| CNN | - |
Washington
(CNN) -- No troops to Iraq, but other options are being considered.
That was President Barack Obama's message Friday in response to the
lightning advance by Sunni militant fighters in Iraq that could threaten
the government of Shiite Prime ...
Obama says no combat troops to Iraq; U.S. weighs airstrikes
updated 6:52 PM EDT, Fri June 13, 2014
Your video will play in 31 secs
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- NEW: Sources: U.S. doesn't even have airstrike targets, should Obama OK them
- President Obama says a decision on military help will take days
- Iraq militants look positioned to hold onto gains
That was President Barack
Obama's message Friday in response to the lightning advance by Sunni
militant fighters in Iraq that could threaten the government of Shiite
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
In a statement delivered
from the White House South Lawn, Obama said the United States "will not
be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq," but that he would be
reviewing a range of other options in coming days.
How should the U.S. intervene in Iraq?
How can Obama counter ISIS threat?
Iraq desperate for options against ISIS
ISIS dividing Iraq along ethnic lines
"This is not going to
happen overnight," the President said, adding that unless Iraq fixes its
internal political problems, short-term military help from the United
States won't make much difference.
Critics blame Obama for Iraq crisis
Pressure for the United
States to provide military support to Iraq's struggling government has
increased, with conservative Republicans blaming Obama for creating a
security vacuum in 2011 by pulling out U.S. troops.
GOP critics also say that
Obama's unwillingness to provide significant military backing to
opposition forces in Syria's civil war has contributed to the ability of
the militant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, to attack in
Iraq.
Obama, however, resists getting drawn into another military engagement there after the ending the nine-year conflict started by his predecessor.
Now the conflict
threatens to widen. Iranian officials denied reports Friday that some of
its elite forces were in Iraq to help bolster al-Maliki, a fellow
Shiite.
Syria connection
Taking questions from reporters after his statement, Obama acknowledged that the Syrian civil war has been spilling over into Iraq "for some time now," adding that the regional conflict "is going to be a long-term problem."
Perhaps sensitive to the
criticism over the Syrian link, Obama and other government officials
referred to the Sunni militant group by the acronym ISIL, which stands
for Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
The President called on
Iraq's neighbors to help out, too, but made clear the only guarantee of
success involved political reforms by al-Maliki that promoted
cooperation with Sunnis.
"In the absence of this
type of political effort, short-term military action, including any
assistance we might provide won't succeed," Obama said.
Obama also blamed Iraq's political dysfunction for the failure of its troops to fight off the ISIS advance from the north to within about 60 miles of Baghdad on Friday.
He noted the United
States has given plenty of aid and training to Iraqi forces -- including
$15 billion for items such as Hellfire missiles, assault rifles and
helicopters, not to mention another $1 billion in arms now in a 30-day
review period in Congress.
"The fact that they are
not willing to stand and fight and defend their posts against admittedly
hardened terrorists, but not terrorists who are overwhelming in
numbers, indicates that there is a problem with morale, a problem in
terms of commitment, and ultimately that is rooted in the political
problems that have plagued the country for a very long time," Obama
said.
Shia-Sunni divisions
James Rubin, a former
senior State Department official in the Clinton administration, told CNN
that "it's up to Maliki to change policy on how he treats with, how he
deals with the Sunni community."
"I'm skeptical, because right now he's in a fight for his life," Rubin said.
Underlying the U.S.
concern is the potential threat of an ISIS-controlled stronghold in the
region that could serve as a staging ground for terrorist activity
against American interests. ISIS fighters already have seized Iraq's
second-largest city, Mosul, while gaining control of large parts of the
country's north.
Rubin warned the
conflict could result in Iraq dividing into three pieces -- a
Sunni-controlled north, a Shia-controlled south and a Kurdish region.
Bob Baer, a former CIA
official who is CNN's national security analyst, said ISIS could "sow
chaos through the Middle East," and was "definitely" a threat to the
United States.
Surprising speed
The speed of the
deterioration of the situation in Iraq surprised even U.S. officials
closely monitoring the country, a U.S. official closely involved with
military decision-making told CNN's Kyra Phillips.
