| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. Doesn't Know Who to Hit in Iraq |
| 2014-06-16 |
| [Daily Beast] The takeaway isn't the targeting piece. Drones can provide effective targeting and battle damage assessment (BDA). The takeaway is the imbedded declassified link, which reveals the absence of strategic surprise and foreknowledge of pending calamity. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #10 OWG Globalism indics or infers that there can be no major war because Nuke-armed Russia + China + India are involved or have regional influence, + also Soon-to-be-Nuclear Iran + prolly not-a-few, anti-Iran Sunni states. * TOPIX > {AEI] IRAQ IS BURNING, + THE US IS WATCHING. Histoire' says the Bammer's behavior will likely be the same for China iff a shooting war ever breaks out between China + Japan, Vietnam, PHIL, etc. in East Asia-Pacific. To be sure, as a good or proficient US Politico + alleged Anti-US US Marxist-Anarchist-Globalist [also read, PRO-CO-SUPERPOWER]the Bammer will "go thru the motions" and wilfully deploy a number of USDOD mil assets, but thats about all US Allies should expect. Each OWG Global Fed Union + Co-Superpower principal(s) need to be effec differentiated + justified, one from any each + all others. * RUSSIA TODAY > DESPERATE MEAURES: KERRY SAYS TO TURN TO IRAN, DRONE STRIKES TO FIGHT ISIS. "Radical Measures". * WASHINGTON FREE BEACON > SENIOR DHS OFFICIAL: "INEVITABLE THAT CALIPHATE RETURNS". ONLY CHOICE IS "WHETHER WE [US = West?] SUPPORT. Can the US-West support the concept of effective [+ par?] "MUSLIM UNION" [aka "Islamic Union" + related] like it does "EUROPEAN UNION" [NAU = North Amer Union]??? Global? Nuclear? Shia-vs-Sunni-vs-Pan-Muslim? Caliphate? or Caliphates?? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-06-16 22:56 |
| #9 What to hit? Everything! Twice! It is clear that the local civilian Sunnis were complicit in this takeover. Let the rubble bounce. |
| Posted by: rammer 2014-06-16 19:45 |
| #8 Aim for the whahabis hit |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-06-16 14:16 |
| #7 If the administration determines that former Baathists from the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein make up much of the force marching south... How many of those are left, given ten years of attrition and old age? Seems like grasping at straws, but then ... see Comment 5. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-06-16 13:00 |
| #6 Hit both, and let God sort them out. |
| Posted by: Lone Ranger 2014-06-16 12:59 |
| #5 How many options do you need, when you have already decided? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-06-16 12:55 |
| #4 Probably Nevada. Maybe the Kurds. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-06-16 12:26 |
| #3 A third option is to go to Congress and ask it to reinterpret the al Qaeda AUMF to expand it to apply more broadly to all terrorist groups threatening Western interests. BeholdÂ…the Obama paradox. On the one hand he loathes the appearance that congress may be co-equal to his eminence. On the other hand consulting congress allows him to dither while appearing to do something. What ta doÂ…what ta do? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2014-06-16 11:33 |
| #2 funny how this administration can find justification for droning an American (note: a very bad person), trading terrorists for deserters, ignoring border laws, privacy laws and various constitutional constraints but just cannot seem to know what to do when bad guys are running up and down the street robbing banks and killing people. |
| Posted by: airandee 2014-06-16 10:53 |
| #1 Obama administration lawyers are wrestling with what legal authorities the president might have to carry out an attack. What I would expect. Isn't the authority that George W. had still in place? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-06-16 10:15 |