Friday, July 17, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THEY'LL VOTE FOR HER TO GO AWAY!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON'S GOT PROBLEMS.



REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY EXPLAINED SHE WAS OFF TO A BIG MONEY FUNDRAISER AND SHE DIDN'T "HAVE TIME FOR THOSE STUPID VOTERS RIGHT NOW.  WHEN I'M DONE RAKING IN THE DOUGH, I'LL TRY TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REMEMBER ALL THE LITTLE PEOPLE I STEPPED ON IN MY RISE TO THE TOP."



The assault on Anbar continues.

The press coverage?


Not so much.


Al Bawaba reports that the government of Jordan stated Iraq closed the border the two countries share, "A prolonged closure at Trebil crossing would cut off yet another export route for Jordan, dealing yet another blow to the country’s economy.  The kingdom closed its trade route with Syria after the crossing was seized by Syrian opposition this spring."  Mustafa Saad (Alsumaria) adds that Iraq's ambassador to Jordan, Jawad Hadi al-Abbas, stated today that the border was closed as a temporary measure which will end when the military operations to take back Anbar Province from the Islamic State.  Press TV notes:

Brigadier General Saad Maan said the move is partly aimed at depriving ISIL of the income it makes through taxing the cargo trucks driving through its territory inside Iraq.
Maan said the crossing will be reopened after the security situation improves in the area.


In a really lousy report for Reuters, Dominic Evans and Isabel Coles fail to note that border closing while insisting "tens of thousands" of civilians are trapped in Anbar.

Tens of thousands?

A conservative estimate of the population of Anbar is 1.6 million people.

Though some have been trapped near and outside Baghdad, it's not 700,000.

We're talking about a million civilians, minimum, trapped in Anbar as this 'operation' takes place.

A military operation in/on Anbar.

For 18 months now, the Iraq military has illegally been targeting civilians in Falluja with bombings -- resulting in thousands being injured and killed.

So the notion that the Iraqi military takes and care with a civilian population is a little beyond stretched.

This is a humanitarian crisis.


And maybe if the press could focus, this would be noted.

The press showed how distracted they were in today's State Dept press briefing as no one elected to ask a question -- to spokesperson John Kirby -- about Iraq.

Al Mada reports the military is stating that they have advanced to just outside Falluja city limits.

Even that doesn't result in western coverage of significance.

National Iraqi News Agency notes that Iraq's prime minister Haider al-Abadi visited Anbar Command.

Again, no major coverage came from that.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


Posted by at

THIS JUST IN! SHE'S THE MISCOMMUNICATOR!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CRANKY WANTS TO BE THE GREAT MISCOMMUNICATOR.


AND THIS IS SO TRUE THAT SHE  CONSIDERED MAKING HER CAMPAIGN SLOGAN, "THEY DON'T LIKE ME AND YOU WON'T EITHER!"


BUT IT WAS DECIDED THAT WAS FAR TOO MUCH HONESTY FOR AN AMERICAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN TO OFFER.





And the mark of a real bitch?

Holding a press conference to sell something to the American people but being a bitch throughout.

Yes, I'm referring to Barack's performance today.


The only thing I can compare it to is when Joan Crawford was married to the CEO of Pepsi-Cola, Alfred Steele and felt the need to attend stock holder meetings like the one described in the May 14, 1958 issue of Variety where Joan insults the stockholders ("Make it brief, boy"), refuses to answer their questions ("It's none of your business") and thinks she was being professional and charming.



The very first question led to this pompous response from Barack:

Andrew, if you don't mind, just because I suspect that there’s going to be a common set of questions that are touched on -- I promise I will get to your question, but I want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. And I already did in my opening statement, but I just want to reiterate it because I’ve heard already some of the objections to the deal.


It never got better.


And probably culminated in the exchange with CBS News' Major Garrett.

Major Garrett:  Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran -- three held on trumped-up charges, according to your administration; one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation and the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?  And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. Many in the Pentagon feel you’ve left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?


President Barack Obama:   I got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails --  Major, that’s nonsense, and you should know better.  I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody is content. And our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.


Eliza Collins covers the exchange for POLITICO and  Cedric's "He doesn't like questions" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT HOSTAGES!" also covered the exchange.




As for Barack's response, Major probably hit on the theme that historians will: Barack's capitulations.

