Obama: American Military Action in Iraq

By Douglas V. Gibbs

And now, yet another President of the United States is talking about military action in Iraq, but Barack Obama promises, “I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these.  I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”

As if sending warplanes back into the skies over Iraq is not war.

The plan is in line with the same failed action he took in Libya: limited actions, limited strikes, not combatant boots on the ground.  But this time the effort is focused mainly on dropping food and water.  You know, it's kind of like having unarmed troops at the Mexican border.

Obama did say he would authorize targeted airstrikes “if necessary” against Islamic radicals, specifically mentioning the advancement on the Kurdish capital of Erbil, and others threatening to wipe out thousands of non-Muslims stranded on a remote mountaintop.

But we're not going to war, he assured us.

ISIS has seized much of Iraq and Syria, seizing Falluja and other territory in the western part of the country at the beginning of the year and marching through Mosul and toward Baghdad by summer - areas that Americans died in to remove those areas from tyrannical control.

In June, Obama sent in a tiny group of 300 special forces troops to "assess" the situation.

Up to this point, despite calls for him to do so, Obama has rejected calling for airstrikes against the advancing Islamist force.  Aides said his hand was not forced until ISIS won a series of swift and stunning victories last weekend and Wednesday night against the Kurds in the north, who have been a loyal and reliable American ally.

“You don’t have to have a ton of insight to know he feels reluctant,” said Douglas Ollivant, a former Iraq adviser in the White House under Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush. “He wants the Iraq problem not to exist. And that’s exactly what the American people sent him to the White House to do.” But “all these factors may kind of drag him kicking and screaming into some kind of decision.”

Opponents of the Iraq war believe Obama's decision is a step back down a dangerous path which may return us to a situation they consider to be a bloody and destructive venture.

“This is about America’s national security,” said Ryan Crocker, who was ambassador to Iraq under Mr. Bush and to Afghanistan under Mr. Obama. “We don’t understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the ISIS leader, “have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.”

This writer believes our rapid departure, leaving no traces of American presence in Iraq behind, is a part of what emboldened the emergence of ISIS/ISIL, and we are now reaping what we have sown for leaving the Iraqis defenseless.

Obama's reluctance signifies he may not be willing to go as far as necessary in dealing with the Islamists.  He said on Thursday that there is “no American military solution” to the Iraqi insurgency, pointing again to the need for what he calls a new politically inclusive government in Baghdad.

A limited strike against a bloodthirsty group of warriors of an ideology that hates anyone different than them due to religious conditioning is not something that can be short-term.  Bumping a group like ISIS back a few steps will not stop the onslaught.  They are willing to die for their cause, and the only way to stop them is to give them that opportunity.

It's a sticky situation for a person that is a pacifist to the point that even defensive military operations sickens his stomach.  Yet, Obama is being told that America can't do nothing.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama, with reluctance, returns to action in Iraq - New York Times