Or tried to.
This is why I don't watch much TV: I never know when anything's on.
I thought it was the second hour of The CW.
Nope.
I was an hour late and instead had an hour long tribute to the awful show Supernatural.
Years ago, in 2005, Ava and C.I. nailed that show perfectly, "On the one hand, it's like really bad gay porn where the leads forget to take their clothes off. On the other, it's as though someone had a secret fondness for The American Girls."
Like really bad gay porn.
And certainly brothers Sam and Dean utter lines to one another that read like lines between dueling lovers.
That's probably why the show is more popular in fan fiction online than in the actual ratings.
Online, you can find, for example, tons of Wincest.
That's stories about the Winchester brothers having sex with each other.
Some of it will involve MPREG.
MPREG, for those not up to date on their erotica, would be stories where a male gets pregnant.
Often it is Dean pregnant in the stories, sometimes it is Sam.
This is the fan base which has kept Supernatural on the air.
Watching an hour long salute -- self-salute -- to the show, I had to wonder when bragging became something to seek out?
I also noted that Dean's sexually tense voice is not the speaking voice of the actor.
And what really registered was how ugly Sam gets each season.
The show is starting its tenth season (Tuesday night).
A good question would be: Why?
Yesterday, Ava and C.I. wrote "TV: The Good Wig, The Bad Show" -- be sure to check it out.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Monday:
Monday, October 6, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Barack's spent
over a billion tax payer dollars on his bombing 'plan' in two months
alone, the 'plan' faces more criticism, a bombing kills civilians in
hit, the Pentagon insists they know of no civilian deaths, the Islamic
State takes another city, the Pentagon insists the problem is not the
taking of the city but the media coverage it has received, and much
more.
It is now months since US President Barack Obama sent the first wave of 'advisors' into Iraq to determine what was needed. The 'advisors' were US military in one form or another.
So is it really that surprising that what Barack's so-called 'plan' ended up being was a military action?
Barack has repeatedly (and rightly) insisted that what Iraq needs is a political solution, that only such a solution will provide stability and ease the tensions at the root of Iraq's multiple crises; however, his 'advisors' sent in to determine how to address the crises were not experts in politics or diplomacy.
Had they been, Barack might have had some sort of political aspect for his 'plan.'
Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts (Bemidji Pioneer) note in their syndicated column:
The president has set out two clear principles. The first is to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” the extreme jihadist movement also known as ISIS and Islamic State that now occupies large swaths of Iraq and Syria. The second is to accomplish that goal without deploying American combat troops.
“As your commander in chief,” he told soldiers based in Tampa, Fla., “I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
But what if those two principles are not compatible? What if the resources Obama is prepared to commit — American airpower and advisers, working with local military assets — are not sufficient to accomplish the mission of crippling ISIL? Then what?
Then what indeed?
Yesterday, Barack added to the military 'plan' of endless bombing by putting US Apache helicopters into the mix. Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) explains:
Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) explains, "Using Apaches introduces considerably more risk to the U.S. troops involved, however. While fighter jets and bombers might have to contend with mechanical malfunctions, they can operate in Iraq unimpeded by rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that can be used to target low-flying aircraft. Helicopters have been shot down over Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia in the last 25 years." And an Iraqi helicopter was shot down days ago by the Islamic State, "AP reports the Islamic State 'shot down an Iraqi military attack helicopter' near Baiji on Friday. NINA adds both pilots were killed in the crash."
Of the helicopters, RT observes, "Their use in aggressive bombing of areas controlled by Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) could signal mission creep for the US military, which US President Barack Obama has said will not take part in ground-force operations." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) points out, "The eventuality of such a shootdown is likely to mean US ground troops sent on rescue missions to try to recover the downed pilots. This could end up being the pretext for launching a ground operation against ISIS, and such an incident seems only a matter of time." Ben Farmer (Irish Independent) echoes that point, "Though they are known for their formidable battlefield firepower, they are also more vulnerable to ground fire than the attack jets and bombers that have so far led the air campaign."
Of the air campaign, right-wing Kimberly Kagan and her husband Frederick (Foreign Policy) are unhappy with the level of war Barack is providing and they want ground troops and they want them now:
The U.S. has hit about 334 mostly tactical targets in both Syria and Iraq in the intervening 50-odd days. To put that number in perspective, the 76-day air campaign that toppled the Taliban in 2001 dropped 17,500 munitions on Afghanistan. Those bombs directly aided the advance of thousands of Afghan fighters supported by U.S. special operators capable both of advising them and of identifying and designating targets to hit. There are no U.S. special operators on the ground in Iraq or Syria, no pre-planned or prepared advance of Iraqi security forces, and no allies on the ground in Syria. This is not an air campaign.
