ISIS operative captured; another hot potato
The New York Times reports that special forces soldiers have captured an ISIS official, and now that US has engaged ground forces in the war against the Islamists in Iraq and Syria, they figure on taking more captive. Now, the anti-Bush administration faces the prospect of employing more Bush policies in Iraq, like holding prisoners.
The American military has largely fought the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from the sky, and large numbers of Islamic State fighters have been killed in Iraq and Syria by American airstrikes. The 200-member Special Operations team, made up of many Delta Force commandos, arrived in Iraq in recent weeks and is the first major American combat force on the ground there since the United States pulled out of the country at the end of 2011.
[…]
Officials said the detainee, whom they declined to identify, was being interrogated by American officials at a temporary detention facility in the city of Erbil in northern Iraq. They said the plan was to eventually turn him over to Iraqi or Kurdish officials.
Several Defense Department officials declined to say how much information or cooperation they have received from the detainee. They said it could take weeks or months to finish questioning the operative.
[…]
Defense Department officials said that the United States had no plans to hold the detainee or others indefinitely, and that they would be handed over to Iraqi or Kurdish authorities after they have been interviewed. The officials said they did not intend to establish a long-term American facility to hold Islamic State detainees, and Obama administration officials ruled out sending any to the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
The current administration has done their best to do the opposite of what their predecessors did to fight terrorists, but then avoiding the previous policies only create more difficulties for them. They do their best to avoid fighting a war and the more convoluted their strategy becomes. Of course, in this particular instance, they could avoid taking prisoners at all, you know, like they avoided taking bin Laden prisoner.
Category: Terror War
Methinks it might not be a bad idea to let the Kurds have him, I’m sure they can get some answers.
Give him the choice…. Kurds, Iraqi, or the “Black Pill”.
Wanna bet the WH was on the phone to the NYT to demand that, consistent with the Emperor’s choice, ISIS be referred to only as ISIL? After all, he is the internationalist, the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing–except promising to buy the world a Coke (on the American taxpayers’ dime, of course.)
The Bush war policies were absolutely idiotic beyond reason.
And the withdrawal was negotiated hastily, and with concessions that should never have been made, by BUSH. BEFORE the election.
Obama followed through with the negotiated withdrawal. From a country we should never have invaded in the first place.
Obama’s policies have been, overall, much better and much smarter than under Bush.
While it does not serve the “war on Islam” agenda, it is more in line with our interests as Americans.
And I have been saying we have had troops on the ground since I started on this board. And I have been saying that the Obama administration has authorized direct actions in more places and countries than any other president combined.
I don’t understand how you guys always complain that we are “not doing enough” and then complain that Obama is being “inconsistent” when a direct action operation becomes public.
He put direct action at the forefront of our strategy from the moment he took office. He was not a supporter of an occupation force and he does not believe in fighting counterinsurgencies nor does he believe in nation building using an occupying force and the consumption American wealth building foreign infrastructure while fighting a war.
He has compromised for some limited nation building but it is a lesser priority than direct action and the training of local security forces.
He also does not believe terrorists should have any safe havens anywhere in the world and will authorize the use of force to kill or capture terrorists in any country that we can accept the consequences of potentially pissing off.
Every time we use force to kill bad guys in foreign countries it is an act of war under international law. He has authorized actions throughout the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Near East.
In many places the Bush administration would not touch.
He has been one of the most lethal presidents with respect to individual authorizations of the use of force in more places more often than probably any president in US history.
“And the withdrawal was negotiated hastily, and with concessions that should never have been made, by BUSH. BEFORE the election.”
Absolutely incorrect. I was there, working as an operations officer in Baghdad. That was strictly Obama’s fault in not securing a SOFA with the Iraqi government.
That would have reneged on the current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC’s promise to “get the US out of Iraq”, Al T. And it would have been an implicit admission that his predecessor had the right idea – support a stable Iraq.
Keeping that promise (and giving his predecessor the political finger) was apparently more important to him than preserving long-term stability in Iraq. The fact that doing so was in the US national interests and promoted US security was irrelevant to him.
You spout political propaganda like you’re a descendant of Goebbels.
Your Constitutional expert hero also droned a US Citizen. No due process, no rights, no hearing. That same “expert” is wanting to close GITMO because it violates the “rights” of people who fought against us. I like that the washington post says “mostly” in their title of this article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/23/the-u-s-keeps-killing-americans-in-drone-strikes-mostly-by-accident/
The below video clip is the perfect example of your hero’s hypocrisy. “If something good happened, its because I did it! If something bad happened, well that was Bush’s fault.”
From the perspective of Da’esh, al Qaeda, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other groups chanting “Death to America” (or similar slogans), yes – the policies of the Current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC are indeed “much better . . . than under Bush”.
Indeed, just look at the current POTUS’s “great successes” in the Arab world. How’s that “Arab Spring” thing working out for the US? Or that intervention in Libya? The Afghan non-surge? The Bergdahl trade? Or the current Da’esh morass in Iraq and Syria? Or . . . oh, hell, I don’t have all freaking day. I’ll just stop there.
