[Cid_Yama]

Iraqi PM, Militias Reject Foreign Troops After US Announcement

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi rejected the need for foreign troops to fight ISIS after the Untied States said on Tuesday it was deploying a special operations force, which powerful Shia Muslim militias pledged to attack.

"We do not need foreign ground combat forces on Iraqi land," Abadi said in a statement.

The premier, who came to power more than a year ago with the backing of the United States and Iran, has had to rely heavily on Shia militias backed by Tehran after the Iraqi army nearly collapsed twice in the face of ISIS advances in Mosul and Ramadi.

Those armed groups, long mistrustful of American forces since the 2003 US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein and the subsequent occupation, denounced the planned deployment.

"We will chase and fight any American force deployed in Iraq," said Jafaar Hussaini, a spokesman for one of the Shia armed groups, Kata'ib Hezbollah. "Any such American force will become a primary target for our group. We fought them before and we are ready to resume fighting."

Spokesmen for the Iranian-backed Badr Organisation and Asaib Ahl al-Haq made similar statements to Reuters.

"All Iraqis look to (the Americans) as occupiers who are not trustworthy," said Muen al-Kadhimi, a senior aide to the leader of the Badr Organisation.

The militias, grouped with volunteer fighters under a government-run umbrella, are seen as a bulwark in Iraq's battle against ISIS, the biggest security threat to the oil-exporting country since Saddam's fall.

Russia's larger military role in neighbouring Syria, and its participation in a security coordination cell in Baghdad that includes Iran and Syria, may be deepening US fears that it is losing more strategic ground to rivals in one of the world's most critical regions.

link

The US still doesn't get it. Iraq is now allied with Iran and Syria. Apparently nobody thought it important to discuss it with Iraq first.

[Paulo1]

Perfect.

Get the hell out and come home asap. Admit it was a mistake. Charge GW, Cheney, and Rumsfeld with war crimes.

Re-evaluate role of military and US role in the world.

Yes, it is that simple.

[GHung]

Many people, like John McCain, blame Obama for pulling US troops out of Iraq in the first place. They skip the part where Iraq didn't renew the status-of-forces agreement. Seems US troops could still be subject to Iraqi laws and being held for crimes, etc.. Not a good idea, seeing US soldiers put on trial for shooting the wrong targets.

Status of forces agreement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of ... _agreement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visiting_Forces_Agreement

[Whitefang]

U.S. military officials say the charges are too far-fetched to merit a response. “It’s beyond ridiculous,” said Col. Steve Warren, the military’s Baghdad-based spokesman. “There’s clearly no one in the West who buys it, but unfortunately, this is something that a segment of the Iraqi population believes.”

Finally some people waking up taking up arm against them terrorists who started this idiocy first.
Turkey stayes with western mob I assume, no choice for chief Erdogan but to stick to the end now.
I think our armies will have a smashing victory on ISIS, then ship remaining weapons and soldiers to Libya for later use, false flagattacks in Europe and beyond.
Remember that there are many NATO ships near Syria and Adana Turkey.....I wonder why.....
From the link by cid:

About 3,500 US troops are currently advising and assisting Iraqi forces. In October, a US special operations force member was killed during an operation with Kurdish peshmerga fighters to rescue hostages held by ISIS in the northern town of Hawija.

The Russians might help Kurdistan devellop in the face of the Turkish army

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mi ... story.html

BAIJI, Iraq — On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.

Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.
The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”
[Inside the surreal world of the Islamic State’s propaganda machine]

Chicken and dumplings....!

In one typical recent video that appeared on the Facebook page of a Shiite militia, a lawmaker with the country’s biggest militia group, the Badr Organization, waves apparently new U.S military MREs (meals ready to eat) — one of them chicken and dumplings — allegedly found at a recently captured Islamic State base in Baiji, offering proof, he said, of U.S. support.

“The Iranians and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are really pushing this line of propaganda, that the United States is supporting ISIL,” Warren said. “It’s part of the Iranian propaganda machine.”

The perception plays into a widening rift within Iraq’s ruling Shiite elite over whether to pivot more toward Iran or the United States. Those pushing the allegations “want to create a narrative that Iran is our ally and the United States is our enemy, and this undermines Abadi, who is America’s ally,” Sowell said.

[Plantagenet]

Iraqi PM, Militias Reject Foreign Troops After US Announcement
Apparently nobody thought it important to discuss it with Iraq first.

Yup.

The folks in the Obama administration do a great job when it comes to issuing press releases, but they aren't very good at doing the necessary planning and groundwork for things like this.

