Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 13, 2014
White House, Pentagon say US ‘at war’ with ISIS
The White House and Pentagon acknowledged Friday that the U.S. “is at war” with the Islamic State — contradicting Secretary of State John Kerry and others who a day earlier refused to use that term, prompting criticism from lawmakers that the administration was downplaying the conflict.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby used almost identical language when pressed by reporters Friday whether or not the expanded military operation against the terrorist group is in fact a war.
“In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” Earnest said.
Kirby said “this is not the Iraq War” from a decade ago, “but make no mistake — we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
The comments are a sharp turnaround from how Kerry described the military operation on Thursday. In interviews with CNN and CBS News, Kerry described it as a “very significant” and “major counterterrorism operation.” He told CBS News that “war is the wrong terminology.”
His spokeswoman, Marie Harf, also said she would not “refer to our efforts” as part of the “war on terrorism.”
Kerry’s comments, though, stirred confusion on Capitol Hill, coming a day after President Obama announced plans to expand airstrikes in Iraq and authorize them in Syria, while dispatching hundreds more U.S. military personnel.
Obama called for a coalition of nations to ultimately “destroy” the growing terror network. Meanwhile, the CIA confirmed that its latest estimates show the Islamic State has as many as 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria. That’s close to the estimated size of the Taliban force in 2001.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other lawmakers suggested Kerry’s comments did not square with Obama’s stated goal of defeating the vast terror network.
“It’s hard to find a response to that,” McCain told Fox News on Thursday night, when asked about Kerry’s comments. “Then what was the president talking about [Wednesday] night?”
Kerry wasn’t the only one having a hard time describing the mission on Thursday. National Security Adviser Susan Rice likewise told CNN on Thursday she wasn’t sure whether it should be called a war or a “sustained counterterrorism campaign.”
Senior State Department officials stressed to Fox News on Friday that Kerry’s comments were consistent with what other senior U.S. officials were saying at the time, and made clear that the secretary remains on the same page as the rest of the administration.
“This was a deliberate, administration-wide adjustment in language,” a senior State Department official told Fox News, “which Secretary Kerry would have also used today had he been asked.”
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said earlier Friday that the semantics over what to call the operation “weakens the mission.”
“Words matter,” McCaul said. He claimed the administration was being careful with its language because the terror group defies Obama’s “campaign narrative” about ending the war on terrorism and putting Al Qaeda on the run.
“ISIL clearly hasn’t gotten the memo that I think John Kerry did,” McCaul said.
But in the Pentagon and White House briefings Friday afternoon, it appeared the administration was backing off the earlier characterization.
Earnest clarified that the operation is not a case of the United States acting alone against the Islamic State, since the Islamic State, he said, is waging a war against the international community.
But he repeated that the U.S. is “at war” with ISIS as it is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.
19 Comments on "White House, Pentagon say US ‘at war’ with ISIS"
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 10:30 am
I wonder when Obama will go the UN to get authorization for his new war in Syria and Iraq.
Davy on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 10:49 am
Planter, what UN, in a fracturing and polarizing multipolar world the UN is irrelevant.
J-Gav on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 11:03 am
Oh yeah! Gotta have experience as a ‘war president’ to earn your chops in U.S. politics.
When an old enemy runs out of gas (sorry, I meant ‘steam’)just set up a new one. It’s never too late to spread more hate.
noobtube on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 11:07 am
Oh look… Americans starting another unprovoked war.
Now, that’s Democracy and 1st world and civilized and rich and prosperous and FREE gets you.
The world can’t have too many Americans, can it?
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 11:08 am
Davi, the UN is not irrelevant. Countries can’t simply start bombing one-another whenever they choose. If the US has a legitimate reason to go to war against the Islamic State, then surely the UN would vote to authorize this latest US war.
noobtube on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 1:01 pm
Yea, the Americans have no history of arbitrarily bombing and murdering innocent people, without the United Nations in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Sudan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, etc.
The United States follows the rules… namely its own.
Can you say “rogue” state?
GregT on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 2:53 pm
Plant,
The main reasons for continued US meddling in the ME, are control over oil and gas resources, and further destabilization of the region in a feeble attempt to drive a wedge between Russia, Asia, and Europe.
The Empire is dying it’s last breaths, and in all likely, is going to go out with a bang, rather than a whimper.
rockman on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 3:01 pm
“Countries can’t simply start bombing one-another whenever they choose” I think folks are forgetting what the situation actually is. The US hasn’t “declared war” on a county… ISIS is not a country. It is a group of civilians of various nationalities (including US and UK) that is committing various crimes. Crimes violating Iraq and Syrian laws…not US laws. The US has no jurisdiction in the region. The POTUS could authorize military strikes against those “civilians” but has no more authority to do so then to launch air strikes against a Mexican drug cartel. In fact the Mexican drug cartels pose more of an immediate threat to our civilians then ISIS does.
Additionally the POTUS doesn’t need UN authorization to attack a civilian population AFAIK. ISIS might be murderers, thieves, etc. But they are not a country or the armed forces of the gov’t of a country. They are civilians committing crimes in Iraq and Syria. When the UN authorized the invasion of Iraq it was to conduct military operations against a military force acting under the control of an internationally recognized gov’t.
This time it truly is accurate IMHO to characterize US involvement as a “police action”: we would be assisting the govts of Iraq and Syria to thwart the criminal activities of a group of civilians…ISIS. Carrying an AK’s doesn’t make ISIS any more of an army then it does the Crips or Juárez Cartel.
GregT on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 3:26 pm
Rock,
The US policy makers have no interest what-so-ever in assisting the government of Syria. If anything, I see this as an ‘excuse’ to bomb Syria, while thwarting the completion of the Shiite controlled gas pipeline from Iran to Syrian ports, in an attempt to divert natural gas destined for European markets northward through Turkey.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-geopolitics-of-gas-and-the-syrian-crisis-syrian-opposition-armed-to-thwart-construction-of-iran-iraq-syria-gas-pipeline/5337452
ghung on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 4:12 pm
The US hasn’t needed a war or permission to bomb the Taliban in Pakistan (or other places). This is why we have the convenient War on Terror designation. The list of sovereign Nations the US has violated either covertly or openly is extensive. Anyone who gets designated ‘enemy combatant’ or ‘terrorist’ is fair game. ISIS(IL)certainly fits the bill, as far as the west is concerned.
MSN fanboy on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 5:21 pm
WOW…
I actually agree with noobtube
It feels all dirty
Maybe its all the innocent blood America has spilt. LOL
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 7:07 pm
@ghung
Your memory is failing you—The US has officially been at war with the Taliban and Al Qaida since the US Congress voted war powers to Bush in 2001.
And contrary to your claim, ISIS is not fair game because the 2001 declaration only covers entities that planned or aided the 9/11/2001 attack on the WTC. ISIS didn’t even exist then—while the Obama administration can spin any wacky story they want, surely we reasonable people can agree that there is no way ISIS was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and so is not covered by the 2001 authorization.
Dave Thompson on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 9:37 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/10/1328729/-How-many-times-do-we-have-to-bomb-Iraq-to-save-ourselves-from-Hitler
GregT on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 11:00 pm
Plant,
If Ghung’s memory is indeed failing him, at least he actually understood something that he could forget. You on the other hand, will never have this problem. It is not possible to forget something, if you never understood it in the first place.
rockman on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 11:06 pm
And as I said: the US isn’t “at war” with anyone. The Iraq gov’t asked the US to assist it in controlling a group of civilian criminals. Our actions don’t have to be based upon 9/11, fighting “terrorism”, etc. We’re doing the same as we did when we helped the Columbian gov’t deal with their drug running civilian criminals. Granted we’re using a bit more powerful munitions but the dynamics are the same. Consider Gizmo: it’s not POW camp…it’s a prison where we are holding criminal defendants awaiting trial.
You get it now: a whole different way to spin the same dynamic. Of course it’s a lot sexier to say we’re “going to war against a terrorist threat” then to say we’re sending some heavily armed po-po to arrest some gang members. LOL. After all, look how well the “War on drugs” worked out.
clueless on Sat, 13th Sep 2014 11:40 pm
USA is at war with FRANKENSTEIN it created.
LOL
Davy on Sun, 14th Sep 2014 7:01 am
Look, you all can discuss the hypocrisy and immorality of the US disregard for international law and norms all they want. A discussion I would be a part of. There are many crimes over many years to discuss. Yet, we are here now not there. We are at the end of the oil age with a few short years for the global community of nations to get their shit together. This is going to be a nasty, ugly, and painful end of an age not the cusp of a new and exciting age like many previously. The US battling ISIL will buy us some time. If the ISIL phenomenon cascades into a mass movement of peoples and failing states with the ME collapsing into a vacuum the end will be upon us sooner than later. I still fully believe we are at the door to the end. Once that door is opened all hell is going to break lose with little proactive and rational mitigation efforts. We know oil is the resource that drives the modern world. Everything else at this point relies on it. Yet, it is not going away we are just seeing the dynamics of oil and the economy at a point where the system will not function properly to achieve growth. Our system will not survive long without growth. These oil dynamics are converging so quick this minimal faux growth has a few short years before it is unable to support the system leaving collapse as the only result. A crash course in attitude and lifestyle adjustments in a profound crisis that shakes all nations into a survival mode can happen in a beneficial way. These attitude and lifestyle adjustments will not save BAU but they will allow transition. For a crash course to work we need time and a relatively soft crisis compared to what could happen. We are at peak resources so there is still much out there. There is plenty to make a transition to a postmodern economy. There is no way to avoid the ugly but it is the degree and duration of the ugly we have to worry about. Time is the ultimate factor now. We have no time to transition to something BAU lite. This will be post BAU but there could still be civilization and many modern mental and physical structures surviving. We need time. The US taking on ISIL is that function of buying time.