From the perspective of protecting the US and furthering US national interests, this POTUS’s actions have been an abject failure. They’ve left us worse off in terms of our position in the ME (and perhaps worldwide) than any time since late 1980.
You don’t know me, Commissar.
Hi, Jack, how ya doin’?
Not bad at all, you know me!
Lars has been smokin’ the sh*t again. Or maybe drinkin’ the koolaid. Or maybe both.
L. Taylor,
I like how you used capital words to prove your POINT. I was very convinced by them.
Bush did not negotiate a withdraw without a SOFA. Obama purposefully screwed that up and helped create ISIS by handing over the government to the Iranians.
Obama has created conflict in more regions in order to create a humanitarian crisis. Then other organizations (Soros funded) have used social media to organize a massive Muslim invasion of Europe.
Obama and Clinton have given more arms to the middle east than can be counted. This administration has set the world on fire and you think it is a good thing. But man those capital letters I am so convinced that you are a millenial who listens to Cher.
Let’s say the re-negotiation of the SOFA was impossible (and I’m actually inclined to say that it probably was; Bush’s 2008 deal only passed parliament based on a promise to submit it to the people for ratification, and the only reason that ratification did not fail is because they never held that vote); that does not get him off the hook for refusing to lift a finger when Ramadi fell in early 2014. Or for refusing to drop a few bombs on the troops massing outside Mosul a few months later. A minor show of force then and this entire mess could have been avoided. But in his obstinance, he had to wish away the danger, and today we have a divisional HQ on the ground.
Dunno, SSG E. Published reports say Maliki was willing to accept a substantial US presence – but only one large enough to be effective in helping preserve Iraq’s stability. He wasn’t willing to accept one that would be so small as to be merely an irritant and political liability – say, such as one that had 2000-3000 US troops.
Want to guess what size of US residual presence the current Administration proposed in 2011 during SOFA negotiations?
I’m sure Maliki wanted a longer-term commitment – but these deals required parliamentary approval, and the individual politicians had constituencies to answer to. By 2008/2009, the people were against extending the SOFA, and the politicians railed against it (I was there at the time, following this exquisitely closely, but if you think those assertions are wrong, let me know and I’ll try to dig up some sources). But Bush and Maliki played the politics cleverly by promising that ratification, and then the 2009 elections were delayed, and delayed again, and finally held in March 2010, but without the Article 140 referendum that was constitutionally required, and without the SOFA ratification that would have gone down in flames.
Given the Iraqi politicians’ stances in 2008 when this was negotiated – at a time when 120K US troops were all that stood between the government and anarchy – I don’t see how a pacified, peaceful Iraq was going to see its politicians vote for a fresh SOFA to keep us there yet longer. They may have seen the wisdom in it, but they couldn’t stand for election having voted for it.
Sorry, distracted – that last paragraph is discussing the political situation in 2010/2011 – that’s when the insurgency was pacified, and most citizens felt little need for our troops to be there. I should note, I think the citizens were foolish, and what we see today is the fruits of that choice, but I think the president was choosing not to fight a battle that he knew he’d lose anyway.
Sorry, that last was meant as a reply to Lars, not you Jason…
Commissar: The Bush war policies were absolutely idiotic beyond reason. Wrong, as usual. The Bush war policy was precisely what we needed to do to fight and engage a radical threat, an entity that people like you, and others in this country do not understand. If you did anything wrong, it was not doing more. The “War on Terror” or the “Global War on Terror” is an understatement. Yes, that would be an error on the Bush Administration et al’s part, the naming. This war should be known as “the West’s reaction to the radical Islamic methodical war of elimination against the West to establish radical Global Islamic law throughout the land”, or something like that. This is asymmetrical warfare, not the warfare that you try to argue. Under asymmetrical warfare, Saddam, under Iraq, posed a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Also, our going into Iraq diverted what should’ve been a bloodbath for us in Afghanistan. Historically, military powers have not done well in Afghanistan. The local Afghanis, and the terrorists that fight there, are able to utilize the terrain to negate the advantage we have with a lot of our war machine. Not so much in Iraq, where we could bring the majority of our war machine to bear. That is where we kept hammering them until they decided to go back to focusing on Afghanistan. By then, the fledgling Afghani army was fighting as NATO’s auxiliary against the terrorists. The parameters changed, and they were now fighting against people as familiar with the terrain and culture as they were. In addition to that, if you look at the map of the Middle East, you would see different countries in different states of economic and democratic development. Two of those countries flank Iran. The “Arab Spring” was a natural spinoff to this, it was up to Pres. Obama, his State Department, and his CIA, to capitalize on that to the disadvantage of the radical elements there. We blew an opportunity there that could’ve been parallel to the opportunity we took in Central America… Read more »
Commissar: And I have been saying we have had troops on the ground since I started on this board. Nobody is arguing that we do not have ground troops there. In fact, someone here, or one of the administrators, posted a link on this website involving a firefight between ISIS and American Special Forces some time ago. The argument is on how much forces are needed to do the job. Even if we made progress over a crazy long period, it would be strategically advantageous to crush and destroy the enemy in days and not drag it out in months or years. That only allows the enemy to get stronger and gain more credibility in the area at our expense. Commissar: And I have been saying that the Obama administration has authorized direct actions in more places and countries than any other president combined. There is a difference between having a small signature in multiple countries, and having a dense signature in fewer countries. I refuse to believe, based on actual numbers and battlefield forensics, that the Obama administration has authorized more direct actions in more places than any other president combined. That’s like twisting the assumption that because we have a troop presence in over 200 countries, that we “are occupying” over 200 countries. Commissar: I don’t understand how you guys always complain that we are “not doing enough” and then complain that Obama is being “inconsistent” when a direct action operation becomes public. Because that is reality. He is not doing enough. The airstrikes alone will not do the job without intensive ground involvement from a force more powerful than ISIS. His record of inconsistency is obvious, and this record is what the others here are pointing out to you. What is it going to be, remain with airstrikes, remain with the decision not to commit ground troops, or to start committing increasing number of troops beyond the number that you claim was needed before? Jonn Lilyea is correct in the statement above. The cold hard reality is that the anointed one said one thing, until reality mugged… Read more »
“If you did anything wrong”
Meant “If he did anything wrong”.