Speaking of lack of the necessary groundwork, I was surprised to hear SecDef Carter saying the US is "at war" in Syria yesterday, even though Congress hasn't declared war and Obama himself never uses the "W" word to refer to Syria. I guess the US Constitution is now so irrelevant that the Sec of Defense can declare war on Syria all by himself.

[Ibon]

Oh the burden of the imperialist to not lose face, to concede that they are not wanted or desired or no longer looked up to. To reconfigure your privilege as resources slowly cease to flow in your direction. To recede with humility and grace and not with humiliation as your finger on the trigger may tempt your fate.

[SeaGypsy]

Shia animosity to the US in Iraq goes way back before 2003, or 1990, the Bush invasions, Saddam was Sunni US puppet who blatantly discriminated against Shia for his rule.

[Keith_McClary]

Shia animosity to the US in Iraq goes way back before 2003, or 1990, the Bush invasions, Saddam was Sunni US puppet who blatantly discriminated against Shia for his rule.

But then, the US made up for it by installing a Shia regime to beat up on the Sunnis.

There's no pleasing these Iraqis - they hate the US whatever it does.

[Plantagenet]

Shia animosity to the US in Iraq goes way back before 2003, or 1990, the Bush invasions, Saddam was Sunni US puppet who blatantly discriminated against Shia for his rule.

The Shia blame the US for a coup in 1953 that installed the Shah of Iran.

[Cid_Yama]

And Reagan's support of Iraq in the Iran/Iraq War.

U.S. officials gave Saddam's army details about the whereabouts of Iranian forces in 1988 knowing that he would deploy chemical weapons, Foreign Policy magazine reported.

Iraq used mustard gas and sarin in early 1988 in four major offensives which helped bring about the end of the eight-year conflict.

During the whole war, up to 20,000 Iranian troops were killed by mustard gas and nerve agents from Iraq and 100,000 were wounded.

They were able to launch the strikes after being given maps, satellite pictures and other intelligence by the U.S..

The Americans have always said that Iraq did not reveal that they would launch chemical strikes. But documents released in the National Archives and interviews with former serviceman show that the U.S. acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons as they tried to help Saddam with the war.

Retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona, a military attache who was working in Baghdad in 1988, told Foreign Police magazine said that they knew what Saddam was planning.

Official documents revealed that the U.S. officials were given detailed information about the use of nerve gas by the Iraqis during the conflict. They indicate that the Americans knew more about Saddam's use of chemical weapons than previously thought.

The CIA's Director of Central Intelligence William J Casey was given detailed intelligence about the efforts of Iraqi chemical weapons plants to produce mustard gas for troops.

The cache of newly-released documents also revealed that the Americans feared the Iranians may launch terror strikes against the U.S. around the world if they had evidence to suggest the Ronald Reagan's administration acquiesced in Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

One secret document from September 1984, headed 'The Islamic bomb: Chemical rather than nuclear?', revealed the scale of Iraq's chemical weapons programme.

It said: 'Iraq has over the last several years developed a substantial CW (chemical weapons) production capability. 'CIA presently estimates that Iraq is capable of producing at least two tons per day of the nerve agent.'

Another document, marked 'Top Secret' from January 1985, indicated that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons against Iran.

It said: 'The Iraqis have used chemical weapons in three separate battles beginning in August 1983 and will use chemical weapons on a wide scale in the event of another major Iranian attack.'

The Geneva Protocol of 1925, which the Americans had ratified in 1975, states undertake that they will not use chemical weapons and agree they 'will exert every effort to induce other States' to do the same.

link

[Cid_Yama]

Ash Carter was talking about being at War with Islamic State, not Syria. Which of course, you knew.

Once a Troll always a Troll, eh Plant?

[Plantagenet]

Ash Carter was talking about being at War with Islamic State, not Syria.

As usual you totally missed the point Cid. Try reading more slowly and perhaps you'll understand the posts better.

OK, lets try that again. remember---r e a d s l o w l y a n d t h i n k a b o u t w h a t t h e w o r d s m e a n !

According to the US Constitution only the US Congress can declare war, and the US Congress hasn't declared war on either the Islamic State or Syria.

Get it now?

Cheers!

[Sixstrings]

Spokesman: Expeditionary Targeting Force Could Accelerate ISIL Defeat

Speaking via teleconference from Baghdad, Army Col. Steve Warren reiterated the secretary’s announcement before Congress yesterday, in which Carter outlined deploying about 100 personnel.

“As [the secretary] said, these special operators will be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders,” Warren said.

The expeditionary targeting force will conduct operations in consultation with the Iraqi government, Warren said, adding that the partnership will strengthen Iraq’s special forces capability, and help to secure the Iraq-Syria border from ISIL.

Raids More Precise Than Before

Many of the raids will focus on high-value individuals and targets in the border region, he said. Capturing and interrogating ISIL terrorists is what the combined forces hope to do, Warren said, adding that capturing them “allows us to collect some intelligence and gain additional information and insights into our enemy's operations.”

Though they’re considered combat operations, the colonel said, raids differ vastly from those during the war in Iraq, and are not considered major ground-combat operations,

“These ... are a small number of highly skilled commandos conducting very precise, very limited operations,” he explained. “They enter an objective area, conduct the operation and exit the objective area.”

Russian S-400 in Syria Confirmed

Warren also confirmed Russia's S-400 air defense missiles are operating near Latakia in Syria.

“We assess no change in Russian intent toward coalition aircraft, and we expect Russia will continue to abide by the memorandum of understanding,” he said, referring to the recent U.S.-Russian agreement to protect the airspace safety of U.S. and coalition aviators.

While the United States focuses on defeating ISIL and supporting opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, the Russians’ vow to fight ISIL terrorists doesn’t appear to have merit, Warren said.

“Everything they are doing is to support Assad, to keep Assad in power,” he said. “This is strategically shortsighted. Every time the Russians conduct an operation that extends or helps extend Assad's hold on power is yet another day that Syrian civilians will suffer under the boot of Bashar al-Assad.” he said.

Iraq, Syria OIR Update

Warren said Iraqi forces have militarily isolated the city of Ramadi after seizing the Palestine Bridge on Nov. 25, and are now poised to begin the clearing phase. The coalition yesterday conducted 37 engagements and nine strikes that killed 47 ISIL fighters, he added.

The Syrian Democratic Forces, spearheaded by the Syrian-Arab coalition, retain Hawl, Syria, against local counterattacks and are clearing out pockets of resistance, he noted.

In Mara, vetted Syrian opposition forces and new Syrian forces maintain their defensive positions and are planning future offensive operations. “Our goal is to see these efforts mature as forces continue to push south and put increased pressure on the enemy,” Warren said.

Airstrikes Shown on Videos

ISIL uses a tunnel-and-trench network, which includes shallow trenches with aluminum overhead cover to larger, more elaborate underground tunnel systems for its fighters’ protection, concealment and movement, Warren said, showing reporters a video of airstrikes that struck a tunnel’s entrance, exit and length.

“These tunnels don't provide the protection ISIL believes they do,” he said. “We've destroyed multiple tunnel complexes, trenches and bunkers. We have got the ability to detect and …destroy them at will.”

A second video showed an airstrike on an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb factory and staging area near Qaim in Iraq’s Anbar province that Warren said reduced ISIL’s ability to produce improvised explosive devices.

The coalition’s strikes comprise the “most precise air campaign in the history of air campaigns, [and] in the history of warfare, frankly,” the colonel said. “Never has such precision been brought to bear in a situation.”
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/632422/spokesman-expeditionary-targeting-force-could-accelerate-isil-defeat

[Cid_Yama]

Interesting you brought that up. Republicans whined and pouted prior to last February that the Executive branch needed Congresses approval. (Actually he didn't, prior authorizations covered it) But just to make them happy, PRESIDENT Obama formally requested an authorization to use military force (a declaration of war) against the Islamic State.

Seems the Republicans didn't really want to have to vote on an authorization, they just want to be able to complain about PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Obama not requesting one from Congress. Just like you.

So they buried it in Congress. Refused to vote on it at all. and tried to pretend it didn't exist.

They don't want to go on the record that they either did or didn't vote for it as either could be politically disastrous.

Bunch of fucking whining cowards. Congress can make a decision on it anytime they want, yes or no. But they would rather just complain about any and everything PRESIDENT Obama does. Just like you.

The ball is in the Republicans in Congress' court. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) continues to push for a vote.

Yes or No. How would you vote Plant? I know, you would rather just complain however it goes, with no vote.

[Cid_Yama]

Oh no they can't 6, Iraq said no. They will have to find someplace else to do it from, or start fighting the Iraqis again.

[Sixstrings]

Oh no they can't 6, Iraq said no. They will have to find someplace else to do it from, or start fighting the Iraqis again.

The article you posted says there's already 3,500 US troops in Iraq:

About 3,500 US troops are currently advising and assisting Iraqi forces. In October, a US special operations force member was killed during an operation with Kurdish peshmerga fighters to rescue hostages held by ISIS in the northern town of Hawija.

If Ash Carter says the Iraqi gov has approved the additional forces, then I'm sure that's how it is. He wouldn't just say that otherwise.

[Cid_Yama]

When the PM of Iraq says no, actually goes out of his way the very next day to make it clear, it doesn't matter what Ash Carter says he said.

If there is a problem with it, Iraq will just tell the rest of the advisors to leave.

[Cid_Yama]

from June:

Lawmakers determined to have a war authorization debate chalked up a win on Wednesday: they forced the House of Representatives to spend two hours debating legislation that would pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and Syria if Congress doesn't authorize the ongoing military campaign against the Islamic State by the end of the year.

The House rejected the bill, 139 to 288. But for those desperate to have any kind of discussion about war authorization, the debate alone was a victory.

Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) used an obscure provision in the War Powers Resolution to bring forward a concurrent resolution requiring troop withdrawals if Congress fails to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, by Dec. 31.

Republican leaders didn't want the issue on the House floor, but because those lawmakers leaned on authorities provided by the War Powers Resolution, they were able to bypass leadership to force a vote on withdrawing U.S. forces from hostilities.

Their resolution was an attempt to spur a broader debate on the merits of the war itself. It's been 10 months since the U.S. began bombing the Islamic State, but Congress still hasn't debated the military action or voted to authorize it. The House did vote to spend tens of billions of dollars on more war funding, though. (Imagine that)

"This House appears to have no problem sending our uniformed men and women into harm’s way. It appears to have no problem spending billions of dollars for the arms, equipment and airpower to carry out these wars," McGovern said during the debate. "But it just can’t bring itself to step up to the plate and take responsibility for these wars."

“Our servicemen and women are brave and dedicated. Congress, however, is guilty of moral cowardice," he added. "The Republican leadership of this House whines and complains from the sidelines, and all the while it shirks its constitutional duties to bring an AUMF to the floor of this House, debate it and vote on it."

President Barack Obama has been directing airstrikes against the Islamic State since last August, and he's been doing so without new congressional authorization. The Constitution requires Congress to vote to declare wars, but in this case, Obama says he doesn't need the green light from lawmakers because of a sweeping 2001 AUMF that gives him legal justification. Lawmakers pushed back on that for months, so in February, Obama sent them a proposal for a new, ISIS-specific AUMF, saying he welcomed their vote on it even if he doesn't think he needs it.

Wednesday's two-hour debate was the longest the House has spent talking about authorizing the ISIS military campaign since the U.S began bombing Iraq and Syria last August. So far, the U.S. has spent more than $2.7 billion, participated in more than 4,000 airstrikes and sent 3,000 troops to Iraq in the effort. Obama recently announced 450 more U.S. troops are heading to Iraq.

McGovern picked up a decent number of supporters for his resolution, despite the fact that it ultimately failed. Nineteen Republicans voted for it, along with 120 Democrats. Supporters emphasized that the goal of the resolution isn't to pull troops out of military conflict, per se, but to get lawmakers to do their job when it comes to authorizing war.

Lawmakers' use of the War Powers Resolution to force a debate is one of a handful of recent attempts by Democrats to put the issue of war authorization front and center. Earlier this month, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) succeeded in tucking language stating that it is Congress' job to authorize wars into the annual defense spending bill. Last week, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) tried to attach an amendment to the defense bill that would have cut off funding for the war unless Congress passed a new AUMF by next March. That attempt failed.

link

[Sixstrings]

When the PM of Iraq says no, actually goes out of his way the very next day to make it clear, it doesn't matter what Ash Carter says he said.

Well my impression from reading your posted article is just that what an Iraqi prime minister may say in a "statement" -- meant for domestic political consumption -- is not necessarily the same thing as what Iraq's agreement with the US is.

[Cid_Yama]

From Nov 17:

In the aftermath of the massacre in Paris, a handful of persistent members of Congress are renewing their call to take up and vote on a bill formally authorizing America’s undeclared war against the Islamic State, legislation known as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF ). Without it, lawmakers are shirking their constitutional duties, they warn.

And while voters should take the AUMF supporters’ sentiment seriously — that elected officials should be responsible for publicly debating U.S. military action on behalf of the American people, as the Constitution intends — they also should be skeptical that Congress will actually take up and approve an AUMF, for reasons both political and substantive.

According to congressional leadership aides, the carnage on Parisian streets is unlikely to lift the obstacles to a proper debate and vote. Though some members, such as Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., are sure to continue their long campaign for an AUMF vote, many other lawmakers could keep trying to have it both ways: questioning Obama’s strategy and strategists in the media, while continuing to fully fund the military effort, known as Operation Inherent Resolve.

link

The way I see it. If Congress continues to vote to fund the war, and don't want the troops withdrawn, then that in itself is approving the war.

They can't have it both ways.