More Americans Support Ground Troops to Fight #ISIS

Boy, does this ever put Obama in a bind.

He's said repeatedly that he won't send ground troops back to Iraq (or into Syria), and more and more he's finding himself on the wrong side of public opinion. What a loser.

At NBC News, "More Americans Back U.S. Ground Troops in ISIS Fight."

Doe-Eyed Jen Psaki Can't Find Successes of Iraq Security Forces in Her Notes

From Pamela Geller, "VIDEO: Obama’s Foreign Policy Successes":

If there was ever a video that summed up Obama’s presidency in a minute or less, it’s this one.

'It is a narcissistic delusion for liberals to believe that somehow we have caused Muslims to hate us when, in point of fact, the Koran and other Islamic scriptures command them to hate us...'

From Robert Stacy McCain, "They Want to Kill Us All":

We cannot negotiate with this hate. We cannot compromise with this hate. No policy of ours will permit us to co-exist in peace with this hate. We cannot choose peace when Islam chooses war, and we cannot hope that “tactical air strikes” will suffice to defeat their deadly hatred. The only option left to us is to give them war without limits, war without mercy, a determined, relentless and unceasing war that will not be satisfied with anything less than complete victory over these murdering Muslim monsters who want to kill us all.

RTWT.

GRAPHIC: Islamic State Beheads British Hostage Alan Henning

The bloke was doomed.

At Bare Naked Islam, "BREAKING! British citizen Alan Henning beheaded by the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria (WARNING: Graphic)."

And from SITE Intel Group, "Islamic State Beheads Alan Henning in Video (Public and Edited)." And at the Times of Israel, "Islamic State beheads British hostage Henning."

Poll: Three in Four Americans Don't Trust Obama's 'No Ground Troops' Pledge in Fight Against #ISIS

Well, no surprise.

It's all lies all the time from this White House. Indeed, if and when Obama does commit ground troops he'll try to weasel his way out of the "no ground troops" pledge he's made numerous times (remember how he weaseled on his "red line" on Syria's chemical weapons use?). We've seen him do it dozens of times. Just wait for it, the freakin' dirtbag.

At the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey, at WSJ, "Poll Shows Americans Expect U.S. to Send Troops to Fight Islamic State":

Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t believe President Barack Obama’s assertion that the country won’t use ground troops to fight the militant group Islamic State in Iraq or Syria, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey finds.

The poll shows a substantial lack of trust in Mr. Obama’s repeated assertions that American military efforts will be limited to airstrikes and other efforts that don’t include ground troops. Some 72% of registered voters surveyed said U.S. ground troops eventually will be deployed against Islamic State’s fighters. Only 20% said they believe the U.S. won’t end up using military ground forces.

The Obama administration has cautioned that the battle against Islamic State won’t be won quickly. It has said it will proceed with an international coalition and that the U.S. won’t  commit ground troops to combat.

“I want to be clear: The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and won’t have a combat mission,” Mr. Obama said Sept. 17. “As your commander in chief, I won’t commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”

Ironically, if he'd just tell the truth he'd have the support of the American people for his anti-terror policy. As it is fully 45 percent of Americans now support ground troops "if military officials determined it was the 'best way to defeat the ISIS army'." Imagine how high that number would go if Obama evinced some real presidential leadership on these issues.

Still more at the link.

Brace yourself for more Obama-Democrat lies in the meanwhile.

PHOTO CREDIT: The White House Flickr page, "President Barack Obama meets with his national security advisors concerning the situation in Iraq, in the Situation Room of the White House, Sunday, July 27, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)."

'The war on terror is not over...'

Bob Schieffer continues to sound like someone with old-fashioned common sense, and he's generally a lefty, heh.

A Close-Up View of Islamic State's War Machine

At Business Week, "How Islamic State Wages War."

Some ISIS fighters all all hopped up on drugs.

Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher!

Hey, you gotta love it, no matter what you think of this tasteless prick. At RCP, "'Maher Rips Liberals Over Islam: "If We're Giving No Quarter to Intolerance, Shouldn't We Start With [Beheaders and] Honor Killers?'"

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds, "The thing to remember is that talk of tolerance and diversity is mostly just a political weapon for white people to use against other white people. It’s not about actually helping anyone."