It's also not a 'plan' but you probably have to be concerned about Iraq, and not getting sexually aroused by the killing, to notice that.
Barack's plan is getting attention today -- for so many reasons. Reasons like the bombing in Hit which has resulted in 42 people being injured and 24 killed.
#الانبار:
مقتل(24)مدنيا، وإصابة 42 آخرين بجروح -في حصيلة أولية-؛ جراء قيام الطيران باستهداف سوق شعبي وسط قضاء هيت.
.
What you can see above with your own eyes and what medical sources in Hit report isn't good enough for the US military command. Nabih Bulos and Patrick J. McDonnell (Los Angeles Times) quote CENTCOM spokesperson Major Curtis J. Kellogg insisting, "We have seen the media reports alleging civilian casualties in Hit, Iraq. However, based on our current assessment, we believe them to be false and have seen no evidence to corroborate these claims. I can assure you that prior to any mission, every precaution is taken to ensure we do not harm civilians or civilian facilities. However, we take all such reports seriously and look into them further." By all means, look further at the photo and maybe take some time to speak with the local hospital. You know Kellogg is just hoping there's no serious media interest -- like last week when US bombings in Mosul resulted in the deaths of 4 Iraqi civilians. He's hoping there's no interest and, if that's the case, in a week or so you can expect CENTCOM to quietly release a minor statement acknowledging the 'regrettable' deaths and pretending that such deaths happen in spite of Barack's 'plan' as opposed to because of Barack's 'plan.'
The 'plan' is a failure. The decision to send in US helicopters is an acknowledgment of that. But it doesn't alter the 'plan,' it only feeds into the worst parts of the 'plan' and the overall failure of the 'plan.'
Lyse Doucet (BBC News) points out, "Depending on how you calculate the percentages, IS fighters still hold anywhere from a quarter to a third of Iraqi territory. Hundreds of Western and Iraqi air strikes since 8 August have not fundamentally altered the new map although many say it would look even worse if the aerial campaign had not been unleashed."
It's been two months and the White House still can't admit that the 'plan' is a failure.
Instead, the answer is to add more US forces hoping that can somehow fix a failing plan.
No.
It's not going to.
Political leaders make this mistake repeatedly and the result in loss of lives.
Instead of having the courage to admit they've made a mistake, they grow stubborn and throw more lives onto the battle. It's not their lives so they're not too concerned. They're more concerned about their own egos. So the 'answer' becomes send more and more troops in and pretend that the 'plan' itself is sound.
And that's always what's behind 'mission creep' -- another reality few wish to be honest about.
The 'double down' is never about 'saving' a supposed victim but instead about attempting to salvage their own reputation.
At what cost?
For starters, Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reports the Pentagon has announced the US war against the Islamic State has resulted in US war planes having "dropped roughly 185 munitions, including 47 cruise missiles" and that at least $1.1 billion had been spent so far.
That's a lot of money spent on a failing 'plan.' Xinhua reports:
The Islamic State (IS) militants captured three neighborhoods in the predominantly Kurdish city of Kobane in northern Syria on Monday, the oppositional Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.
The IS attacks on the neighborhoods of Kani Araban, Industrial City, and Maqtala al-Jadeeda in the eastern part of Kobane came after the terrorist group's intense clashes with the Kurdish militants of the People's Protection Unites, or YPG, according to the Observatory.
And the US government's response to this latest setback -- humiliating setback? To claim that this is an issue inflated by local media. Holly Yan, Michael Pearson and Ingrid Formanek (CNN) note:
And the Pentagon, the [unnamed "senior military"] official said, believes there's a media outcry about the situation in Kobani because reporters are there. Many other towns have fallen to ISIS without TV crews present, the official said.
Oh, it's the fact that "TV crews [were] present," that's the problem -- not that Kobani was taken. In other words, if an Iraqi city falls in the forest when no one is around, it doesn't make a sound.
In a similarly stupid vein, the White House and administration officials have argued that the problems include a poorly trained military -- this despite all the years and billions the US spent training the military.
The military problems might not be an issue if, for example, the US government hadn't demanded the military be purged of Ba'athists back in 2003 and the years that followed. It might also not be a problem if former prime minister and forever thug of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki hadn't brought Shi'ite death squads into the Iraqi military (Tim Arango broke that story in the fall of 2013). But, as Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports, those are hardly the only problems with the Iraqi military:
The stupidity of the White House never fails to stun. Former Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta has taken public many criticisms that he made in
real time privately to the administration. They can't deny these
charges, so the administration has tried to attack Leon. I know Leon
and I like him. I also know and like Vice President Joe Biden. But . .
.
I don't think Joe's ever said anything as idiotic as what Jason Ditz quotes him as saying:
Vice President Joe Biden was quick to criticize Panetta, although not on the content of his hawkish comments. Rather, Biden said it was “inappropriate” for Panetta to criticize Obama at all, on anything, until after 2016, and that he should “at least give the guy a chance to get out of office.”
A friend was joking over the weekend that "Uncle Joe" should run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination with the slogan Free Flow Joe to note that Joe lacks any filter or self-censorship.
And he's said many dumb things but to insist that Leon or anyone is unable to criticize Barack for two more years is so deeply stupid and so deeply offensive that Joe, who doesn't have a real shot at the presidential nomination, should go ahead now and announce he won't be seeking it.
I like John Kerry and I supported his 2004 run. When he had an incident that was just too destructive, I noted here he should give up plans to seek a second run in 2008. Joe's remarks are the same type of offensive. You really can't come back from that. It doesn't go away and it undermines you at every step.
That's far from Joe's only problem remarks of late. As Alsumaria reported, Joe spent the weekend working the phones with the UAE and Turkey after he publicly declared that the two governments supported terrorism.
The White House fails repeatedly at diplomacy. Today, at the US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Jen Psaki attempted to focus on diplomatic efforts in Iraq:
Over the weekend, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk traveled to Erbil where they met with Kurdistan Regional Prime Minister Barzani, other senior KRG officials, provincial leaders, and tribal sheiks. Noting important recent victories by joint Sunni-Shiite tribal fighters and with Peshmerga forces – excuse me -- and Arab tribes joining to retake the vital border crossing at Rabia. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk conveyed our strong support for all Iraqis coming together as a national front to defeat ISIL, including through the formation of integrated national guard units that would work in concert with a restructured Iraqi army.
General Allen and Ambassador McGurk confirmed that the United States and other international partners are prepared to support these security reforms in a manner consistent with Iraq’s constitution, sovereignty, and independence. They also discussed the urgent need for the coalition to support the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, which is a critical line of effort in the comprehensive campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL.
In their meetings with KRG officials, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk affirmed the historic relationship with the Kurdistan region of Iraq and its people and underscored our full commitment to that relationship.
I don't have a great deal of confidence in those efforts but I could be wrong -- and I hope I am. We'll close with the October 3rd press conference Allen held in Baghdad (and we'll pick up on that tomorrow).
And I think that does it? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you.
iraq
associated press
lolita c. baldor
national iraqi news agency
all iraq news
mcclatchy newspapers
mitchell prothero
xinhua
niqash
mustafa habib
iraqi spring mc
the los angeles times
the new york times
tim arrango
It is now months since US President Barack Obama sent the first wave of 'advisors' into Iraq to determine what was needed. The 'advisors' were US military in one form or another.
So is it really that surprising that what Barack's so-called 'plan' ended up being was a military action?
Barack has repeatedly (and rightly) insisted that what Iraq needs is a political solution, that only such a solution will provide stability and ease the tensions at the root of Iraq's multiple crises; however, his 'advisors' sent in to determine how to address the crises were not experts in politics or diplomacy.
Had they been, Barack might have had some sort of political aspect for his 'plan.'
Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts (Bemidji Pioneer) note in their syndicated column:
The president has set out two clear principles. The first is to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” the extreme jihadist movement also known as ISIS and Islamic State that now occupies large swaths of Iraq and Syria. The second is to accomplish that goal without deploying American combat troops.
“As your commander in chief,” he told soldiers based in Tampa, Fla., “I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
But what if those two principles are not compatible? What if the resources Obama is prepared to commit — American airpower and advisers, working with local military assets — are not sufficient to accomplish the mission of crippling ISIL? Then what?
Then what indeed?
