As Obama And
His House And Senate Allies Beats The War Drums-Again- Stop The Escalations-No
New U.S. War In Iraq- No Intervention In Syria! Immediate Withdrawal Of All
U.S. Troops And Mercenaries! Stop The U.S.
And French Bombings! –Stop The Arms Shipments …
Frank Jackman
comment:
As the Nobel
Peace Prize Winner, U.S. President Barack Obama, abetted by the usual suspects
in the House and Senate as well as internationally, orders more air bombing
strikes in the north, sends more “advisers” to “protect” American outposts in
Iraq, and sends arms shipments to the Kurds, supplies arms to the moderate Syrian
opposition if it can be found to give weapons to, guys who served in the
American military during the Vietnam War and who, like me, belatedly, got
“religion” on the war issue as a kneejerk way to resolve the conflicts in this
wicked old world might very well be excused for disbelief when the White House
keeps pounding out the propaganda that these actions are limited when all signs
point to the slippery slope of escalation. Now not every event in history gets
exactly repeated but given the recent United States Government’s history in
Iraq those vets might be on to something. In any case dust off the old banners,
placards, and buttons and get your voices in shape- just in case. No New War In
Iraq
***
Here is something to think about:
Workers and the oppressed have no interest in a victory by one combatant
or the other in the reactionary Sunni-Shi’ite civil war. However, the
international working class definitely has a side in opposing imperialist
intervention in Iraq and demanding the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops
and mercenaries. It is U.S. imperialism that constitutes the greatest danger to
the world’s working people and downtrodden.
***********
NEW
WARS / OLD WARS – Are You Feeling Safer Now?
Senate
Joins House in Voting To Give Weapons And Training To ‘Moderate’ Syrian
Rebels
Following
the House, the Senate voted yesterday to approve President
Obama’s plan to arm and train the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels. They vote
was 78-22 with 9 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and independent
Senator Bernie Sanders voting no. Congress has now authorized another military
adventure in the Middle East, what could go wrong?In both the House and the
Senate a considerable amount of Democrats opposed the legislation but not enough
to make a difference. Many high profile Democratic Senators such as Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand voted no further
revealing a divided party. Republicans in the House and Senate made these
divisions irrelevant to the legislative outcome, but how much of a mandate does
Obama have if his own party is divided? More House Roll Call here
Senators Elizabeth
Warren and Ed Markey were among the NO votes; in the House, all of our
delegation voted NO – except Lynch and Neal. Let them know how you feel about
their votes: Lynch - (202) 225-8273; Neal - (202) 225-5601; Warren - (202)
224-4543; Markey - (202) 224-2742
Progressive House
Members Call for a Robust War Debate and Congressional Authorization: H. Con.
Res. 114 (Co-sponsors include McGovern, Clark,
Tsongas so far)
Dear
Colleague:
Over the past
few months, our country has grappled with the question of how to deal with the
threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Last week, the
President put forward his own plan, which would provide for a significant
long-term bombing campaign and military escalation in Iraq and Syria. The
Constitution has entrusted specific, articulated war powers to both the
Executive and Legislative branches. The President has laid out a vision for
action, consistent with his interpretation of his authority as
Commander-in-Chief. We believe that it is incumbent on Congress to exercise its
own constitutional authority to debate and examine the significant consequences
of another multi-year military intervention in the Middle East and to authorize
any use of force. Consistent with this belief, we recently introduced H. Con.
Res. 114, which calls for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties by
debating and voting on a narrowly tailored authorization for any sustained
military campaign in Iraq or Syria. Text of bill here
2-minute Video:
HOW DOES THIS END? 35
Military Interventions since 1980 and Terrorism Grows
Perpetual War,
Perpetual Bombing, Perpetual Losing
President
Obama’s strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS depends crucially on
precision bombing by drones and airplanes. The heavy lifting on the ground is
supposed to be accomplished by our ‘allies’ in Iraq and the Syrian opposition,
but as any reader of the news knows, these allies are, to put it charitably,
unreliable and prone to panic and/or treachery. So, despite Obama’s rhetoric,
our new war against ISIS will be an air power war… The seductive idea of victory
thru airpower alone is not a new one, and Obama has fallen for a modern improv
of an old score — no doubt, in part, for domestic political reasons.
More
Slippery Slope
Department. . .
U.S. military Wants
“Boots-On-The-Ground” Options
Even as the
administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the
Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a
series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the
Islamic State militant group. Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under
Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday,
telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground
combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative
efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our
foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance
that they will not see American boots on the ground.”… Despite Obama’s
promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that
he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in
limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the
commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of
at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled. More
Iraq Premier Nixes US
Ground Troops
Iraq's new prime
minister ruled out stationing U.S. ground troops in his country, chiding the
international community Wednesday for inaction in Syria and lamenting the
"puzzling" exclusion of neighboring Iran from the coalition being assembled to
fight the Islamic State group… "Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We
don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop." Instead, al-Abadi urged the
international community to expand its campaign against the extremists in
neighboring Syria, noting that militants coming under pressure in Iraq are
retreating back into Syria. More
Obama will not
micromanage Syria strikes, Hagel says
Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel disputed a report that President Obama will personally
sign off on every airstrike against Islamic militants
conducted inside Syria, saying military leaders will make those decisions. "I
was sitting next to the president yesterday when this entire issue was being
discussed and he was very clear with General [Lloyd] Austin, once he makes
decisions, he gives General Austin and our military leaders the authority to
carry out those policies," Hagel told members of the House Armed Services
Committee Thursday, where he was testifying. More
ISIS: The monster
that grew in plain sight of Washington and Riyadh
The Islamic
State (IS/ISIS) did not become the monster it is today by accident. The Western
media and governments bore witness to the inception, growth, and expansion of
this radical jihadi group, with funding from the Arab Gulf, sectarian agitation,
and political blessing, until ISIS became a monster… “Qatari support for
Syrian fighters”; “Wealthy Saudi and Kuwaiti sponsors”; “through banks in
Kuwait”: These revelations and more were mentioned repeatedly in most Western
articles investigating the source of al-Nusra and ISIS funding, in addition to
enumerating other sources such as seizure of weapons caches, robbing banks, and
looting of other assets in Syria… “Everybody knows the money is going through
Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf. Kuwait’s banking system and its
money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit
for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.” More
ISIS Draws a Steady
Stream of Recruits From Turkey
As many as 1,000
Turks have joined ISIS, according to Turkish news media reports and government
officials here. Recruits cite the group’s ideological appeal to disaffected
youths as well as the money it pays fighters from its flush coffers. The C.I.A.
estimated last week that the group had from 20,000 to 31,500 fighters in Iraq
and Syria. The United States has put heavy pressure on Turkey’s president, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, to better police Turkey’s 560-mile-long border with Syria.
Washington wants Turkey to stanch the flow of foreign fighters and to stop ISIS
from exporting the oil it produces on territory it holds in Syria and Iraq. So
far, Mr. Erdogan has resisted pleas to take aggressive steps against the group,
citing the fate of 49 Turkish hostages ISIS has held since militants took over
Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, in June. Turkey declined to sign a communiqué
last Thursday that committed a number of regional states to take “appropriate”
new measures to counter ISIS, frustrating American officials.
More
Saudi Arabia:
Champion of Human Rights?
Yes indeed,
unlikely as it may seem. Saudi Arabia’s official Human Rights Commission, a
government organization, and the Gulf Research Center, a think tank, have
announced that they will organize a three-day international rights conference,
to be held in Riyadh in December, “under the patronage” of King Abdullah. The
announcement says the event “will gather together Heads of States and
representatives of national ministries, members of Parliaments, international,
regional, and inter-governmental organizations, religious scholars, academics,
national Human Rights Commissions, and NGOs.” Given Saudi Arabia’s unsavory
reputation on this subject—it is routinely denounced in the State Department’s
annual human rights report and by activist groups such as Human Rights
Watch—Riyadh might seem to be an unlikely venue for such an event. But the key
to understanding the rationale for this conference lies in the announced theme:
“Promoting a Culture of Tolerance.” This is not about individuals’ freedom of
expression, or the status of women, or freedom of assembly. This is about the
Islamic State, or ISIS. More
CIA Privately
Skeptical About New Syria Strategy, Sources Say
The opposition
derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly
equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to
find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes
on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.
Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are
skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also
wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far
rested with their agency. One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA
has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's
strategy could succeed. More
To Crush ISIS, Make a
Deal With Assad
By opting to
support the “moderate” Syrian opposition and running the risk of an open
confrontation with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the West appears to be primarily
appeasing Arab Persian Gulf allies that have turned the overthrow of Mr. Assad
into a policy fetish that runs against any rational calculation of how to defeat
Islamist terrorism. The persistent belief in Western policy circles that there
is a “moderate opposition” in Syria — reiterated at the close of a NATO summit meeting in
Wales on Sept. 5 — warrants serious scrutiny… The alleged moderates have never
put together a convincing national program or offered a viable alternative to
Mr. Assad. The truth is that there are no “armed moderates” (or “moderate
terrorists”) in the Arab world — and precious few beyond. The genuine
“moderates” won’t take up arms, and those who do are not truly moderates.
More
EXCLUSIVE!
Kerry Claims U.S. Has Found a Moderate Syrian Rebel
In
what Secretary of State John Kerry described as a significant foreign-policy
coup, the U.S. claimed, on Tuesday, that it had successfully located a moderate
Syrian rebel. Though Kerry did not elaborate on how the U.S. did so, he said
that locating the rebel was “the culmination of a months-long effort.” The
Secretary of State said that the Syrian had been appropriately vetted and was deemed “moderately rebellious.”
“He definitely seems to be the sort of gentleman we can work with,” Kerry said,
adding that several millions of dollars would be spent arming and training the
rebel in the days and weeks ahead. More
How Obama’s New War
Could Backfire
Although
President Obama insists that no American military “boots on the ground” will be
used to degrade and defeat the radical Islamist group Islamic State (IS) — which
is well funded and has captured much heavy military equipment from the Syrian
military and U.S. trained and equipped Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga militias
— that will make his objective much harder to obtain… So if boots on the ground
are needed to effectively fight IS and Obama and the American people — as a
result of the Afghanistan and Iraq debacles — vehemently veto that idea, what is
to be done? Surprisingly, the best option is for the U.S. government to do
nothing. IS is a threat to Iraq, Syria, and neighboring countries, but not a
direct threat to the United States… regional countries should be able to handle
a regional threat, leaving the United States to worry about any future training
camps in IS-controlled territory that might be training terrorists to attack the
United States. (As noted previously, if the United States takes a less prominent
role in attacking IS, the motivation of IS to attack U.S. territory will be much
reduced.) More
The war on ISIS
already has a winner: The defense industry
It’s far too
soon to tell how the American escalation in the sprawling, complex mess
unfolding in Iraq and Syria will play out. But this much is clear: As our
military machine hums into a higher gear, it will produce some winners in the
defense industry. New fights mean new stuff, after all. And following the U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan—and the belt-tightening at the Pentagon
imposed by steep budget cuts—military suppliers are lining up to meet a suddenly
restored need for their wares. Presenting his vision for expanding the
confrontation with the terrorist group ISIS in a speech to the nation on
Wednesday night, President Obama outlined a program of intensified airstrikes
designed to keep American troops away from the danger on the ground. So defense
analysts are pointing to a pair of sure-bet paydays from the new campaign: for
those making and maintaining the aircraft, manned and unmanned, that will swarm
the skies over the region, and for those producing the missiles and munitions
that will arm them. More