Obama in George W. Bush Flight Suit on the Cover of The Economist

And the White House isn't pleased, via the Washington Times, "White House pans ‘unfair’ magazine cover with Obama in Bush’s flight suit."

Well, O's entire political skit has been the "anti-Bush," so no surprise they're no whining about being compared to a real president. It makes the Democrats look wrong, to say nothing of stupid and deceitful.

In any case, here's the Economist, "America and Islamic State: Mission Relaunched":

FOR more than three years, Barack Obama has been trying to avoid getting into a fight in Syria. But this week, with great tracts of the Middle East under the jihadist’s knife, he at last faced up to the inevitable. On September 23rd America led air strikes in Syria against both the warriors of Islamic State (IS) and a little-known al-Qaeda cell, called the Khorasan group, which it claimed was about to attack the West. A president who has always seen his main mission as nation-building at home is now using military force in six countries—Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

The Syrian operation is an essential counterpart to America’s attacks against IS in Iraq. Preventing the group from carving out a caliphate means, at the very least, ensuring that neither of these two countries affords it a haven (see article). But more than the future of IS is at stake in the streets of Raqqa and Mosul. Mr Obama’s attempt to deal with the jihadists is also a test of America’s commitment to global security. It is a test that he has been failing until now.

IS et al

The sense that America is locked in relative decline has been growing in recent years, as it has languished under the shadow of the financial crisis and two long, difficult wars. Why should a newly rich country like China take lectures about how to run its affairs from a president who struggles even to get his own budget through? America, meanwhile, seems swamped by the forces of disorder, either unable or unwilling to steady a world that is spinning out of control. IS embodies this frightening trend. It is, in the jargon, a non-state actor, and it thrives on chaos. With each new humiliation of the governments in Iraq and Syria, it has accumulated more wealth, territory and recruits.

Its rise has also reflected American policy. First, the poorly thought-out intervention of George W. Bush, typified by the rash “Mission Accomplished” banner that greeted him on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 after his invasion of Iraq. Then Mr Obama’s studious inaction. When Syrians rose up against the regime of Bashar Assad, the president stood back in the hope that things would sort themselves out—leaving Mr Assad free to commit atrocities against his own people. Even when Mr Assad crossed “the red line” of using chemical weapons, the superpower did not punish him. About 200,000 Syrians have died and 10m have been driven from their homes. Denied early American support, the moderate Syrian opposition has fragmented, leaving the field to the ruthless and well-organised IS.

Standing back has not worked well elsewhere in the world, either. Mr Obama has spoken about the limits to American power—exhorting other governments with a stake in today’s system to do their bit to keep the world safe. He wanted the United States to be seen less as a unilateral bully, more as the leader of world opinion. Yet when America stepped back, its allies stepped back, too. The countries that most eagerly came forward were its rivals, such as Russia and China.

IS has induced a change of heart among the American people. Before vicious extremists seized the city of Mosul and began to cut off Western heads on social media, Americans doubted the merit of further military action in the Middle East. When they realised that IS threatened them directly, they began to demand protection. Mr Obama therefore has a chance not just to strike a blow for order in the Middle East, but also to give the declinists pause.

From axis of evil to network of death

He has brute force on his side. The disastrous mismanagement of post-invasion Iraq has tended to eclipse the overwhelming potency of American firepower at the beginning. In six short weeks in the spring of 2003 America and its allies defeated the 375,000 troops of Saddam Hussein with the loss of only 138 American lives. Never in history has a single country had such military dominance. It has not suddenly evaporated.

The bigger question is whether Mr Obama can carry off delicate diplomacy. The lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan is that firepower alone will not prevail. Indeed, if America comes to be seen by Sunni Arabs as nothing more than a Shia air force, strikes will only bind IS to the local people.

If he is to win the argument in Iraq and Syria, Mr Obama needs coalitions and partnerships. For that he must get the diplomacy right. So far he has done well. He insisted on the replacement of Nuri al-Maliki, the Shia-chauvinist former prime minister of Iraq, with Haider al-Abadi, who is making efforts to bring Sunnis into government. He sent John Kerry, his secretary of state, to recruit regional Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to try to persuade Sunnis in Iraq and Syria that he is not taking sides against their branch of Islam. America has argued to the United Nations that its intervention—requested by Iraq but not Syria—is legal under Article 51 of the UN’s charter. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, appears to have accepted that argument; so should Britain’s Parliament, which will vote on whether to help America.

There is much more for Mr Obama to do...

More.

And remember, the Economist is hardly alone in this analogy. See earlier, "Foreign Policy Editor David Rothkopf Hammers Obama's Foreign Policy: Says Barack Should Take a Page from George W. Bush's Second Term."

F/A-18 Hornets and EA-6B Prowlers in Action Off the Aircraft Carrier USS George H.W. Bush

From the U.S. Navy on YouTube:

ARABIAN GULF (Sept. 26, 2014) F/A-18 Hornets and EA-6B Prowlers return to and launch from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) in support of strike, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Iraq. These missions help increase U.S. capacity to target ISIL, and coordinate the activities of the U.S. military across Iraq and into Syria.

What Was I Saying About the 'Khorasan Group'?

You have to stay a couple of steps before the Obama administration hacks, because it's all bullshit all the time.

I called out the White House disinformation on this fake "Khorasan group" a couple of days back, "Why is al-Nusra Front Being Relabeled as 'Khorasan'?"

And now here comes Andrew McCarthy, at National Review, "The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist" (via Memeorandum):

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.

You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the –Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”

Coming soon, “al-Qaeda on Hollywood and Vine.” In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if, come 2015, Obama issued an executive order decreeing twelve new jihad jayvees stretching from al-Qaeda in January through al-Qaeda in December.

Except you’ll hear only about the jayvees, not the jihad. You see, there is a purpose behind this dizzying proliferation of names assigned to what, in reality, is a global network with multiple tentacles and occasional internecine rivalries.

As these columns have long contended, Obama has not quelled our enemies; he has miniaturized them. The jihad and the sharia supremacism that fuels it form the glue that unites the parts into a whole — a worldwide, ideologically connected movement rooted in Islamic scripture that can project power on the scale of a nation-state and that seeks to conquer the West. The president does not want us to see the threat this way.

Mind-boggling lies and disinformation, but again, it pays to stay ahead of these f-kers. It's all politics. It's never about keeping people safe. And for that I can never forgive the Democrats. They're not Americans. They're anti-Americans.

Obama Presses World to Act Against Islamic Jihad

At WSJ, "U.S. Presses World to Act Against Extremism: Obama Implores Leaders to Join Coalition Against Islamic State":

UNITED NATIONS—The U.S. unleashed a barrage of diplomatic pressure on world leaders gathered in New York, imploring them to join an international coalition against Islamic extremism.

President Barack Obama, in a series of appearances throughout the day, outlined a very different U.S. approach to the Middle East than he did last year at the same forum—one that leans heavily on American military power and tightly focuses on ways to diminish Islamic extremism. He urged leaders in the region to do more to combat what he described as the most pressing threat to global progress.

In his sixth address to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Obama said "the cancer of violent extremism" embodied in groups such as Islamic State now dominates his foreign-policy agenda.

"The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force," Mr. Obama said. "So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death."

While leaders met at the U.N., the Pentagon said U.S. and Arab warplanes carried out a new wave of strikes on extremist group Islamic State in Syria, emphasizing regional support for the latest expansion of the air campaign against the group. Heads of state recoiled at a new extremist video showing the beheading of a French hostage.

Despite the U.S. appeals, the scope and longevity of his coalition to fight Islamic State remained unclear.

Major European allies—France, the U.K. and Germany, so far all have declined to send their aircraft into Syrian airspace, in part, because of the lack of U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of such force.

In Paris, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls reiterated the government's refusal. Instead, the French premier bemoaned how world powers had missed the opportunity to deploy air power over Syria in the wake of the alleged chemical attacks last year—when France believed there was a clear legal basis for intervention.

"We wouldn't be in this situation in Syria if the international community had intervened," Mr. Valls said.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is still smarting from the defeat he suffered last year when Parliament opposed his plans to join the U.S. in the airstrikes that Mr. Obama eventually called off. Although Mr. Cameron has the authority to launch military action unilaterally, lawmakers say the Syria experience makes it important for the U.K. leader to secure parliamentary approval before taking military action in Iraq.

On Wednesday, Mr. Cameron's government said Parliament would meet on Friday to debate a request from the Iraqi government for airstrikes against Islamic State in Iraq, but not Syria.

In his General Assembly speech Wednesday night, Mr. Cameron backed a U.K. military response in advance of the Friday vote, but left open whether it would entail a combat role against Islamic State militants.

"We should be uncompromising, using all the means at our disposal—including military force—to hunt down these extremists," Mr. Cameron said in his address, while adding in anticipation of criticism that the West should avoid the mistakes of the past in Iraq.

The president heralded the inclusion of five Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, in the airstrikes in Syria this week. And the U.S. welcomed commitments by Belgium and the Netherlands to each deploy fighter jets for military operations.

However, a number of Washington's closest Mideast allies—particularly Turkey and Qatar—appeared to be on the fence in terms of how significantly to support the U.S. campaign, though four Qatari planes provided surveillance for coalition attacks on Islamic State Monday.

More.

Hervé Gourdel Beheaded

Another one brutally murdered.

See the New York Times, "French Hostage in Algeria Is Beheaded in Video."

Maybe France will rethink its position on not joining the airstrikes in Syria?



Added: At Bare Naked Islam, "Islamic State (ISIS) video says: 'The best thing you can do is kill civilian disbelievers (non-Muslims) – Americans, Europeans, Canadians, etc…'"

Why is al-Nusra Front Being Relabeled as 'Khorasan'?

You know, who the f-k came up with this stupid terrorist moniker, "Khorasan"? These thugs are the al Nusra Front terrorists, a Syria-based off-shoot of al-Qaeda just a brutal as any out there. They've been in the news for years. Indeed, Clarissa Ward reported on "Khorasan" yesterday, and immediately reverted to the al-Nusra label for the bulk of her report.

It's like some Obama White House hacks started floating this idiotic "Khorason" label to scare the bejesus out of people, kinda like referring to the Sicilian mafia as "La Cosa Nostra": it just sound shadowy and sinister, although, of course, some halfway coherent bottom-dwellers would immediately recognize this group for who they are without the fascist leftist relabeling.

It's totally lame and completely unhelpful. But we've got Democrats doing PR in DC, so any half-addled dolt with a laptop can figure this stuff out.

In any case, here's the spooky report at WaPo, "Targeted by U.S. airstrikes: The secretive al-Qaeda cell was plotting an ‘imminent attack’."

CNN's Nic Robertson provides a pretty good breakdown at the clip:



More at this Ashleigh Banfield segment, "What is the Khorasan Group?"

And see especially, Thomas Jocelyn, at the Long War Journal, "US airstrikes target Al Nusrah Front, Islamic State in Syria."

Sill more, at BuzzFeed (via Memeorandum), "How 'Khorasan' Went From Nowhere to the Biggest Threat to the U.S."

U.S. Promises Long Campaign in #Syria

At the Wall Street Journal, "Syria Strikes: U.S. Reports Significant Damage in Attacks on Islamic State, Khorasan; American, Arab Warplanes Hit Targets Around Iraq-Syria Border":

WASHINGTON—The first U.S.-led airstrikes on extremist groups in Syria hit militant leaders, training camps and control centers, U.S. officials said, promising this was only the start of a long campaign.

The attacks were conducted with the aid of Arab allies, but the U.S. carried out the bulk of the raids. After the first wave of strikes, the U.S. said it conducted follow-on attacks during the day Tuesday that hit two Islamic State armored vehicles in Syria.

The U.S. and its allies unleashed more than 160 missiles and bombs on targets inside Syria, disrupting infrastructure used by the extremist groups Islamic State and al Qaeda-linked Khorasan, Pentagon officials said in the first assessments of the impact of the strikes.

While it will be days before a definitive conclusion can be drawn, U.S. officials said they believe some leaders of both Islamic State and Khorasan were likely killed in the strikes on training camps and headquarters buildings.

The expansion of the military campaign against Islamic State from Iraq to Syria carries significant risks for President Barack Obama's administration.

Mr. Obama has spent his presidency extricating the U.S. from two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now there is the prospect of getting mired again in a protracted Middle East war.

Western-backed rebels fear U.S.-led airstrikes on Islamic State and other extremist groups inside Syria will ultimately tip the balance in the multi-sided civil war in favor of the Syrian regime that Washington opposes.