There are American hostages in Iran and, as president of the United States, you don't make a damn deal with any country that doesn't touch on American hostages being released.

Barack has shown no respect for American lives and that's the historic thread.

It connects this deal with the deal he made with the terrorist group the League of Righteous.

Their leader and top officials were in US custody.  In the summer of 2009, Barack let them go.

They now terrorize Sunnis in Iraq and that's on Barack.

But he's never been asked to explain this.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"




Posted by at

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

THIS JUST IN! HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT HOSTAGES!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


"YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!" SQUEALED BARRY O WHILE TUGGING ON HIS NAUGHTY PARTS.  "YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER."

ACTUALLY, BARRY O, IT'S YOU - YOU - YOU - YOU WHO OUGHT TO KNOW.



Nouri al-Maliki did his part to destroy Iraq and then some.

The Iraqi Parliament wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari to be prime minister following the December 2005 elections but the Bully Boy Bush administration opposed his being prime minister (for a second time) and instead installed Nouri al-Maliki in the spring of 2006.

The CIA profile on Nouri suggested he would be a good fit for the job due to his paranoia which the US government could use to sway and to control him.

It was his paranoia that marked his first time.

Otherwise, he had no accomplishments to speak of.

It was one failure after another for Nouri.

For example, he promised the Iraqi people that the Bremer walls/blast walls the US put up around Baghdad in the summer of 2006 would come down immediately.

That did not happen.

For example, in 2007, he agreed to the White House's benchmarks for measuring success/progress in Iraq and then failed to complete the list.

In the lead up to the 2010 elections, he had Shi'ite rivals kicked out of the election, he barred various Sunnis from running and he bribed and bribed again.

His State of Law still lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

And Ayad should have been the next Prime Minister of Iraq.

But Barack Obama played Supreme Court and turned Allawi into the new Al Gore as Barack installed the loser Nouri into a second term as prime minister.

And then things really grew rotten.

Despite repeatedly lying and insisting he would, Nouri wanted no power-sharing government and began demonizing all opponents.

He then went after the people insisting peaceful protesters staging sit-ins were "terrorists."

No one was safe in Nouri's second term and he unleashed his goons on the peaceful protesters (as well as on Members of Parliament) resulting in one violent incident after another.


In 2010, the Iraqi people saw their votes overturned by US President Barack Obama.

The Iraqi people saw their leaders attempt to create a representative government and fail. (Largely due to interference on the part of Barack Obama -- such as when the Parliament attempted to hold a vote of confidence on Nouri but the White House prevented it.)

The Iraqi people then took to the streets to protest.

For over a year, they protested -- with little attention from the world media.

And Nouri responded by burning down the areas they gathered in.

This is what gave rise to the Islamic State.

A people who had been stripped of their votes, whose leaders were unable to protect them and who had attempted protest were denied every avenue of redress in a democracy.

As the raving lunatic Nouri got more and more despotic,  even Barack had to step away.

Which is how, in the fall of 2014, Haider al-Abadi became the new prime minister of Iraq after Nouri was forced out.

But he wasn't forced too far.

He became one of Iraq's three vice presidents and, in a typical Nouri narcissistic move,  Nouri declared himself the premier vice president.

As usual, some idiots in the press corps went along with that lie.

As we've noted before, Nouri will never stop attempting to destroy Iraq until he's six feet under.

And he's used his time out of the post of prime minister (while remaining in the home of the prime minister, please note) to plot his return.


This month, Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) reports on the latest developments in Nouri's possible efforts to take back the post of prime minister:


During his rule, Maliki’s policy was characterized by its sectarian and divisive tone and was a key reason behind the recent military defeats in Mosul and Ramadi. Now Maliki is urging people to back away from the national reconciliation policy initiated by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi when he took office. Proof of this is that during a tribal gathering June 13 in Karbala, Maliki said that the Anbar province’s tribes were protesting against him. He accused the rival political parties of supporting the objections against his rule when he was prime minister, which he called illegal. Finally, he described the fall of the Sunni areas at the hands of the Islamic State (IS) as “a Sunni sectarian revolution against the Shiites.”
In his speech, Maliki used three forms of extremist thought to incite to sectarian conflict. First, regional division, by generalizing and accusing the tribes of a particular area of being all against the Iraqi government; second, deepening the political dispute by accusing his rivals of standing with the terrorists; and third, describing the dispute in Iraq as religious and sectarian.
All three points contradict reality. There were tribes — such as the Sunni Albo tribe — in Anbar that were always against the protests and the ensuing developments, and the opposition parties to Maliki called for the peaceful resolution of the sit-ins and did not back those up. Finally, the Sunnis who were killed and displaced by IS exceed those from other communities; therefore, what happened cannot be described as a Sunni revolution against the Shiites.
In another speech, on the anniversary of the Popular Mobilization Units June 13, Maliki seemed to have a strong belief in the conspiracy theory that the fall of Mosul at the hands of IS was brought about by internal parties — such as the Kurds and the Mosul Provincial Council — to overthrow his government. He clearly said that the denial of the conspiracy is a conspiracy in itself.

 
This month has also seen Ibrahim Saleh (Niqash) report on what is seen as an effort to return Nouri al-Maliki to power:



Recently there have been calls for major changes to the Iraqi political system, moving it from a parliamentary system to a presidential one. This would mean that rather than elected MPs in Baghdad choosing the country's President, voters would choose the President, who could then work somewhat separately from the also-elected Parliament. For example, the US is a presidential system. Iraq currently has a parliamentary system.
However politicians in Iraq are concerned that if this comes any closer to happening that it will be a way for former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to slip back into power, but this time through a legal back door. They are also concerned that while it may not be something that can happen immediately, there is potential for some changes to occur during the next elections.
The call for these changes were started by one of the Shiite Muslim militias involved in the fight against the extremist group known as the Islamic State. The group, League of the Righteous, or Asaib Ahl al-Haq in Arabic, is known to be closely linked with al-Maliki. It is also known to be one of the more hard line and extremist of the Shiite militias.

Which is why many local politicians saw this as a call to bring al-Maliki, who is currently somewhat sidelined as one of Iraq's three Vice Presidents, back to power. Al-Maliki's divisive policies and attempts to centralise power have taken a fair share of the blame for the country's current security crisis and, although his party was successful in the last elections, al-Maliki lost the post of Prime Minister to colleague, Haider al-Abadi late last year.


While Haider remains in power, he uses his time to seek "revenge" (his term) on the Islamic State.  The problem with seeking "revenge" (as opposed to seeking peace)?  You leave a lot of collateral damage in your wake.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



Posted by at

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

THIS JUST IN! BOXERS AND BRIEFS!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

FORGET THE COMBAT BOOTS, CRANKY CLINTON WEARS GRANDMA PANTIES!

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY CONFIRMED WHAT THE PANTY LINES HAD LONG TOLD: SHE'S RETIRED FROM THE 'SPORT.'

"COMFORT AND JOY, BOYS, COMFORT AND JOY!" SHE EXCLAIMED BEFORE ADDING THAT CLOSING THE CHAPTER ON HER SEXUAL LIFE WAS "LIBERATING AND TIME SAVING.  THESE DAYS, IT'S HAYNES FOR HER ALL THE WAY!"

ASKED IF SHE WAS OFFENDED BY THE QUESTION, CRANKY SNORTED AND POINTED OUT HER HUSBAND WAS ASKED IN AN MTV 'DEBATE' BACK IN 1992 THE ETERNAL PRESSING QUESTION OF "BOXERS OR BRIEFS?"

"FOR ME, ON A COLD DAY, IT'S BOTH!"




Today, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi staged his latest attempt at taking (a part of) Anbar Province away from the Islamic State.  As Sinan Salaheddin (AP) observes:


This is not the first time the Iraqi government has announced an operation to retake Anbar — where several key towns, including the provincial capital Ramadi, remain under IS control. In May, authorities announced an operation to retake Ramadi, but there has not been any major progress on the ground since then.



Dominic Evans (Reuters) explains, "The sprawling Sunni Muslim province extends hundreds of kilometers west of Baghdad. Many of the towns and cities that line the banks of the Euphrates, snaking down from the Syrian border, are Islamic State strongholds.Islamic State's capture of Ramadi  two months ago marked the biggest defeat for the Baghdad government since the militants swept through the north of the country last June and declared a caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq straddling the border."

AP has also noted that the announcement was made on Iraqi TV by Yahya Rasool who is the spokesperson for the Joint Operations Command but that he failed to "clarify whether the U.S.-led international coalition is taking part, mentioning only government forces and allied Shiite and Sunni paramilitary troops."  Failed to clarify or failed to credit?


Al Jazeera's Imran Khan offered:

We are hearing the province will be surrounded on three sides going up to the border with Syria. They have announced operations like this one in the past particularly in Ramadi when it was taken by ISIL forces in mid-May. And that's a battle that's still ongoing. It is likely that this operation will concentrate on the second city in Anbar province, Fallujah, and move further west. While this is going on, we have also heard coalition airstrikes have hit an ISIL media and radio station in Anbar province.



What are they fighting for in Iraq?

Freedom?

Or the ability to carry out their own killings?

Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:


Iraqi officials have been candid that the brunt of the fighting about to engulf the city will be borne by an umbrella group of Shiite militia groups formed under the supervision of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the elite of Shiite Iran. That’s raised dire concerns from American advisers that these sectarian groups – overtly hostile to both Americans and Sunni Muslims – will break the already deeply frayed relationship between the Shiite government in Baghdad and the Sunni tribes that dominate the large swaths of Iraq currently under the Islamic State’s control.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article27167848.html#storylink=cpy
The government claims that Sunni tribal fighters and local policemen from Anbar will join the militia-led assault. But many remain skeptical that Sunnis have joined in sufficient numbers to avoid the impression of a Shiite pogrom against Sunnis in Fallujah.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article27167848.html#storylink=cpy





At the US State Dept press briefing today, spokesperson John Kirby spun wildly.


QUESTION: Slightly Iran-related. In relation to Fallujah, wondering if the United States detects any evidence of Iranian involvement or direction of Shiite militia trying to take back Fallujah?


MR KIRBY: I would point you to the Iraqi Government – this is an Iraqi-led operation – to speak to the participation of these Popular Mobilization Forces and certainly Tehran for the degree that they are or are not facilitating. I do think it’s important to remember a couple of things. This is an Iraqi-led operation, as it should be. And so we’re going to let them speak to the progress of it. And then on the Popular Mobilization Forces, and I mentioned this a week or so ago but I think it bears repeating: About 80 percent of these Popular Mobilization Forces, or Shia militia as they are otherwise known, are not at all connected to Tehran or the Iranian regime. They’re Iraqi citizens proud of their country and wanting to chip in and fight. And what we’ve said from the very beginning is that all the forces arrayed on the ground against ISIL in Iraq need to be under the command and control of the Iraqi Government. And that’s what we’ve seen with the vast majority of these Shia militiamen.

So I think it’s just important to keep a little context in here. When we talk about Shia militia fighting here or fighting there, there’s this automatic sort of connection drawn to Tehran, and that’s just not the case mathematically.




The assault on Anbar comes as the United Nations News Centre reports:


The ongoing conflict in Iraq continues to exact a “terrible” and deadly toll on the country’s civilians, particularly in the areas still under control by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), according to a new report released today by the United Nations.
The report – a joint effort compiled by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) – notes that the situation facing civilians in ISIL-controlled territory remains dire with many of those perceived to be opposed to the extremist group’s ideology being murdered, often in “grim public spectacles.”
Members of ethnic and religious communities, for instance, continue to be persecuted with as many as 3,500 members of the Yezidi community remaining under ISIL captivity enduring physical and sexual violence. 
Others, meanwhile, are apparently being persecuted based on their perceived sexual orientation. On 8 March, the report says, ISIL beheaded two individuals accused of homosexuality and a third for blasphemy in the Bab al-Toob area of Mosul.
[. . .]
Although the report widely focuses on the crimes perpetrated by ISIL extremists, it also documents violations committed by the Iraqi Security Forces and affiliated forces, including indiscriminate airstrikes and shelling as well as actions of reprisal against civilians. 



Meanwhile Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 90 violent deaths across Iraq today.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"





Posted by at

Sunday, July 12, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY REJECTS INTERVENTION!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE



REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY DISMISSED THE CONCERNS OF HER FRIENDS AND INSISTED SHE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM.

"I AM JUST FINE!" SHE SNARLED.  "NO, NOT FINE! I AM PERFECT! I AM PERFECTION! I AM ALL I NEED TO BE, ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO BE! AND I'LL BITCH SLAP ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE."

SINGING THE LATE AMY WINEHOUSE'S BIGGEST HIT '"THEY TRY TO MAKE ME GO TO REHAB, I SAID NO-NO-NO," CRANKY SHOOK HER TIRED CABOOSE AND EXITED THE BUILDING.



On the topic of politicians, let's drop back to  Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  The Committee Chair is Senator John McCain and the Ranking Member is Senator Jack Reed.  Appearing before the Committee were Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

We've noted Senators Joe Donnelly, Kelly Ayotte and Joe Manchin in Wednesday's snapshot.  We're going to note the line of questioning from two other senators today.  Senator Martin Heinrich had some important and basic questions.


Senator Martin Heinrich: Let me start by saying that, 'surge' or no 'surge,' I think it's pretty clear, at least to my constituents, that the Iraq War remains one of the greatest US foreign policy mistakes of the last century and one that I've hoped we've learned a few lessons from.  I want to follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what Senator Hirono raised.  One lesson I feel that we should have learned by now is that eliminating one terrible Middle Eastern dictator can too often lead to even more brutal influences filling the leadership vacuum.  We've seen that play out too many times.  We've seen that to some extent in both Iraq and Libya.  Should we be concerned that in Syria, a post-Assad reality could create a vacuum that ISIL is far better positioned to fill than any of the other regional forces?  I'm not sure we should be --  I think we should be almost as concerned with forces like al Nusra Front [a splinter of al Qaeda which is operating in Syria].  And if Assad does fall, shouldn't we have more than discussions on the table?  Shouldn't we have a plan to make sure that some amount of governance remains, particularly in Damascus? 

Secretary Ash Carter:  Uh, well, yes, we should and we do.  That is our strategy with respect to the political transition.  Now, uh, I've -- for reasons that are easy to understand, our influence with Bashar al Assad, our -- that is US -- influence is not great and so we are trying to influence those who influence him to remove himself, uh, from the government of, uh, Damascus while keeping intact the structures of governance for the very reasons that you adduce which is we know what happens in these Middle Eastern countries when the structures of government disintegrate and we would like to not see that happen in Syria even though we know that the persistence of Assad at the helm in Damascus  is in fact a fuel for ISIS and others who are fighting him so he needs to go to remove that fuel but we don't want to see the structures of governance go at the same time.  And that is the challenge but that is what we're trying to achieve.


Senator Martin Heinrich:  Well I think that's certainly the right goal, I just want to make sure we're prepared for that because we've sort of missed that goal in the past and Syria is an enormous country and if we saw it lose its governance capability, the implications for the region and the entire world would be enormous.  Secretary Carter, as you mentioned as well, to be successful on the ground against ISIL, the fight needs to be led by local, capable ground forces.  I don't think we should give in to impatience.  These should not be western forces.  These should not be American forces.  We've certainly heard that from our partners in places like Jordan.  This means we need to place a great deal of importance on training motivated and reliable partners.  And you've gone a little bit over the small number of Iraqi security forces recruited, what those challenges are, the bottle neck related to the vetting process but are there other factors you would attribute for the lack of trainees?  And I guess one of the questions I have related to that is what steps, in addition to the steps that you're taking, what steps is the Iraqi government taking to address this shortfall in order to meet those training targets.we'd like to see?

Secretary Ash Carter:  Uh, uh, thank you, Senator.  I think in Iraq, the principle limiting factor on Sunni trainees -- which is one of our focus -- our focuses -- has been their belief that the government in Baghdad was not fully supportive of them.  That is the challenge before Prime Minister Abadi.  He says he wants to do that and, uh, that's critical because only Sunnis can take back Anbar [Province], only Sunnis can govern Anbar when it's all over.  So if we are going to wrest Anbar from the likes of ISIL which we must do, we must have Sunnis on our side. And so Abadi is saying all the right things, as the Chairman noted.  We're trying to support him in doing all the right things. And --

Senator Martin Henirich: Mr. Secretary, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your analysis.  I guess my concern is is Abadi doing enough to begin to generate confidence in the Sunni population in that region?

Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, I think he is doing everything he personally can.  Uh, I think he is challenged in Baghdad by others who would have it the old way, the sectarian way.  And so he's not able to make everything happen when and as he says.  And we've had some delays and some frustrations as a result of that.  I think things are getting better.  We are getting more trainees.  It was noted earlier that there is some confidence among Sunni tribes that we will help them train, equip them, support them and get them back in the fight -- that there's a future for them  -- not even withstanding the difficulties of multi-sectarianism governance in Iraq.  That's the path we're on and, in the meantime, just to get back to something that Senator [Mike] Rounds said, I-I-I think and I-I said this before, I just want to restate it.  We need to take action to defend ourselves against ISIL, not just in Iraq and Syria, but elsewhere particularly foreign fighters even as we defeat them from the place from which they arose.  They have metastasized now, they aspire to be a global network and we have to fight them where they are.  We can't wait for that.  We need to do that -- and by the way, we do it every day.

Senator Martin Heinrich:  Secretary --

Secretary Ash Carter:  We did that just this past weekend.

Senator Martin Heinrich (Con't):  -- I want to leave you with one last question.  It's a very general one.  You may have seen the POLITICO article from a couple of days ago that examined what it called the "Da-aesh effect" -- and it's sort of a modern example of the ancient proverb that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Whether it's Hammas or al Nusra or Iran, there are a number of entities that may be enemies to the US, certainly are enemies of our allies but currently share the same opposition to ISIL or Da'aesh.  What are your thoughts on that observation generally and wouldn't you agree that it's that reality that is part of the reason why this is such  a complicated nut to crack.


Secretary Ash Carter:  That is the reason why it's so complicated and, again, sectarianism is what brought us to this point so we are willing to -- and we are -- and have  supported elements of the Iraqi security forces that have a very large Shis composition to them but if and only if they're under the direction and control of the government of Iraq.  And there are Shia forces in Iraq that are not under the direction and control and we will not support them because that's sectarianism, that sectarian civil war.  We know what leads down that road and we're trying to stop Iraq from going down that road.



The hearing was Tuesday.  Wednesday this exchange took place at the State Dept press briefing moderated by Mark Toner:


MR TONER: Sure thing, Said. Go ahead.


QUESTION: The fight against ISIS?


MR TONER: The fight against ISIS.


QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


MR TONER: Sure.


QUESTION: I mean, now that we’ve had time --


MR TONER: Wouldn’t be a briefing without some discussion on --


QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


MR TONER: No, go ahead. I’m sorry.


QUESTION: No, I just wanted to follow up on some of the things that John said yesterday --


MR TONER: Yep.


QUESTION: -- but I (inaudible). He cited that when there is a – basically, implicitly, when there is a will to fight, such as the Peshmerga and the north fighting ISIS and the Kurdish fighters also in the north of Syria fighting ISIS, then we can see the outcome on the ground, that ISIS can be pushed back. Is the implicit suggestion there that the Iraqi army is not fighting or will not fight?


MR TONER: Not at all. We’ve long said that some of these local fighters have been absolutely integral to combating ISIL. But everything we do is through the Iraqi military and the Iraqi Government, and all the equipping and supplying that we do is conducted through them and with their concurrence. So there’s a recognition, I think, that this needs to be locally owned, if you will; that we need to really build the capacity of local forces, and that includes the Iraqi military itself, to be able to push back and combat ISIL.


QUESTION: Would that implicitly suggest that you – maybe you ought to give direct aid to the Peshmerga directly – heavy equipment, I mean. Not --


MR TONER: Yeah.


QUESTION: -- just rifles and guns and so on, but things like tanks and other battlefield equipment, heavy duty that they can use.



MR TONER: Well, again, we have been providing some assistance to the Peshmerga, again, through the Iraqi Government. We feel like that’s getting into their hands expeditiously. We don’t feel like there’s a delay mechanism or anything. We feel like that the system currently is working pretty well in terms of getting them what they need. In terms of additional support, obviously, we’re always looking at that, but nothing to announce.



In his exchange with Senator Kelly Ayotte on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter made clear the US was directly arming the Kurds (as were the Germans and others, Carter also made clear).

Why does the State Dept not know this?

How stupid and uniformed is the administration that one group doesn't talk to the other and that a spokesperson does not know what's in public testimony?

This was what Senator Joni Ernst started with in her line of questioning, was the US government arming the Kurds as Ayotte had asked and as Carter had replied.  His only clarification was that they were providing these arms with the consent of the Iraqi government out of Baghdad.

But with that clarification, he again insisted that they were doing this.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)