"We've been watching the
intelligence continually and the fractures in Iraq that have grown as a
result of the underlying political environment and lack of inclusive
governance," the U.S. official said. "If anything was surprising, it's
only the speed at which the situation continued to deteriorate over the
past few days and the apparent ease at which the (Iraqi security forces)
abandoned their units and positions."
Meanwhile, a U.S.
counterterrorism official noted the intelligence community had warned of
a growing ISIS threat to Mosul and Baghdad.
The official told CNN
that the group, consisting of a few thousand fighters, "couldn't have
moved as rapidly as it has without the support of some nationalist Sunni
groups and sympathetic tribes."
"As long as the support
of these Sunni elements holds, ISIL looks well-positioned to keep the
territory it has captured, absent a major counteroffensive," the
official said, using the same acronym for the group as Obama.
The Pentagon is
preparing options for Obama to consider that would halt the momentum of
the ISIS advance, Defense Department spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told
reporters.
Preparations?
A U.S. official told CNN
on Friday that the United States plans to move the aircraft carrier
George H.W. Bush into the Persian Gulf to provide Obama with options for
possible airstrikes.
Calls for American
airstrikes have increased in Washington, but U.S. military planners
trying to find a way to help Iraq fend off the militant fighters are
worried that such attacks could prove futile, several officials told
CNN.
Among other
complications, U.S. officials don't have good intelligence about where
militants are. Even if they did, the militants don't have the type of
targets -- command and control centers, air defense sites, military
bases -- that lend themselves to aerial attacks, the officials said on
condition of not being identified.
They also noted that
ISIS fighters may be spread out inside population centers, which means
airstrikes could risk civilian casualties and property destruction at
the hands of the U.S. military.
So even if Obama decides
on airstrikes, the U.S. doesn't currently have targets to hit,
administration sources told CNN's Jake Tapper. Figuring out what to go
after will take time.
The President appeared
to allude to such challenges when he said: "We want to make sure that
we've gathered all the intelligence that's necessary so that if, in
fact, I do direct an order, any actions there (are) targeted, they're
precise, and they're going to have an effect."
Air strikes 'not easy'
Republican Sen. John McCain
of Arizona, a war veteran and critic of Obama administration policy in
Iraq, also spoke to this point Friday, telling CNN that air strikes "are
certainly something that should be considered, but I would point out
that air strikes are not easy."
"You just don't say,
'hey, let's go hit something,'" said McCain, who lost to Obama in the
2008 presidential election. "It requires coordination, it requires
intelligence; it requires a whole lot of things."
One U.S. official told
CNN that short of sending ground troops, options under consideration
included increasing U.S. surveillance flights over ISIS areas and
potential airstrikes.
At the Pentagon, Kirby
said the United States already had intensified its intelligence support
in Iraq at the request of al-Maliki's government.
However, James Jeffrey,
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to 2012 who is now a fellow at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, characterized Iraq's
military as "ill-trained, badly led and not particularly competent."
"They clearly cannot fire and maneuver," said Jeffrey, a U.S. Army veteran.
Photos: Iraqi civilians flee Mosul
Map: Unrest in Iraq
McCain called for Obama
to fire his national security team, saying the decision to withdraw all
U.S. troops from Iraq created a predictable vacuum that led to the
current crisis.
To McCain, a residual
force of U.S. troops should have remained in Iraq to provide stability,
"the same kind of residual force that we have now in Bosnia, that we
have in Germany, we have in Japan."
"That doesn't mean we're
in combat. It means we are there as a stabilizing force," he said,
adding that the ISIS advance represents "an existential threat" to
America. He linked the Iraq situation to the administration's reluctance
to strongly support opposition forces in Syria's civil war, a policy he
called "one of the causative factors" for the Iraq crisis.
Secretary of State John Kerry,
however, cited differences in U.S. relations and obligations with Iraq
compared to Syria. The Iraq war that began with the 2003 invasion to
oust Saddam Hussein eventually led to elections that brought al-Maliki
to power, followed by the 2011 departure of U.S. forces.
ISIS attacks cause mass exodus in Iraq
ISIS attacks cause mass exodus in Iraq
'This was a well-planned attack'
Who are the militants battling for Iraq?
"In Iraq, there is a
government that we have been deeply involved in, that we support, that
we have a military relationship with, that we have an ongoing memorandum
of understanding regarding the military relationship which has invited
us, asked us for help," he said.
end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment