[Sixstrings]

Obama Responds To Iraq Request For "Kinetic Support", Says Ready To Take Military Action

As we reported yesterday, Iraq, realizing it has neither the capacity nor the willingness to engage Al Qaeda's ISIS "spin off" did what every other oil-rich regime in such a situation does: asked Obama for "kinetic support." Moments ago Obama gave his response:

OBAMA SAYS "I DON'T RULE OUT ANYTHING" WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING IRAQ DEAL WITH INSURGENTS
OBAMA SAYS US HAS AN INTEREST IN MAKING SURE JIHADISTS DON'T GAIN A FOOTHOLD IN IRAQ
OBAMA SAYS THERE WILL BE SHORT-TERM IMMEDIATE ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE DONE MILITARILY IN IRAQ, US OFFICIALS LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS
And here is why, as we predicted yesterday when faced with not only but two brand new scandals, the VA farce and the Berghdal "extraction" fiasco, the most likely outcome is war:

OBAMA SAYS IRAQ `CLEARLY IS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION'
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID NOT CONSIDERING GROUND TROOPS IN IRAQ
OBAMA SAYS US IS PREPARED TO TAKE MILITARY ACTION WHEN ITS NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS ARE THREATENED
So the US is about to unleash hell against the same Al Qaeda extremists it was arming across the border in Syria? Score one more for US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the one person who benefits the most from rising crude prices, that would be Putin for those who still don't get it, is laughing all the way to the bank.

Update: good news - the US won't be fighting Iraq's war alone. Here comes.... France:

'FRANCE'S FABIUS SAYS INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MUST DEAL WITH IRAQ SITUATION URGENTLY
FRANCE'S FABIUS SAYS JIHADIST SURGE PUTS TERRITORIAL UNITY OF IRAQ IN DOUBT AND IS MAJOR RISK FOR REGIONAL STABILITY
FRANCE'S FABIUS SAYS INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MUST DEAL WITH IRAQ SITUATION URGENTLY
Funny how France is so generous when pledging the aid of the international community and not, for example, that of France.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-12/obama-responds-iraq-request-kinetic-support-says-ready-take-military-action

I'm not sure this is so smart.. if we've got to have another war, why not go where it will counter Putin and / or China? And that's not Iraq.

Is AQ even such a concern anymore? As in, a priority? Muslims seem to be more upset with Russia lately than us, and opposing Russia and Assad in Syria.

What's the point of us getting back into Iraq, at this point?

[PrestonSturges]

Just watching some good tapes of Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz from 2003 saying that there would be no ethnic strife or internal warfare as a result of us invading Iraq. All the Republicans who said we should go into Iraq in the first place said these kinds of problems would never happen.

Critics were warning the GOP that these problems were inevitable. Eric Shinseki got fired because he warned that 300,000 soldiers would be needed.

But hey maybe some asshole will lose his mind watching Fox News and go on a shooting spree this week.

[Sixstrings]

Just watching some good tapes of Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz from 2003 saying that there would be no ethnic strife or internal warfare as a result of us invading Iraq. All the Republicans who said we should go into Iraq in the first place said these kinds of problems would never happen.

What I wonder is, how did Saddam and the Baathists hold the place together?

Just brute dictatorial police state? I guess that works sometimes.

But since Saddam, the Iraqi army seems like a mess and they cut and run all the time.

Where we screwed up in the middle east:

1) We didn't know during Desert Shield just how much it would piss radical muslims off, US troops being on Saudi soil, even though we were defending them from possible Iraqi invasion.

2) Lesson learned about that: maybe we need to stay out of the middle east, directly, big operations and boots on the ground and even try to get away from drones. Of all our adversaries, it's the radical muslims that have caused us the real trouble.

So why don't we just stay out of it. Use proxies, like the Saudis, to keep order over there. We need to be more careful, that's for sure, so HOW DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO GET BACK INTO IRAQ NOW?

Iraq has already been screwed up:

1) Obama let it go to Iran. So wtf are we doing here, we're sort of aiding AQ-linked groups in Syria, along with the Saudis, and now we're going to fight AQ in Iraq and Iran would be on our side with that, but the Saudis are opposed to Iran. It's so confusing.

2) It's just too late now. Obama already lost Iraq to Iran, and then he did a total pullout, so now it's a bigger operation to take the place back again.

And we can't afford it. There are other hotspots that could flare up, like the Baltics, like Ukraine, like the Phillipines, like Russian bombers off California and Iranian emp ships off Florida.

I would agree with doing a BIT to help Iraq out, like air power and maybe some limited boots on ground, but we cannot get bogged in again. And we need to have an eye out for not pissing off muslims and dealing with blowback all over again -- let's just leave it alone, war on terror is about over with, let's not re-fight yesterday's war -- let them get mad at Putin's Russia and forget about us. Makes sense, no?

[PrestonSturges]

And when Joe Biden suggested the best route was to accept a 3 way partition of Iraq, the Republicans did their feces-throwing-screech-monkey-routine. Well it looks like Joe was probably right.

[Kristen]

It's Shia versus Sunni and something so complex, us westerners have no chance of understanding, let alone preventing such a chasm. If we offer support it will be with our remote controlled drones in the sky. As long as the oil fields and refineries let us upgrade and exploit them, the world could care less who's in charge.

[PrestonSturges]

The Kurds have retaken a major oil field and have always been willing to cut a deal with us, but this irritates Turkey to the north. Their region has been the most stable part of Iraq because it avoids the Shiite/Sunni food fight.

[Sixstrings]

It's Shia versus Sunni and something so complex, us westerners have no chance of understanding, let alone preventing such a chasm.

Right, I've never been too clear on all that. I keep forgetting which ones are sunni and which are shia.

If we do anything, we have to just pick a side and stick with it.

I don't know which is which, but I know Saudi Arabia is one sect, then there's Iran, and I know the Saudis are opposed to Iran.

I have no frickin' clue what sect AQ are. But, the US, Israel, and Saudis are all aiding the rebels in Syria which are fighting along AQ against Assad.

Doesn't seem to make sense to me, to do anything that aids Iran -- Iraqi gov has request US support, but they've also been close to Iran, so if we do anything it should be on condition of pushing Iran out of there.

On top of all these complexities, I do see the point that our gov doesn't want Iraq to become an AQ haven. Yet, going forward, is AQ a problem for us? Russia is the empire on the rise, we don't even oppress any muslims here at home, so can't we call an end to it with them?

The thing about these muslims is that their jihad is dangerous. It's a serious risk to our security. The biggest worry is them setting off a nuke over here one day -- so I don't know, maybe we just should not piss them off, because you just can't ever win with these people.

If we offer support it will be with our remote controlled drones in the sky. As long as the oil fields and refineries let us upgrade and exploit them, the world could care less who's in charge.

The drones are doing a lot of "hearts and minds" damage, and getting us hated. Would be nice if we could just find a way to tack out of being hated by radical muslims, in the first place.

It's not like Europe or Asia -- other than Israel, there are no democracies to defend in the middle east. US allied bloc now faces challenges closer to home -- like a Chinese base being built on a *Filipino coral reef*. Russian Navy in the Baltics. China making noises. Etc., etc., etc.

The Kurds have retaken a major oil field and have always been willing to cut a deal with us, but this irritates Turkey to the north. Their region has been the most stable part of Iraq because it avoids the Shiite/Sunni food fight.

I kind of like those kurds. They're the only ones so far that have fought off this ISIS army. And Saddam gassed them. The kurds aren't terrorists. Just want to be left alone.

[Sixstrings]

Russia issues statement, letting us know that they told us so and that they turned out right about Iraq:

Russia on Iraq: ‘We told you so’

"We are greatly alarmed by what is happening in Iraq. We warned long ago that the affair that the Americans and the Britons stirred up there wouldn't end well," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday, according to Voice of Russia. He also described the Iraq war as a "total failure" and said Russia was sorry that its forecasts had come true.

It's hard to deny that Russia was vocal in saying that the Iraq war was a bad idea. In March 2003, just as the invasion began, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly criticized it. It was the "most serious crisis the world has faced since the Cold War," he told the Duma, adding that the fighting would be "fierce" and "drawn out."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/12/russia-on-iraq-we-told-you-so/

Putin was a bit wrong. The fighting wasn't so much "fierce," it was more IED's that caused all the casualities. Same as Afghanistan.

Anyhow.. US won the Iraq War.. we're just too sweet and nice about these things, unlike Russia, and we do not profit from them. At the end, we let the whole world in on the contracts -- we could have kept it, like Russia has Crimea, and we could have made money off Iraq and kept control. But we aren't empire.

We let the new Iraqi gov be free to do as it will, and ultimately they asked us to leave and then they leaned to Iran, and they're a bad government for their people and it's why Iraqi's are defecting to the rebels, and now with the sh*t hitting the fan suddenly the Iraqi gov wants us back again.

But we did win it. Just so the Russians know that. Where we go wrong is how we wrap these things up.

[PrestonSturges]

The problem with the Kurd and Turkey is that they want a new "Kurdistan" that would also carve a slice off the south side of Turkey. There has been long running friction between Turkey and their own Kurdish separatists ("PKK").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey%E2% ... K_conflict

[Keith_McClary]

The problem with the Kurd and Turkey is that they want a new "Kurdistan" that would also carve a slice off the south side of Turkey. There has been long running friction between Turkey and their own Kurdish separatists ("PKK").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey%E2% ... K_conflict

There are various maps of Kurdistan:

More from Google Images.

[Plantagenet]

The papers here in Dublin Ireland have a big headline: OBAMA VOWS TO STOP INSURGENTS IN IRAQ. It also says the Brits have ruled out any military action in Iraq.

Looks like Obama is going to have to put on his cowboy hat and go it alone if he really intends to keep his vow and intervene militarily in Iraq. Or maybe this talk from Obama is just BS? Like his phony red line in Syria??

[Timo]

The papers here in Dublin Ireland have a big headline: OBAMA VOWS TO STOP INSURGENTS IN IRAQ. It also says the Brits have ruled out any military action in Iraq.

Looks like Obama is going to have to put on his cowboy hat and go it alone if he really intends to keep his vow and intervene militarily in Iraq. Or maybe this talk from Obama is just BS? Like his phony red line in Syria??

If the Kurds take any action to secure their areas militarily, Turkey might/probably will interpret this as their attempt to establish their own state. Turkey won't let that happen, so if Turkey get's involved, then NATO, by default, is also involved. The Brits won't have any exclusive say in the matter. NATO will be involved. How and in what capacity remains to be seen. It's too complicated for me to make any sensible forecast.

The only other thing i can say is OMG!!! What a ClusterF**k!!! I try not to put my doomer hat on, but seeing events like we're seeing now occur with so many variables involved, it is awfully hard to be optimistic.

[ROCKMAN]

Why might the US get heavily involved in the effort to prevent the insurgents from interrupting Iraq oil production? Assume their efforts increase the price Americans pay for oil by just $5/bbl: an extra $30 BILLION per year for US consumers. And for the entire world: $160 BILLION/year. And that's just for a $5/bbl premium. As I said yesterday I doubt many Americans have an appetite to send troops into Iraq right now. But ask them again if they are suddenly paying $7+/gallon for gasoline.

And how would it effect Putin? He pockets nearly an extra $20 BILLION per year by just by sitting back and doing nothing.

[KaiserJeep]

Obama has already claimed the removal of the last US combat troops from Iraq was his "proudest accomplishment". What's more foolish, was that he said so publicly while he was still in office, for political benefit, and therefore anybody who even thinks about this topic will understand how silly it is to believe he would intervene in Iraq again.

What he should have done was leave a few Special Forces groups in Iraq, to cover our former allies while he basks in the domestic US glory of being peacemaker. But he has "foot in mouth" disease, he always does the wrong thing, and then foolishly boasts about it. He truly is even more incompetent and foolish than was Jimmy Carter.

I'm nominating Obama as the worst POTUS of the last century. Any seconds?

[Plantagenet]

NATO will only get involved if the member states vote to get involved and that is extremely unlikely. Even the Brits have already said they won't use military force.

If Obama is serious with his threats to intervene and stop the islamists he's gonna have to act alone. IMHO Obama is lying again just like he lied when he threatened Syria

My guess is no US intervention

[vtsnowedin]

I think the US and NATO will do nothing. They are not prepared for it and the prospects of any profit from a military action now are slim indeed. They will sit back and let the civil war rage even with Iran's participation and let the war use up all that equipment and ammo the US left there. Once it is over if the winners ship oil at normal levels at the world price we will let them be. If they hold the oil hostage THEN we will bust their butts with cruse missiles and drone strikes.

[Timo]

Obama has already claimed the removal of the last US combat troops from Iraq was his "proudest accomplishment". What's more foolish, was that he said so publicly while he was still in office, for political benefit, and therefore anybody who even thinks about this topic will understand how silly it is to believe he would intervene in Iraq again.

What he should have done was leave a few Special Forces groups in Iraq, to cover our former allies while he basks in the domestic US glory of being peacemaker. But he has "foot in mouth" disease, he always does the wrong thing, and then foolishly boasts about it. He truly is even more incompetent and foolish than was Jimmy Carter.

I'm nominating Obama as the worst POTUS of the last century. Any seconds?

Obama didn't start this mess. He's just expected to clean it up without making any mistakes at all. I challenge anyone alive in history to be able to do that. Whatever he does will have some negative consequences. His choices are choosing the least of the worst, and the US can hardly afford to keep fighting wars all over the world. Remeber the US budget, and the hole that Bush II dug us into by starting these wars without paying for them? Obama has those additional constraints, too. Oh. But he gets blamed for that deficit, too, even though he inherited it from the previous POTUS. The honor of the worst POTUS clearly goes to Bush II. He had all the warnings that things like this were inevitable if he proceded, and he fired everyone who spoke any sense to him, or threw them under the bus. Colin Powell was the only sensible Secretary in his cabinet, and even he got muzzled. Obama isn't responsible for causing any jihaad in Iraq, or anywhere else.

[evilgenius]

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that ISIS has managed to take control of so much of Iraq with so few men in its forces? I read somewhere the other day that they only have around 5,000 men. With that many I can see them taking a place like Mosul, but not keeping it.

It seems like there is more going on here than is being portrayed on the surface. I wonder what the public opinion/groundswell is like? Maybe there is a context within which this can happen with so few men acting to bring it about?

On a related note; I don't think we left Iraq in any condition to face the 21st Century. We could have unchained them from the constraints that we, The West, have placed upon them. We could have let them use their own oil for their own purposes, instead of insisting upon the same old export model. Yes, it is probably true that the resulting inflation of the Export Land Model would have meant a drastic rethinking of the oil reserves the world could expect to get from Iraq, but we might have met the stated goals. Maybe we never meant what we said about those goals? If not, then letting them have a go at shoot 'em up won't hurt our philosophical position any. Neither side has any alternative other than to sell the oil they can produce. There is no industrial infrastructure to alternatively pour the oil into.

[Sixstrings]

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that ISIS has managed to take control of so much of Iraq with so few men in its forces? I read somewhere the other day that they only have around 5,000 men. With that many I can see them taking a place like Mosul, but not keeping it.

It seems like there is more going on here than is being portrayed on the surface. I wonder what the public opinion/groundswell is like?

Okay, I think I have a handle on this one.

ISIS is sunni, and AQ is too, and Iran is shia. (I think )

So, Iraq has shia and sunni, and their gov is shia dominating the Sunni. So, you've got ISIS coming in and the sunni people are already mad and had it with the central gov, so they are just welcoming them in.

Just a few thousand ISIS forces caused tens of thousands of Iraqi army to cut and run. But the kurds, that are pro-American by the way so we need to be looking out for them, fought off ISIS.

So that tells you something. Kurds are fighting for their home, their autonomous region. Whereas nobody likes the Iraqi central government.

Latest news is that a grand ayatollah somewhere is calling for all shia to take up arms against the Sunni invasion. If the US intervenes with airpower, a big question is whether *sunni* countries that host our aircraft will allow us to take off to squash the *sunni* rebellion in Iraq.

Whole thing is a damn mess! Definitely a bit of airpower could have just wiped out this little ISIS army. But, if we go in now, then we are just the air support for the Iranian Army, that's moving in! How messed up is that?

What the f*ck are we doing? It's so screwed up. We're against Iran and fighting them elsewhere, now we're going to be their air cover to fight the sunni? It's messed up. If Iran is mixed up in there, we need to stay out, let that Iraqi government fall because it's not a pro-American government anyway and we don't have a moral highground to get involved -- they've been oppressing the sunni Iraqis. It's an uprising, rebellion, just like Ukraine.

So we shouldn't be giving heavy firepower support to a government that's not treating its people right, to start with.

I mean, what are we doing here? Are we really going to bring a hammer down on the Iraqi sunni people that are rebelling against what is essentially Iranian shia domination? So Obama is Iran's muscle, now? None of it makes any sense.