Yesterday, Barack added to the military 'plan' of endless bombing by putting US Apache helicopters into the mix. Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) explains:
Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) explains, "Using Apaches introduces considerably more risk to the U.S. troops involved, however. While fighter jets and bombers might have to contend with mechanical malfunctions, they can operate in Iraq unimpeded by rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that can be used to target low-flying aircraft. Helicopters have been shot down over Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia in the last 25 years." And an Iraqi helicopter was shot down days ago by the Islamic State, "AP reports the Islamic State 'shot down an Iraqi military attack helicopter' near Baiji on Friday. NINA adds both pilots were killed in the crash."
Of the helicopters, RT observes, "Their use in aggressive bombing of areas controlled by Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) could signal mission creep for the US military, which US President Barack Obama has said will not take part in ground-force operations." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) points out, "The eventuality of such a shootdown is likely to mean US ground troops sent on rescue missions to try to recover the downed pilots. This could end up being the pretext for launching a ground operation against ISIS, and such an incident seems only a matter of time." Ben Farmer (Irish Independent) echoes that point, "Though they are known for their formidable battlefield firepower, they are also more vulnerable to ground fire than the attack jets and bombers that have so far led the air campaign."
Of the air campaign, right-wing Kimberly Kagan and her husband Frederick (Foreign Policy) are unhappy with the level of war Barack is providing and they want ground troops and they want them now:
The U.S. has hit about 334 mostly tactical targets in both Syria and Iraq in the intervening 50-odd days. To put that number in perspective, the 76-day air campaign that toppled the Taliban in 2001 dropped 17,500 munitions on Afghanistan. Those bombs directly aided the advance of thousands of Afghan fighters supported by U.S. special operators capable both of advising them and of identifying and designating targets to hit. There are no U.S. special operators on the ground in Iraq or Syria, no pre-planned or prepared advance of Iraqi security forces, and no allies on the ground in Syria. This is not an air campaign.
It's also not a 'plan' but you probably have to be concerned about Iraq, and not getting sexually aroused by the killing, to notice that.
Barack's plan is getting attention today -- for so many reasons. Reasons like the bombing in Hit which has resulted in 42 people being injured and 24 killed.
#الانبار:
مقتل(24)مدنيا، وإصابة 42 آخرين بجروح -في حصيلة أولية-؛ جراء قيام الطيران باستهداف سوق شعبي وسط قضاء هيت.
.
What you can see above with your own eyes and what medical sources in Hit report isn't good enough for the US military command. Nabih Bulos and Patrick J. McDonnell (Los Angeles Times) quote CENTCOM spokesperson Major Curtis J. Kellogg insisting, "We have seen the media reports alleging civilian casualties in Hit, Iraq. However, based on our current assessment, we believe them to be false and have seen no evidence to corroborate these claims. I can assure you that prior to any mission, every precaution is taken to ensure we do not harm civilians or civilian facilities. However, we take all such reports seriously and look into them further." By all means, look further at the photo and maybe take some time to speak with the local hospital. You know Kellogg is just hoping there's no serious media interest -- like last week when US bombings in Mosul resulted in the deaths of 4 Iraqi civilians. He's hoping there's no interest and, if that's the case, in a week or so you can expect CENTCOM to quietly release a minor statement acknowledging the 'regrettable' deaths and pretending that such deaths happen in spite of Barack's 'plan' as opposed to because of Barack's 'plan.'
The 'plan' is a failure. The decision to send in US helicopters is an acknowledgment of that. But it doesn't alter the 'plan,' it only feeds into the worst parts of the 'plan' and the overall failure of the 'plan.'
Lyse Doucet (BBC News) points out, "Depending on how you calculate the percentages, IS fighters still hold anywhere from a quarter to a third of Iraqi territory. Hundreds of Western and Iraqi air strikes since 8 August have not fundamentally altered the new map although many say it would look even worse if the aerial campaign had not been unleashed."
It's been two months and the White House still can't admit that the 'plan' is a failure.
Instead, the answer is to add more US forces hoping that can somehow fix a failing plan.
No.
It's not going to.
Political leaders make this mistake repeatedly and the result in loss of lives.
Instead of having the courage to admit they've made a mistake, they grow stubborn and throw more lives onto the battle. It's not their lives so they're not too concerned. They're more concerned about their own egos. So the 'answer' becomes send more and more troops in and pretend that the 'plan' itself is sound.
And that's always what's behind 'mission creep' -- another reality few wish to be honest about.
The 'double down' is never about 'saving' a supposed victim but instead about attempting to salvage their own reputation.
At what cost?
For starters, Lolita C. Baldor (AP) reports the Pentagon has announced the US war against the Islamic State has resulted in US war planes having "dropped roughly 185 munitions, including 47 cruise missiles" and that at least $1.1 billion had been spent so far.
That's a lot of money spent on a failing 'plan.' Xinhua reports:
The Islamic State (IS) militants captured three neighborhoods in the predominantly Kurdish city of Kobane in northern Syria on Monday, the oppositional Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported.
The IS attacks on the neighborhoods of Kani Araban, Industrial City, and Maqtala al-Jadeeda in the eastern part of Kobane came after the terrorist group's intense clashes with the Kurdish militants of the People's Protection Unites, or YPG, according to the Observatory.
And the US government's response to this latest setback -- humiliating setback? To claim that this is an issue inflated by local media. Holly Yan, Michael Pearson and Ingrid Formanek (CNN) note:
And the Pentagon, the [unnamed "senior military"] official said, believes there's a media outcry about the situation in Kobani because reporters are there. Many other towns have fallen to ISIS without TV crews present, the official said.
Oh, it's the fact that "TV crews [were] present," that's the problem -- not that Kobani was taken. In other words, if an Iraqi city falls in the forest when no one is around, it doesn't make a sound.
In a similarly stupid vein, the White House and administration officials have argued that the problems include a poorly trained military -- this despite all the years and billions the US spent training the military.
The military problems might not be an issue if, for example, the US government hadn't demanded the military be purged of Ba'athists back in 2003 and the years that followed. It might also not be a problem if former prime minister and forever thug of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki hadn't brought Shi'ite death squads into the Iraqi military (Tim Arango broke that story in the fall of 2013). But, as Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports, those are hardly the only problems with the Iraqi military:
The Iraqi army is suffering badly from what locals
describe as the “astronaut phenomenon”. That is, soldiers who pay money
to superior officers so they can leave the world of the military and
stay out of danger, far from the battle field. This means that sometimes
when a general sends a battalion to fight, only half the soldiers are
there. And recently, with attacks by extremists, this phenomenon has
been getting worse.
Last week a confidential meeting was hosted by Iraq’s
Parliamentary committee on security and defence and one of the guests
was Rasheed Flaih, the Lieutenant General who is in charge of the Iraqi
army’s operations in the province of Anbar.
At the September 27 meeting the military men and
politicians discussed the ever-increasing absence of soldiers from their
units in the province.
“Participants in the meeting discussed the number of
different sieges of the Iraqi army in the Anbar area and how many
soldiers were being killed by members of the terrorist organisation, the
Islamic State,” one of those who attended the meeting told NIQASH on
condition of anonymity.
“Also discussed was the fact that there had been an
increase in the number of Iraqi soldiers who were leaving areas where
they could expect to see action – such as the provinces Anbar,
Salahaddin and Diyala. This means that there are fewer than expected
soldiers on the battlefields,” the source said.
I don't think Joe's ever said anything as idiotic as what Jason Ditz quotes him as saying:
Vice President Joe Biden was quick to criticize Panetta, although not on the content of his hawkish comments. Rather, Biden said it was “inappropriate” for Panetta to criticize Obama at all, on anything, until after 2016, and that he should “at least give the guy a chance to get out of office.”
A friend was joking over the weekend that "Uncle Joe" should run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination with the slogan Free Flow Joe to note that Joe lacks any filter or self-censorship.
And he's said many dumb things but to insist that Leon or anyone is unable to criticize Barack for two more years is so deeply stupid and so deeply offensive that Joe, who doesn't have a real shot at the presidential nomination, should go ahead now and announce he won't be seeking it.
I like John Kerry and I supported his 2004 run. When he had an incident that was just too destructive, I noted here he should give up plans to seek a second run in 2008. Joe's remarks are the same type of offensive. You really can't come back from that. It doesn't go away and it undermines you at every step.
That's far from Joe's only problem remarks of late. As Alsumaria reported, Joe spent the weekend working the phones with the UAE and Turkey after he publicly declared that the two governments supported terrorism.
The White House fails repeatedly at diplomacy. Today, at the US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Jen Psaki attempted to focus on diplomatic efforts in Iraq:
Over the weekend, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk traveled to Erbil where they met with Kurdistan Regional Prime Minister Barzani, other senior KRG officials, provincial leaders, and tribal sheiks. Noting important recent victories by joint Sunni-Shiite tribal fighters and with Peshmerga forces – excuse me -- and Arab tribes joining to retake the vital border crossing at Rabia. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk conveyed our strong support for all Iraqis coming together as a national front to defeat ISIL, including through the formation of integrated national guard units that would work in concert with a restructured Iraqi army.
General Allen and Ambassador McGurk confirmed that the United States and other international partners are prepared to support these security reforms in a manner consistent with Iraq’s constitution, sovereignty, and independence. They also discussed the urgent need for the coalition to support the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, which is a critical line of effort in the comprehensive campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL.
In their meetings with KRG officials, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk affirmed the historic relationship with the Kurdistan region of Iraq and its people and underscored our full commitment to that relationship.
I don't have a great deal of confidence in those efforts but I could be wrong -- and I hope I am. We'll close with the October 3rd press conference Allen held in Baghdad (and we'll pick up on that tomorrow).
AMBASSADOR JONES: Ladies and
gentlemen, welcome to the American Embassy.
It is great to see you here. So, welcome to the Embassy, it is great to
have you here.
My name is Stuart Jones. I had the honor yesterday of presenting my
credentials to His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Iraq. And so I am now very pleased to be here to
replace my good friend and colleague, Steve Beecroft. And, on this, my third day of work, it is
also a great honor to present to you my good friend and colleague, General John
Allen, who, as you know, is the President's special envoy to building the
coalition against Daeesh.
So, General Allen has been
here now since yesterday. He is here
with Deputy Special Envoy Ambassador Brett McGurk, who, as you all know, is
also no stranger to Iraq. And so, I will
just ask General Allen to make a few brief remarks, and then he will take a
couple questions. Thank you.
GENERAL ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mesah Al-Kheir, and it is a pleasure
to be back in Iraq, and see so many familiar faces. And I would like to, in advance of this
moment, wish all of you a very hearty Eid Mubarak. I want to thank the great team here at the
embassy here in Baghdad for the support that has been rendered to my team, to
assist me in having access to so many of the leaders and the individuals within
the Iraqi Government. And I particularly
appreciate Ambassador Jones's welcome to our team, and to the hospitality that
he has shown here, as we have arrived in Baghdad.
This
is the first of many trips that I anticipate making to the region. And it was important that the first trip that
we took to the region would be to Baghdad, particularly in my new capacity as a
Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL.
That
Ambassador McGurk and I have come to Iraq for our first international trip
speaks volumes about the importance that we place on our partnership with Iraq
as we go forward with the intent, ultimately, to degrade and to defeat ISIL
over time.
Now,
before I read out our meetings thus far, let me first say that the United
States strongly condemns the terrorist attacks across Iraq this week that took
scores of innocent lives, including women and children. This kind of wanton violence against
innocents, especially during the holy period of Eid, underscores ISIL’s utter
absence of respect for the sanctity of human life.
From
January forward, the U.S. has focused on strengthening the Iraqi Security
Forces, because that is the desire and the request of the Government of Iraq,
and because enabling partners to take on this fight is a critical part of the
strategy to defeat ISIL.
Ambassador
McGurk and I met last night with Prime Minister Abadi and National Security
Adviser Al-Fayad, where I conveyed the strong, ongoing U.S. support for Iraq in
our shared fight against ISIL. And we
are continuing to meet with a broad range of actors from across the Iraqi
political and military spheres.
As
President Obama said in New York during the United Nations General Assembly,
Prime Minister Abadi has committed his government to addressing the issues that
led to past failures in the security ranks, and has already been replacing
commanders and reaching out to all of Iraq’s diverse communities. The United States, like Prime Minister Abadi,
believes in a vision of an inclusive Iraq, in which Sunni, Shia, Kurds are all
able to come together to peacefully iron out their differences to achieve
prosperity and peace for all Iraqis. All
Iraqis. We have great respect for the Prime Minister’s vision of the necessary
reforms, and strongly support his efforts to reach out to Iraq’s neighbors and
to work with them on this shared challenge of degrading and defeating ISIL.
In
all of our meetings, I am emphasizing our strong support for Iraqi sovereignty
and territorial integrity. And we are
committed to working in close support of Iraq regaining territory that ISIL has
currently taken over, and making sure that the new government is able to
control its territory once ISIL is pushed back.
President
Obama and Prime Minister Abadi have been clear: We must build Iraqi capacity to
take on the fight. That is why the U.S. will not send combat troops to Iraq,
but instead continue our support for Iraqi security forces through military
advisers, training, and capacity building.
The fight will not be easy, and there will be an ebb and flow on the
battlefield as time goes on, particularly as Iraqi leaders appoint new
commanders,
reconfigure
their formations on the ground, and restore the capacity of their forces. This
will take time and will require patience.
To
that end, we also discussed how the international coalition can help bring to
life Prime Minister Abadi’s vision for an integrated National Guard program. We
have appreciated the opportunity here in Baghdad to hear about the Iraqi
Government’s work with the provincial and tribal leaders as this plan moves
forward from concept to reality, and we applaud this broad-based conversation
amongst the Iraqis. The U.S. and some of
our international coalition partners will continue to work closely to support
that vision, as well.
While
naturally the military piece of this is very important, and in all our meetings
we are discussing coalition contributions, we also put emphasis on the other
lines of effort for the strategy, not just the military support, which
obviously gets a lot of attention today, but we also talk about the stopping of
the flow of foreign fighters, cutting off ISIL revenue and access to financing,
providing humanitarian assistance, and, very importantly, fighting ISIL’s
messaging, the idea of ISIL.
And
I would like to talk a bit more about that last portion, that last of the five
components, because it is something that goes right to the heart of how ISIL
will eventually be defeated. As
President Obama said before the UN General Assembly a few weeks ago, “The
ideology of ISIL will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted
and refuted in the light of day.” So we
strongly encourage and we support those voices here in Iraq and in the region
articulating what ISIL is, which is an un-
Islamic
terrorist entity, spreading a message of hate, undertaking violence and
nihilism.
But
it is incumbent on all of us in this fight against ISIL to work together, and
to offer an alternative vision for the future.
ISIL turns frustrated young people into potential agents of terror. To resist ISIL’s lure, these young people
have to believe in a different future, one of inclusivity, one of tolerance,
and one of economic hope. That is why
the United States so strongly supports Prime Minister Abadi’s continued
outreach to all Iraqis, and his efforts to build an inclusive Iraq that offers
hope and promise for all Iraqis, for all your people.
As
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have said, this is ultimately a fight that
the Iraqi people will have to win. We
cannot win it for you. And it will take time. A single round of airstrikes will
not defeat the enemy. That is why we are
going after ISIL not just in the battle space, but we are attacking ISIL in the
financial space and in the information space, as well.
We
can and we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraq in this fight. You have suffered greatly at ISIL’s hands. We
are here to help you fight back, and to make sure that, once ISIL is defeated,
it can never regroup and terrorize the Iraqi people again.
Shukran
Jazeelan. With that, I will be happy to take a couple
of questions.
MODERATOR: Questions?
QUESTION: (Via translator) There is this impression,
General, that the American (inaudible) environment is not that effective right
now, and they are ignoring many of the leads that are given to them by the
informant and by the Iraqi Government.
Do you think that there is a different way to do this? My first question.
Second
question is regarding the headquarters of this international coalition. Don't you think that the headquarters should
be in Iraq? But we heard a few days ago
that it is going to be in Kuwait. Don't
you think that would reduce its efficiency, if it was away from the field of
operation?
GENERAL ALLEN: I will answer the second one first. I am not going to comment on the operational
locations of the headquarters or the command and control. I know we are still building out the force, I
know we are still consolidating the coalition.
And so I think we need some more time, obviously, to determine where the
final location of that will be. There
will be, certainly, representatives of the headquarters that will be inside
Iraq that will be located -- collocated with your security force
leadership. And whether the overall
headquarters is ultimately in Kuwait or Iraq, that is a decision that I am not
a party to at this particular moment.
But I know we will consider all of those locations.
With
respect to the first point, I would dispute the contention that the airstrikes
to this point have not been effective.
In fact, many airstrikes have slowed the momentum or halted the momentum
of ISIL as it has moved across the ground.
Some of the airstrikes have supported, for example, the retaking of the
Mosul Dam, the maintenance of Iraqi governmental support or Iraqi control of
the Haditha Dam. Airstrikes have
supported counter-attacks, local counter-attacks by Iraqi security forces.
But
your point is a good one, and is one that we should continue to try to refine,
and that is the information flow to our forces which conduct the airstrikes
needs to be closely coordinated. We need
to be talking to the Iraqi leadership and the sources of the information on
targets, with the idea that we can be the most effective we possibly can be in
applying the aerial fire power to support both the Iraqi people, but very
importantly, the Iraqi security forces.
