman
(62,517 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)about the Kurdish area pulling away from Iraq. As per interview with Christine Amanpour.
Apparently, the Kurds see Iraq as being not something that they wish to fight for.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)deal with it
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)