simonr on Sun, 14th Sep 2014 7:32 am
Hi Rockman … as far as I can see, it depends on your definition of a country, and definition of war and that is subjective, so really anyone/thing can declare war on anything else, the trick is convincing people to agree with your definitions
bobinget on Sun, 14th Sep 2014 12:49 pm
While ISIL seems to be attracting tens of thousands of malcontents from around to world, leadership seems to be quite professional. Many are former Iraqi generals with many young lifetimes of fighting experience.
ISIL is most certainly NOT the idealist citizen soldiers who made up the original Syrian opposition forces.
Speaking of so called ‘Islamic Militants’;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/us-plans-major-border-security-program-in-nigeria/2014/09/04/9a87a044-3443-11e4-9f4d-24103cb8b742_story.html
Will President O be sending a oil protection hit squad to Nigeria soon? If so, how will we disguise that fact?
In mode to cash in on the next world war:
sure blood money rat cheer;
12 Companies That Will Conquer The Drone Market In 2014 and 2015
1. The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA)
Boeing has had a hand in the drone market for a number of years, mostly developing for the U.S. military. They have more recently been testing the hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye drone, which Boeing says can stay at 65,000 feet for up to four days without refueling.
The company, led by W. James McNerney, Jr., had revenues of $81.7 billion in 2012 and looks set to smash through that when 2013 results are announced later this year.
2. General Atomics
The San-Diego based company is credited with building the Predator drone, the much-feared aircraft that saw action way back during the Balkans war, where the Americans lost two. Since then it’s been deployed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Iran and the Philippines. Last year, the company signed a deal to supply $197 million worth of drones to the United Arab Emirates. In 2012, the company brought in more than $652 million in revenues.
3. Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT)
Like Boeing, Lockheed is testing a drone — the Stalker — that can stay in the air for days at a time. In 2012, the company brought in revenues of $47.2 billion.
4. Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC)
Founded only in 1994, Northrop has quickly risen to become one of the top suppliers of military hardware in the world. In 2012, the company sold $1.2 billion worth of drones to South Korea, but revenue has dropped to $25.1 billion in 2012 from $34 billion in 2011.
5. AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ:AVAV)
AeroVironment is the company responsible for the “Hummingbird drone” ordered by the Pentagon. But the incredibly accurate little drone is capable of far more than just looking good. It has a tiny camera that can follow your every move. According to CEO Timothy Conver, revenue is expected to drop to $230 million in the upcoming fiscal year.
6. Prox Dynamics AS
The Norway-based company is really only famous for one product, but what a product it has become. They developed the Black Hornet Nano, a tiny hand-held helicopter that can help soldiers survey enemy areas quickly. It can fly at its top speed for up to 30 minutes at a time and cost the British Army $31 million to equip its various regiments with the drone.
7. Denel Dynamics
South Africa isn’t well known for its drones, but government-owned Denel has seen sales of its drones increase by 20 percent in 2013 because of the increased demand, according to the company, in the Middle East, East Asia and Africa.
8. SAIC
The company brought in $2.87 billion in revenue in 2012, up 3 percent from last year. Their specialty is building underwater drones for the Pentagon to defend against submarines.
9. Israel Aerospace Industries
IAI was pioneering drone use as far back as the 1970s, but the recent explosion in demand is making the company a real force in Israel and abroad. Revenues in 2011 were $3.44 billion.
10. Textron Inc. (NYSE:TXT)
Appetite for military drones has pushed the company’s revenues toward nearly $13 billion. Their drones have proven so successful that the company has committed to building unmanned underwater vehicles.
11. General Dynamics Corporation (NYSE:GD)
The company reported a $2 billion loss in January 2013, citing defense cuts. The company also happens to be one of the major donors to the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, known as the drone caucus.
12. DJI
The DJI Phantom is the drone of choice for filmmakers and is reported to be the most complete commercial drone on the market. The company has started pouring much of its resources into the U.S. market, betting that the FAA will relax rules in 2015.