Sunday 14 September 2014

Obama's war

"Moderate" Syrian Rebels Sign Non-Aggression Pact With ISIS; Iraq Defies US


13 September, 2014


First it was the 'broad coalition' that appeared a little narrower than President Obama explained to the world last week. Today, 2 more crucial aspects of the 'strategy' appear to be faltering. Despite the promise of $500 million to train "moderate" Syrian terrorist/rebels to fight ISIS, GlobalPost reports Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time. Under the deal, "the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime." Not exactly what Obama and Kerry had in mind. But it is John Kerry's trip to Iraq that appears to have had blowback already as Reuters reports the newly installed US-friendly PM al-Adadi ordered his air force to halt strikes on civilian areas, "even in those towns controlled by ISIS," just a day after Kerry's visit (which left Turkey explaining how it would not support US airstrikes either). So far, so good?!

So, to sum up...


Germany and the U.K. on Thursday ruled out carrying out air strikes on Islamic State militants in Syria, a day after President Barack Obama authorized the start of U.S. air strikes there.
"We haven't been asked, nor will we do it," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters when asked about German participation in air strikes against the Islamic State, known as ISIL or ISIS, in light of Mr. Obama's speech.
"We need to be honest with ourselves in the current situation, we don't yet have a final, blanket strategy which guarantees that we'll be successful against ISIS and similar groups," the German minister said in Berlin.
His U.K. counterpart Philip Hammond explicitly ruled out air strikes in Syria, after the U.K. parliament struck down such a move last year.
*  *  *
Second, Turkey - the USA's closest ally in NATO among the Middle East - denies them its airbases for use as launch sites of airstrikes and will not support airstrikes in Syria (after John Kerry visits)


US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Ankara Friday for talks aimed at building a coalition against Islamic State jihadists, a visit that comes after Turkey said it would not allow its air bases to be used for strikes on the extremists.
The top US diplomat, touring the Middle East to establish a coalition of more than 40 countries, is to meet with Turkey's leaders including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for talks on measures to defeat the militants in Iraq and Syria.
Turkey, a NATO member and Washington's key ally in the region, is reluctant to take part in combat operations against Islamic State militants, or allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadists from its territory.
On the eve of the visit, a Turkish official told AFP: "Our hands and arms are tied because of the hostages."
The official added that Turkey will "not be involved in any armed operation but will entirely concentrate on humanitarian operations."
IS militants hold 49 Turks hostage, including diplomats and children, abducted from the Turkish consulate in Mosul in Iraq in June.
Turkey is the only Muslim country in a coalition of 10 countries who agreed to fight ISIS at the NATO summit in Newport.


Turkey can open Incirlik Air Base in the south for logistical and humanitarian operations in any U.S.-led operation, according to the official who stressed that the base would not be used for lethal air strikes.
“Turkey will not take part in any combat mission, nor supply weapons,” he said.
*  *  *

As Reuters reports,
Iraq's Shi'ite Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Saturday that he had ordered his air force to halt strikes on civilian areas.
"I have ordered the Iraqi Air Force to halt shelling of civilian areas even in those towns controlled by ISIS," Abadi said on his official Twitter account, using the former name for militant group Islamic State.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been touring the Middle East to coordinate a response to Islamic State's growing power in eastern Syria and western Iraq.
Abadi said his order to protect civilians had been issued on Thursday, a day after he held talks with Kerry in Baghdad.
*  *  *
Finally, The USA's proxy boots-on-the-ground - Syria's "moderate" rebels - have signed a non-aggression truce with ISIS.


Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between IS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.
Under the deal, "the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime."

But apart from that, everything is going great...
*  *  *

We're gonna need a new strategy.

 Obama’s ISIS War Is Not Only Illegal, It Makes George W. Bush Look Like A Constitutional Scholar


13 September, 2014




Rudderless and without a compass, the American ship of state continues to drift, guns blazing.

- Andrew J. Bacevich, the Boston University political science professor and former Army colonel who lost his son in the Iraq war in 2007, in a recent Reuters article.
I have spent the past several days outlining my deep concerns about the “ISIS crisis” and Obama’s willingness to employ extreme propaganda in order to once again embark on another poorly thought out military campaign here and here. What I have also come to realize is that his latest war plan is brazenly illegal and unconstitutional.
While critics have been questioning the legality of U.S. military campaigns consistently since the end of World War II, one trend has become increasingly clear. With each new President and each new war, we have witnessed those who hold the office act more and more like dictators, and less and less like constitutional executives.
One very important, and up until recently, overlooked point about Obama’s latest “war on ISIS” is that this is not at all just more of the same. This crosses yet another very important line of shadiness, and if we as as American public allow him to do so, we will suffer grave long-term consequences to our economic future as well as our liberties. This is very serious stuff.
No one has outlined this point better than Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, in yesterday’s New York Times op-ed: Obama’s Betrayal of the Constitution. He writes:

BERLIN — PRESIDENT OBAMA’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

Senators and representatives aren’t eager to step up to the plate in October when, however they decide, their votes will alienate some constituents in November’s midterm elections. They would prefer to let the president plunge ahead and blame him later if things go wrong. But this is precisely why the War Powers Resolution sets up its 60-day deadline: It rightly insists that unless Congress is willing to stand up and be counted, the war is not worth fighting in the name of the American people.

But for now the president seems grimly determined to practice what Mr. Bush’s lawyers only preached. He is acting on the proposition that the president, in his capacity as commander in chief, has unilateral authority to declare war.

In taking this step, Mr. Obama is not only betraying the electoral majorities who twice voted him into office on his promise to end Bush-era abuses of executive authority. He is also betraying the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Think about this for a second. Barack Obama is using the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allowed for military action against “nations and organizations that planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks.” ISIS wasn’t even a twinkle in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s eye back in September 2001. Even more stunning, ISIS and al-Qaeda more closely resemble enemies than allies. Yet this doesn’t seem to affect Nobel Peace Prize winning Barry Obama’s war planning. You can’t get much more insane and Orwellian than that.
Who cares right? This won’t ever affect you. So what if some bombs fall on innocent Arab civilians? Wrong.
One of the most terrifying aspects of this whole war push if Obama is able to pull it off, is that the reasoning (or lack thereof) could ultimately be applied to the detention of U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial.
Yes, what I am referring to is the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial. I covered this frequently several years ago when Chris Hedges and others were suing the Obama Administration regarding the constitutionality of this law. In fact, one of my most popular posts ever was, NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About.
One of the ways in which the U.S. government has defended the NDAA is by saying it can only be used against “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” 
Glenn Greenwald noted in Salon in his, Three Myths About the Detention Bill, that:

Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.”  The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF  ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” 

Notice that the above says “pursuant to the AUMF,” which is the exact law the Obama Administration is using to justify his latest war. If he is able to start a war with ISIS based on the AUMF, despite the fact that ISIS and al-Qaeda are not allies at all, he or a future President could similarly use the AUMF and the NDAA to imprison anyone, anywhere for an indefinite amount of time based on the same absurd non-claim.
Let this all sink in for a second. Do you still support these ISIS strikes?

"NATO and the United States should change their policy because the time when they dictate their conditions to the world has passed," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Dushanbe, capital of the Central Asian republic of Tajikistan

ISIS Beheads British Aid Worker In "Message To Allies Of America"



13 September, 2014


Rather disturbingly, ISIS had just announced the execution of another captive:

*ISLAMIC STATE RELEASES VIDEO SHOWING BEHEADING OF DAVID HAINES

As Bloomberg reports,

Video is similar to ones in which James Foley, Steve Sotloff were killed, SITE says.

Jihadist monitoring website comments on today’s beheading in statement on its website

British captive David Haines, who SITE says is beheaded in video, addresses U.K. PM Cameron in video

Video purportedly shows David Haines saying he holds David Cameron "entirely responsible" for his "execution" before being murdered

“You entered voluntarily into a coalition with the United States against the Islamic State, just as your predecessor Tony Blair did, following a trend amongst our British prime minister who can’t find the courage to say no to the Americans,” SITE quotes Haines as saying

SITE says executioner appears to be same as in previous videos.
“IS Beheads Briton David Haines, Threatens to Execute Another Briton, Alan Henning,” SITE Intel Group says on Twitter.
*ISLAMIC STATE THREATENS TO EXECUTE BRITISH HOSTAGE HENNING:SITE
*SITE SAYS BEHEADING VIDEO ENTITLED `A MSG TO ALLIES OF AMERICA'
*SITE SAYS VIDEO SIMILAR TO BEHEADINGS OF FOLEY, SOTLOFF
*SITE COMMENTS ON TODAY'S BEHEADING IN STATEMENT ON ITS WEBSITE
*HAINES ADDRESSES U.K.'S CAMERON IN VIDEO, SITE SAYS
*SITE SAYS EXECUTIONER APPEARS TO BE SAME AS IN PREVIOUS VIDEOS
*  *  *
*  *  *
Richard Engel        ✔ @RichardEngel
Isis photos appear to show murder of british hostage. Same Desert location. Masked man. Beheading. Disgusting.
9:31 AM - 14 Sep 2014

Richard Engel        ✔ @RichardEngel
Sounds like same british accented voice of masked militant in isis beheading video of british hostage.
9:57 AM - 14 Sep 2014


In London, the Foreign Office has said it is aware of the video and “working urgently to verify” its content.

Haines, who was 44, was kidnapped last year. He had been in Syria for just three days when he was kidnapped and handed over to Isis militants.


The aid worker was taken while working for Acted in Syria in March 2013.
*  *  *
The 44-year-old Haines has a teenage daughter in Scotland from a previous marriage and a four-year-old daughter in Croatia from his present marriage.
Educated at Perth Academy secondary school, he has worked for aid agencies in some of the world's worst trouble spots.
He was in Libya during its civil war in 2011, working as head of mission for Handicap International, which helps disabled people in poverty and conflict zones around the world.
*  *  *
British PM Cameron responds:
*DAVID HAINES MURDER ’ACT OF PURE EVIL’: CAMERON ON TWITTER
*’WE WILL DO EVERYTHING TO HUNT DOWN THESE MURDERERS’: CAMERON
*U.K.'S CAMERON SAYS ACT WAS `DESPICABLE AND APPALLING MURDER'

*CAMERON SAYS CABINET MEETING ON MATTER TO BE HELD SUNDAY
Australia to deploy military
to help fight Islamic State:
Tony Abbott



14 September, 2014


TONY Abbott has committed RAAF combat aircraft and army special forces advisers to join the fight in Iraq against the Islamic State terrorist group, in an operation that could last for “many months”.

Eleven years after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Prime Minister announced today that within days, the RAAF would send to the United Arab Emirates up to eight Royal Australian Air Force F/A18 Super Hornet or “classic” Hornet combat aircraft, an E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft; and a KC-30A multi-role tanker and transport aircraft.

With them will go about 600 Australian Defence Force personnel — 400 from the RAAF and 200 from the Army.

Mr Abbott and Australian Defence Force chief Mark Binskin said the ADF would also immediately send a Special Operations Task Group as military advisers to help Iraqi and other security forces fighting Islamic State terrorists, also known as ISIL.

He said the deployment did not mean Australia was at war and stressed the operation so far was “preparation and deployment”, with a decision yet to be made to send forces into action.

“But obviously that’s something we have in contemplation,” he said.

Mr Abbott warned the operation, which has Labor support, could be highly hazardous.

“I have to warn the Australian people that should this preparation and deployment extend into combat operations, this could go on for quite some time — months rather than weeks, perhaps many, many months indeed,’” Mr Abbott said.

The move comes days after US President Barack Obama ordered a “relentless” war against Islamic State, including air strikes in Syria and expanded operations in Iraq to “destroy” the jihadists.

Mr Abbott said Mr Obama had told him the US was “prepared for quite a lengthy American contribution to this particular mission”.

He added: “There are obviously further decisions to be taken before Australian forces will be committed to combat operations in Iraq,” he said in Darwin.

“Nevertheless Australia is prepared to engage in international operations to disrupt and degrade ISIL because of the threat that this murderous death cult poses not just to the people of Iraq, not just to the people of the Middle East, but to the whole world including to Australia.”

The Prime Minister said the Islamic State’s beheading of British aid worker David Haines “should make all of us more resolved than ever to do whatever we reasonably can to disrupt, degrade and if possible destroy this movement”.

Mr Abbott said the situation in Iraq was as much a matter of domestic security as it was of international security.

He said the conflict had “reached out” to Australia, with at least 60 Australians fighting with ISIL and other terrorist groups and another 100 or so supporting these extremists.

“It is right for Australia to do what it prudently and proportionately can to support international efforts to prevent the spread of ISIL, roll back its gains and alleviate suffering in Iraq.”
.
The decision to take on a more active role in Iraq follows a formal request for help from the government of new Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi and from the United States.


“In recent days, I have discussed the situation with President Barack Obama, with Iraq’s new Prime Minister al-Abadi and with Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zaiyed of the United Arab Emirates,” Mr Abbott said.

“These leaders share the government’s grave concern about the situation in Iraq and support Australian participation in an international coalition to disrupt and degrade ISIL’s ruthless advance.”.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin said he could not go into more details about the deployment to avoid providing information to enemy forces.

But he said disrupting IS would take a “comprehensive and sustained effort”.

“If we do nothing, the risk of allowing the shocking acts of ISIL to further destabilise the Middle East, and spread beyond the Middle East region, potentially back to Australia is a greater risk,” he said.

Australia will also place ADF specialists in the United States headquarters to ensure close coordination with alliance partners and to support planning and logistics.

“We are not deploying combat troops but contributing to international efforts to prevent the humanitarian crisis from deepening,” Mr Abbott said.

He said the national security committee of cabinet and the full cabinet had considered the decision, to send troops.

Mr Abbott said he would attend the United Nations Security Council on September 24 to further discuss the international effort.

Labor gave the deployment bipartisan support, with Bill Shorten describing Islamic State as a “barbaric organisation”.

“We don’t do so lightly,” the Opposition Leader said in a statement. “(But) Australia has a role to play in eradicating this evil and we are reassured that our support is being provided at the request of, and in full co-ordination with, the Iraqi Government.”

But the Greens said the plan was ultimately an act of war.

“Make no mistake. Today, Tony Abbott has committed Australia to blindly following the United States into another war in Iraq,” Greens leader Christine Milne said in Hobart.

“This is an open-ended mission, there is no timeframe for how long troops would be there or even a notion of what success would look like.”

Australian military instructors, who gained considerable experience in Afghanistan, will return to Iraq to help build up training, logistical support and other areas vital to the Kurdish and other forces fighting the jihadists.

While Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, backed by air strikes by the US and its allies, have shown the courage to face the jihadist advance, they lack the effective logistical “tail” needed to keep the supply of ammunition, food and medical supplies flowing to their front line troops.

The Wedgetails can oversee a complex battle by directing fighter aircraft, tankers and manned and unmanned intelligence-gathering aircraft while flying over hostile territory.

Australia has already provided airlift assistance to Iraq, including the movement of arms and munitions and two humanitarian aid drops to stranded people in northern Iraq.

The RAAF’s giant C-17 Globemaster and C130 Hercules transport aircraft are based at al-Minhad Air Base south of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

The aircraft can parachute supplies to trapped communities or land to unload cargoes at a safe and suitable airfield.

The RAAF fighter-bombers are expected to be a squadron of the RAAF’s Hornet or Super Hornet fighter-bombers. They would be escorted to the Middle East by a flying tanker, possibly one of the RAAF’s KC-30s.

The Super Hornets will come from RAAF Base Amberley and the Wedgetail and tanker from RAAF Base Williamtown.


Australia withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in mid-2008. Two officers were kept on there as advisers to the United Nations and they were brought home in August 2011.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)