And that is a process I think we will continually re-evaluate to ensure
it is as efficient and as agile as it can be.
Thank
you very much, a good question.
QUESTION: (Via translator) (Inaudible) you are the
presidential envoy to the -- for the Coalition to Combat ISIS. Do you think that the international coalition
intends to completely eliminate ISIS?
This is my first question.
The
second question, we have some information that (inaudible) is going to be
supportive, as well, in training, in arms, and in some advanced weapons. Can you tell us a little bit about some of
the advanced weapons that are going to be given to Iraq, and also the training
that is going to be provided? Is it
going to be provided to the elite forces only, or to the general Iraqi Army?
GENERAL ALLEN: Give me the first part of the question again,
please.
QUESTION: (Via translator) Well, the first part is you
are the presidential convoy to the Coalition to Combat ISIS. Do you think that the international coalition
really intends to completely eliminate ISIS?
This is the first question.
GENERAL ALLEN: That is a really important point. The defeat of ISIS, which is the intent, will
occur in several ways. And I think it is
useful to consider the environment in which ISIS operates.
The
traditional environment that we consider is that ISIS operates in the physical
space. It takes ground, it holds
infrastructure, it dominates populations, it operates in the physical
space. Defeating ISIS in the physical
space will require a counter-offensive in which we will help to train those
forces which will be part of that counter-offensive. We will help with the application of air
power in support of those activities in the counter-offensive to liberate
terrain, to liberate people.
Coming
in right behind those military actions will be a strong humanitarian
assistance, as well, to rescue the populations from the oppression of ISIS, to
provide relief to the people that have suffered so much.
And
the successful portion of the campaign, as it relates to Iraq, will be that,
ISIS, as an identifiable organization, will cease to exist inside Iraq. That doesn't mean that every single member of
ISIS has been eliminated. But the
organization has ceased to exist. There
are no safe havens, there is no capacity to challenge Iraqi security forces
and, ultimately, to dominate the people.
That is in the physical space.
But
ISIS operates in several other spaces, as well.
It operates in the financial space, and it generates a lot of
revenue. And while the counter-attack
against ISIS in the physical space is underway, there is going to be a very
concerted international effort to attack ISIS in the financial space also, to
try to deny it the revenue that it generates every single day that gives it the
oxygen that it breathes to give it some effectiveness. And we want to choke off its finances, to
choke off that oxygen, to cause it to begin to wilt from within.
Your
point is even more important when you think about the other space in which it
operates. It operates in the information
space. And in some cases ISIS is much
less effective in the physical space than it is terrorizing in the information
space. And it achieves great effect in
the information space. And we not only
want to compete with ISIS in the information space, in the space of ideas, we
want to contest that space. We want to
deny that space to ISIS by a broad-based consensus of the participants in the
coalition and, more broadly, the international community that what ISIS stands
for is something that is so reprehensible and so odious, that the global
community repudiates the very idea of ISIS.
So,
as the physical attack is occurring, as the financial attack is occurring, we
are attacking the very idea that gives life to ISIS as an ideology.
But
it is broader than ISIS. It is more
broadly-based than ISIS. It is about
terrorism. It is about extremism. It is about attacking those issues,
ultimately, that have given rise to ISIS.
So that is a really important question, and I hope I have given you some
thoughts in that regard.
The
other piece of this is the training that will -- we will undertake. It is not just for the special operators,
your special forces. And, by the way,
your special forces are some of the best on the planet; they are very, very
good. This is about restoring the
capabilities of the Iraqi Army. And as
we work closely with your government, and work closely with the Iraqi Army to
determine the size of that army and its organization, there will be decisions
that will be made on the means to move that army -- in other words, how it will
be transported across a battle space, some of which will be in wheeled
vehicles, some of which will be in armored vehicles -- and the weapons systems
that will be made available to that Iraqi Army, that refurbished Iraqi Army, so
it is a competent, capable, and credible combined-arms force.
Now,
I can't go into the details with you on that, because decisions are still being
made. But we are committed to doing
that. And thank you for that question.
And I think that does it? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you.
iraq
associated press
lolita c. baldor
national iraqi news agency
all iraq news
mcclatchy newspapers
mitchell prothero
xinhua
niqash
mustafa habib
iraqi spring mc
the los angeles times
the new york times
tim arrango