Also, Islamic State made a new threat against a Western hostage. The family of British captive Alan Henning, an aid-convoy volunteer being held by the group, said on Tuesday that they had received an audio recording of the prisoner pleading for his life.

Islamic State has released videos showing the beheadings of three Western hostages—two of them Americans—since the U.S. began airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq in early August.

U.S. officials didn't provide estimates of casualties, though local residents said many were killed, including civilians. American officials said there were no indications of civilian casualties and promised to review any such claims.

The U.S.-led strikes will continue over coming days, U.S. officials said, though they cautioned that future waves are likely to be smaller than the opening round as the campaign quickly settles into a lower, but persistent beat.

"I can tell you that last night's strikes were only the beginning," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary...

More.

And don't miss Walter Russell Mead, "THE PARALLELS BETWEEN BARACK OBAMA AND GEORGE W. BUSH" (via Instapundit).

Still more at Memeorandum.

Huge Majority Supports Airstrikes Against #ISIS in Syria

A classic rally-'round-the-flag effect, at Gallup, "Slightly Fewer Back ISIS Military Action vs. Past Actions."

It may be that current public support is "slightly fewer" than previous military efforts, but remember, the U.S. has been at war continuously since October of 2001. Obama's got public support for his actions against ISIS. The trick now is not to blow it. Knocking out a few windows and demolishing a few buildings won't defeat the terrorists. The president is boxed in by his antiwar rhetoric, and if that rhetoric doesn't change, Americans will continue to be in danger.

Slightly Fewer Back #ISIS Military Action vs. Past Actions... http://t.co/7HhLopCl2Q pic.twitter.com/B0rXZzZfvB

— GallupNews (@GallupNews) September 23, 2014

Prime Minister David Cameron Speaks to NBC's Brian Williams

I really like him, except for his Achilles heel of political correctness. Nobody's perfect, I guess.

Here, "Britain's David Cameron on ISIS: 'These People Want to Kill Us'."

USS Arleigh Burke Launches Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles

Via the U.S. Navy, on YouTube.

The #ISIS Threat to the U.S. Homeland

Andrea Mitchell reports for NBC News, and she's taking the ISIS threat quite seriously:

Why Beheading?

From Jeff Jacoby, at the Boston Globe:

ISLAMIC STATE has made the beheading of victims a key element in its campaign of terror and conquest. Most conspicuous in recent weeks have been the murders of Westerners James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines, whose severed heads and decapitated bodies have been shown in threatening videos produced by the jihadists. In the years since 9/11, other Islamist terrorist groups have circulated equally ghastly beheading videos. Among the earlier victims were journalist Daniel Pearl, businessman Nicholas Berg, and construction contractors Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong — all Americans beheaded by Al Qaeda.

Last week, meanwhile, Australian police arrested 15 suspects allegedly linked to Islamic State; they are accused of plotting to publicly behead a victim abducted at random.

Clearly the terrorists relish the horror beheading evokes in America and other Western democracies, as well as the fear it inspires among Kurds, Shiites, or other local forces standing in the path of their juggernaut. Psychological warfare is an essential element in Islamic State’s military strategy, writes Shashank Joshi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London. Even when heavily outnumbered, Islamic State has been able to leverage its reputation for implacable brutality “to dissuade Iraqi forces from ever seeking battle.” And by killing American and British hostages with such sadistic relish, it aims to intensify the desire of many in the West to wash their hands of involvement in Iraq once and for all.

But there are other ways to terrorize, other gruesome means of mass murder — suicide bombings, poison gas, hijackings. Why the emphasis on beheading?

No doubt part of the explanation is that beheadings tend to draw more attention than suicide bombings and exploding cars. Deadly though they are, car bombs and shootings have lost much of their shock value in Western eyes. It takes an unusually high death toll for a bombing in Iraq to attract as much media attention as the decapitation of a single hostage by an English-speaking Islamist wielding a knife. Terrorists crave attention, more now in the digital age, perhaps, than ever before. Islamic State and other jihadist groups have many ways to commit mass murder. But for generating a spectacle that will be noticed — and shuddered at — the world over, sawing off the head of an American journalist or a European relief worker, then uploading the video to the Internet, is hard to beat...

More.

RELATED: At LAT, "Islamic State's soft weapon of choice: social media."