#dropsmic
Well said.
Lars, you said, “Obama’s policies have been, overall, much better and much smarter than under Bush.”
I recall that Mr. Obama did almost exactly the same as Mr. Bush between January 2009 and December 2011. After December 31, 2011 Mr. Obama had only one policy toward Iraq – nothing.
So for three years he did the same as Bush but this was somehow better and smarter. Then he did nothing and that was better and smarter.
In my opinion, Iraq is a mess. It got that way because US troops did not stay in Iraq and maintain security there until the Iraqis could do it for themselves. That got that way because your hero failed to negotiate a SOFA. And it got that way because the US did not do anything about those nasty people in Syria.
You said that Mr. Obama’s policies toward Iraq have been better and smarter than Mr. Bush’s policies. But Iraq is fucked up. It wasn’t fucked up while Mr. Obama followed the Bush policies but when he did nothing — that is when he followed his own policies — it fell apart.
You said that Mr. Obama’s policies toward Iraq have been better and smarter. I do not think that the words “better” and “smarter” mean what you think they mean.
Lars said, “Every time we use force to kill bad guys in foreign countries it is an act of war under international law.”
When a US president takes the oath of office, he swears to protect and defend the US Constitution not some mythical international law thingy. We conform to “international law” – whatever that is – when it suits us. Exactly like every other country in the world. I repeat, exactly like every other country in the world. If a president violates his oath in favor of some external demand, he broke the law that should matter – US law.
I’m sure I know what the SF team is thinking:
“Well, if we give him to the Iraqis, he’ll be released/escape in about 20 minutes. But if we give him to the Kurds, he won’t be alive in 20 minutes. Sir, we recommend giving him to the Kurds….”
Maybe 40 minutes. The Kurds may want some intell, first. Win/win!
Change that to Kurdish and Yazidi women. He won’t be alive in 10 minutes.
When you have someone in the ‘in charge’ seat who has no idea how to actually be in charge, then it does not matter who did what when.
It only matters who is there NOW. And NOW it is bodaprez, who has repeatedly proven his sheer incompetence.
War is looming. If you can’t smell it on the wind, you aren’t paying attention. And it will not matter who gets elected in the fall.
And he’ll sing like a canary for nine of those minutes. That has my vote.
The average Iraqi (and most of the government and security forces) are Shia and very anti-ISIS. ISIS is Sunni and has been killing far more Iraqi Shia than anyone else except for maybe Syrian Shia or Kirds (who are also Muslim, by the way).
Any of those groups would gladly kill an ISIS leader in short order. Once released to Iraqi authorities he will not last long.
He also does not believe terrorists should have any safe havens anywhere in the world and will authorize the use of force to kill or capture terrorists in any country that we can accept the consequences of potentially pissing off.
Except he is moving them to U.S. soil and giving them all the free stuff they want….. San Bernadino ring a bell, that happened on Odumbas’ watch, not Bush. How many more are out there plotting death to Americans, on American soil.
My suggestion. . . (worth 2 cents).
Interrogate the f**k out of this ISIS asshat. Include the Kurds for extra fun. They are our allies in this.
Then give him the proper Islamic funeral that they all crave, an unmarked hole in the desert. Make the ISIS into a WAS-WAS.
Report that the prisoner escaped. Oh, dear. He escaped, never to be seen again.
There. Problem solved. And no prisoner to take care of, or coddle his tender feewings under the current ROEs of the Mom-Jeans-In-Chief. So long as there are no records, or recordings (to be posted to social media), (almost) everyone is happy.
Dress him in an orange jumpsuit, get a camera, (____ ___ ____) fill in the blanks.
I’m guess the interrogation began like this: “We are going to ask you a number of questions. When we are finished, we will transfer you either to the Iraqis or the Kurds. Which one depends on whether you are cooperative and truthful or uncooperative and untruthful. So, let’s get started, shall we?”