Pentagon announces three airstrikes in Iraq


American warplanes and drones struck Islamist militants near this northern Iraqi city on Friday, putting the U.S. military back in action in the skies over Iraq less than three years after the troops withdrew and President Barack Obama declared the war over.

The strikes – in part by F/A-18 combat jets flying from the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf – were limited in scope.

But they helped temper days of building panic across the north of the country as militants with the extremist Islamic State have sliced through a string of towns and villages on the outskirts of the Kurdish region and sent tens of thousands of civilians fleeing for their lives.

They also presented the first significant challenge to months of unchecked expansion by the al-Qaida offshoot.

It has swept through much of Iraq and neighboring Syria over the past year, annihilating opponents, capturing valuable resources and declaring the creation of an Islamic caliphate in a nation-size chunk of territory.

In Washington, the Pentagon announced three separate strikes by multiple aircraft against militant positions that it said were firing on Kurdish forces protecting Irbil, saying that they had “successfully eliminated” artillery, a mortar position and a convoy of extremist fighters.

Kurdish media and officials, who said the attacks had had a “devastating” impact on militant positions, claimed other, unconfirmed attacks that were farther afield.

U.S. officials also stressed that the American intervention was narrowly aimed at the protection of American diplomats and officials living in Irbil, where the large U.S. consulate has absorbed evacuees from the embassy in Baghdad, and that the U.S. military runs a joint operations center alongside Kurdish forces.

“There are American military and diplomatic personnel in Irbil,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a briefing in Washington. “The protection of American personnel in Iraq is a top priority, and one that merits the use of military force.”

He emphasized that the authorization for airstrikes “is very limited in scope,” but he did not rule out additional strikes to protect the tens of thousands of members of the minority Yazidi faith trapped by Islamic State fighters on a mountaintop.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requested the U.S. intervention, Earnest said. But he and other U.S. officials made clear that more comprehensive U.S. engagement against the militants will not happen unless feuding politicians in Baghdad establish a more inclusive government capable of resolving Sunni grievances.

The Iraqi parliament is scheduled to choose a new prime minister, perhaps as early as Sunday, according to U.S. officials who have made clear their preference that Maliki step down.

As news of the strikes spread, jihadist fighters and supporters took to Twitter to express glee that the United States had become embroiled in their battle, threatening to shoot down planes, exact revenge and conquer other American allies in the region.

“This crisis will become a gift and you shall remember this: Our State will enter Irbil and America will fall, and then the Gulf will be ours,” one purported jihadi tweeted.

Response to the strikes was limited from Congress, which is in a late-summer recess. While most who offered an opinion supported Obama’s decision, some Republicans criticized him for waiting as Islamic State forces spread across Iraq over the past two months.

Others warned Obama against expanding the effort without seeking congressional approval.

“If further sustained military action is necessary, it is incumbent on Congress to review all the facts, debate the issue and vote to authorize any additional sustained military action,” U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-3rd District, said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell, R-2nd District, said, “I urge the president to present to the American people his vision and plan to elevate peace and stability in Iraq. Should that ever include the introduction of U.S. armed forces into hostilities, the president must first seek and receive authorization from Congress.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-4th District, wrote on Twitter: “The Administration’s failure to devise a strategy for the Middle East shouldn’t detract from the incredible bravery of our servicemembers.”

For families of the service members on the carrier Bush, it is a time of increased concern, but also pride and solidarity.

“I’m very proud of him and will continue to stand next to him every step of the way,” said Whisper Breitenborn, whose husband’s air squadron is attached to the Bush.

The full-time mother and their 10-month-old son just moved to Virginia Beach, but Breitenborn said she was well-equipped to hold down the fort as her husband participates in actions over Iraq.

“I don’t need him to worry about us at home,” she said. “It’s my job to keep our home going while he’s away. It’s his job to protect and keep us safe.”

Pilot writer Dianna Cahn contributed to this report

Posted to: Military Nation - World

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

Buckle up, boys and girls. Here we go again!

Recommend you wear neck braces to protect against the parsing, spin, and whiplash from this Pentagon spokesperson (aka Baghdad Bob).

Don't forget about the

Don't forget about the propaganda emanating from the Mainstream Media. They will have the sheeple believing that ISIL is a clear and pleasant threat to US Liberty.

It's About Time!

Our Allies were wondering where we were for so long?
These bloodthirsty ISIS troops need to be stopped!
We don't want ground troops in there but we can do a lot
with air power.

Our Allies were wondering

Our Allies were wondering where we were for so long?

The US is not preventing its so-called "allies" from engaging ISIS. Given that this is closer to their neighborhood than ours, one could argue that it is their problem, not ours.

These bloodthirsty ISIS troops need to be stopped!

Well, the US shouldn't have started them in the first place. Hint: We armed them in Syria and tagged them "freedom fighters." Now, armed with US Military hardware, they have evolved into a "bloodthirsty" horde of terrorists.

We don't want ground troops in there but we can do a lot
with air power.

Yes, as usual, the US will enrich the warfare merchants known as the MICC.

I agree ISIS needs to be stopped.

But didn't we invest billions of dollars, years of training, and thousands of lives so that Iraq could protect and defend themselves?

Actually, "we invested

Actually, "we invested billions of dollars, years of training, and thousands of lives so that Iraq" would not abandon the petro-dollar.

It's better to remain...

...silent and be thought a fool than to speak (or post) and remove all doubt......

I agree; therefore, you

I agree; therefore, you should immediately remove your fingers from the keyboard.

(The poor soul believes everything his corporate media tells him)

"abandon the petro-dollar."

"By 2002, Saddam had fully converted to a 'petroeuro' – in essence, dumping the dollar.
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush announced the commencement of a full scale invasion of Iraq."

"Two months after the invasion, the Iraqi euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and it was announced that payments for Iraqi oil would be once again in US dollars only. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored."

A primer for those who don't understand that Iraq was not about WMD, revenge or anything other than the petrodollar. Also some insights on the real reasons behind the war in Afghanistan.

Take from it what you will, or not.

Sounds like you agree...

...with my comment. Why the negativity?

Comment deleted

Comment removed for rules violation. Reason: Obscene, vulgar, sexual

4 500 pound bombs

Are we running out of bombs or just trying to scare them?

Wag the dog again.

Take your eyes off all the illegal democrats coming across the boarder.

Unlike Republicans,

Unlike Republicans, Democrats can focus on more than one thing at a time.

the problem is

our President (a Democrat) can only focus on Fund Raising and Golf.
With no conception of foreign policy.

...you've just proven. ..

...you're a Republican.

One hundred years of a brutal foreign policy

and a failed war on drugs brings the victims to our borders. Can you see them now?

If Republicans had common

If Republicans had common sense, they would realize that Mexicans are conservative Catholics with extremely strong family values, who will work very had for long hours at minimal pay, and who COULD have a place with conservatism.

But thankfully, Republicans simply treat them with contempt.

Here we go again

The same people who complained that the President isn't doing enough are starting to complain that he is either doing too much or doing it the wrong way.

Mr. "let's decom a carrier" finds out what they are for.

I also found it funny that "it was a re-engagement in the long sectarian war". It sounds like the AP is still playing the blame game.

Actually, the box of rocks

Actually, the box of rocks who believes that there are 57 states does NOT know what they are for. You see, according to the Constitution, their purpose is to defend the United States, not meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Oh look ...

Barry found a new way to blame Bush!

Bush took out Hussein

Look at Iraq now. Enuf Said!

Bush broke it.

Not much American appetite for spending trillions to put it back together and keep it together.

Oh look

Barry Soetoro took out America. Look at America now.

Osama Bin Laden is dead, gm is alive, and al queda is on the run. No you fool. They changed their name.

When will America get a real president that knows what the heck is going on in the world?

Maybe that police officer was right

As the Commander and Chief, the President has the legal authority to engage enemies abroad. However, will he consult with Congress, unlike what he did in Libya, and conform with the War Powers Act? Probably not, but is anyone surprised? He doesn't enforce the laws he doesn't like, so no real change here.

I'm glad he took credit for getting us out of Iraq (although that agreement could be argued to have already been made). But now that "we are out," will he take responsibility for sending us back in? Or will this be someone else's fault.

Obama "leads" from the rear. The reason leads is in quotations is because he is reactionary. Although that may be a good thing because every time he has stepped forward, he has been grossly incompetent.

Congress was consulted

You can actually read that in any number of articles.

how did he "Consult"

the Senate, Harry sent them home.


the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.


In the words of Eric Marshall, "you just got lawyered."

By reactionary you mean he didn't predict this?

I fault him and Bush and our military. What should have been predicted based on our past history is a security force (army, police, etc.) trained by foreigners doesn’t normally last once the foreign advisors depart. It didn’t work for us in Vietnam and hasn’t worked in Iraq, and in general doesn’t work for anybody. So blame Obama or Bush or our military but not many anticipated the Iraqi military, after several hundred billion dollars-worth of training and equipment, melting away in the face of a few thousand terrorists. But yeah, Obama should have anticipated that right? He has tried to get Iraq to step up and defend themselves -- that's reactionary? Give me a break. Not everything that goes wrong is the President's fault.

If that is true...

If as you say that "Not everything that goes wrong is the President's fault" then that would also hold true if the President we're talking about is named "Bush," right?

I mean, if as you say not everything is the President's fault, there is simply no way that you can reasonably hold two Presidents to differing standards.

Obama might have been handed Iraq when Bush left office, but Obama has been mishandling it every day since.

That is like being stuck in

That is like being stuck in traffic due to a head on collision and complaining that the city was mishandling the cleanup because you thought it wasn't going fast enough.

how was the violence

in Iraq in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
and now
Violence went way you after we left. We pulled out to soon.

We pulled out to soon?

Following the invasion Bush had no plan for occupation and made no consideration for sectarian rivalries. How long do you think a massive occupational force would be required? Two generations, three, until we are invaded by extraterrestrials?

The President is Right

Every action the President take is to eliminate American death. I'm glad we got out of Iraq. I hope he doesn't put booths on the ground. When the President makes a decision, he is thinking of the lives of our military men and women. It is easy to criticize him when we are not in combat way.

we just picked sides in a sectarian war. No going back now.

Dropping 500 pounders in the Sunni-Shiite-Kurdish Civil War is a lifelong mistake.

Wonder what Saudi Arabia thinks about the United States taking on the Sunni's?

No we didn't

Executing a mission to protect US interests is hardly "paicking sides". Executing a bombing strike to insure humanitarian aid can be delivered is likewise not "picking sides". Now if the action were to spread to attacking ISIS elsewhere you might have a point. But bombing clowns who are practicing genocidal tactics against unarmed populations of Iraqi minorities and attacking the Kurds and threatening the Mosul Dam and Erbil is the right thing to do to protect our interests and prevent undue human suffering amongst an innocent population.

Wonder what Saudi Arabia

Wonder what Saudi Arabia thinks about the United States taking on the Sunni's?

It can't be that much different from what the United States thought of Saudi Arabia after we discovered many of the attackers came from there.


In reference to 9/11.

The Saudis

pay out to all sides for protection.

is bombing someone

an "Act of War"?
If you claim Bush is a war criminal you HAVE to say
Obama is a war criminal

No argument.

This is why failing to prosecute Presidents and Vice Presidents for war crimes is bad for the nation. Precedent is a hard thing to break.

Your title is much more

Your title is much more worthy of debate than your post, Unfortunately. we picked sides a long time ago when we allowed al-Maliki to purge the Iraqi military of Sunnis. That is largely how ISIS was able to step in and recruit so many Sunnis who found no hope in Iraqi domestic policy.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is equally afraid of ISIS - and will not hold the current action against the U.S. They have seen action taken by ISIS in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and continuing down toward the Arabian peninsula in an effort to prop up sharia law against established governments.

Meanwhile ...

So while F/A-18s piloted by U. S. pilots are being launched from the Bush to bomb ISIS, where are the Russian aircraft which arrived in Iraq in June that the Iraqis were supposed to fly?

Awaiting trained pilots? I

Awaiting trained pilots? I knew a fellow who wrote training manuals for the Military, he said that Iraqis flew planes like they rode camels, whatever that meant.


ruins everything.

Don't be Rediculous, djn

This is all the fault of an irresponsible video maker.

Religion has nothing to do with it.


Mr. Prez, it is about time you did something, All those who lose theirs lives and scared forever mental or physical would have been for nothing, if the rebels was allowed to take over again. Yes I know some will blast me for my comment,

I want to know

Who is it that trained the ISIS fighters?

CLEARLY they did a much better job than we did. After 8 years and a few trillion dollars invested in training and equipping the Iraqi forces, they fold up like a $20 umbrella.

THAT is what we should REALLY be upset about.

"Who is it that trained the ISIS fighters?"

They are motivated by the most vicious maniac of any group of zealots ever seen on the face of the earth and they are ablaze with religious zeal.
When you are free to rape, pillage and plunder with no restraints to the base evil human nature, as taught by his "instruction manual", it is easy to decimate men, women and children with no conscience. In fact, it is lauded as a good and righteous thing to do. Especially with the promised rewards in the afterlife. Live fast, die young and enjoy the fruits of being a martyr.

Pretty much a non-starter

They are too controlled and focused to be labeled "maniac" and they are clearly acting with restraint.

We don't like their methods nor do we particularly like their philosophy.

My point was that we have done a lot of work and spent a lot of money and the result was that the forces we trained collapsed.

I watched the same thing happen in Vietnam and I suspect we will get to watch this again as we leave Afghanistan.

We have ruined our economy fighting two wars, stayed for a decade, sacrificed our young men and women and this is the result.

This is WAY BEYOND "Jimmy Crack Corn Party Politics", it is a fundamental disconnect with our view of how we should be fighting wars.

I have to wonder why so many can't see this.

Our history is filled with horrific acts in war

I will refer you to Andersonville during our Civil War, the use of mustard gas by the Allies during WWI, the Dresden Firebombing during WWII for starts.

From the current conflict: Secret CIA Prisons, Secret Courts, torturing of prisoners and a dozen other things that don't sit right with me as a retired military officer and as an American Citizen.

My point being - when it comes to war, no one has clean hands.

Brutality is not the issue, the flaw with our methodology lies somewhere much deeper and if we don't figure out what it is and fix it, we're in for a heap more trouble down the road.

"the flaw with our methodology" Yes there is.

The "maniac" I was referring to is their savage lunatic founder born in the 7th century. They are still living there.
"clearly acting with restraint."? Beheading and raping children reveals not much restraint.
Another retired Officer understood what the approach must be in 2009. Palatable or not.
"Well, folks, there’s no other way out of this all-or-nothing struggle with fanatics. Three thousand years of history teach that there’s no alternative — none — to killing fanatics in large numbers when your enemies are ablaze with religious zeal."
LTC Ralph Peters
My perspective is built upon;
RVN 3/67-10/68
40 years later, to the month, Iraq 10/08 until 12/11.
3 months in Kuwait.
Correct, war means no unclean hands.

Col Peters is absolutely correct

ISIS is not acting without purpose, I would refer to acts historically committed against civilians by guerrilla forces. Horrific, but focused and intentional with a goal in mind. If this is not more of the same, you got me.

MY POINT once again, WHY are we expending American lives and spending Trillions of dollars in training and equipping non-American military units that collapse at first contact?

I can only suggest that we are attempting to train sheep on how to deal with wolves and when the wolves show up, the sheep revert to what they are.

Without enumeration, 1969-1994 been there, done that.


As to why:
My take on it;
"abandon the petro-dollar."
Submitted by Here_Yago on Fri, 08/08/2014 at 4:16 pm.
from earlier on this thread.

Direct link;

Nope wrong tack

I don't care about the underlying geopolitical reasons for us being there to begin with, don't care, don't care, don't care.

My issue is that WE trained these guys, why don't they stand up and fight? The whole damn Iraqi Army just packed up and disintegrated at first contact.

Same thing happened in RVN, same thing WILL happen in Afghanistan when we leave.

THAT is the issue as far as I'm concerned - there is a flaw is what we are doing and seeing as how it is our intention to continue training soldiers of other nations to fight their internal dissidents, why is our training so ineffective?

"there is a flaw". Yes, their is and it is...

that most of the people we attempt to train are not trainable.
Americans, especially the military, are exceptional people.
The USA culture inculcates that into most people. Less so in recent years, but fortunately, still to a large extent.
While the people themselves may not be, most other cultures in the world are just inferior to the USA culture.
That may be harsh, but that is just the way it is. It is what has made the USA the great nation it has been.
That is the bane of multiculturalism. Many cultures can't leave their lacking cultures at the door and meld into the American culture.
It is their loss.
One cannot transfer American exceptionalism by training. It is a uniquely American ideology and thus it must be lived to be understood.

Mr. Madison

What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having read it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I would disagree

I disagree to that idea simply because we are a nation of immigrants and since we are only a mirror of the world...

That concept certainly does make us a bit more arrogant than the rest of the world but I don't think that is the key.

Who...? The Best Killers on the Planet

ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Trained by Israeli Mossad, NSA Documents Reveal

The former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).



An organization that understands the mind-set of the indigenous population! That sure ain't us.

I was watching a film clip of Americans training an Afghan Army unit. First up, a medic who gave them a lecture on washing their hands after going to the bathroom.

About two minutes into the lecture, the Afghan officer stood up and said, "Don't talk to us as if we were not properly raised! We need to know how to disarm IED's, NOT waste time on things we learned as a child!"

Such is our methodology.


Right there's the problem in the training they were given. I have to say that the materials I was given like EOSS were the absolute, most verbose things I had ever read.
Of course I know to open the field circuit breaker and check for power... now tell me how to repair the field windings! I can't imagine applying that ten page procedure to my 50kW generator while a dozen militants are approaching my position with grenades.
Are we teaching them the dangers of electricity or how to defend themselves with an assault rifle?

Elizabeth Warren will run in 2016 as the anti-war candidate.

She will promise to bring the troops home from the Bush initiated and from Obama's failure to keep ground troops out of the extended Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

She has already started to burn the President and boost her campaign.
"Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, on Friday said she was generally supportive of the 'limited, targeted actions' but expressed concern about any prolonged mission.
“It is critical that we not get pulled into a war in Iraq,”
"US launches 3 rounds of strikes on militants in Iraq"

Warren would be bad for business.

War mongering monkey business.

What's the long term plan/strategy, if any?

OK. I get what we're doing here in early August.

What's the plan/strategy for September, October, November, etc.?

Are we just going to do whatever the pre-election polls suggest?


The polls suggest .

between Iraq and a hard place.

Now someone explain how the

Now someone explain how the Iraqi ethnic minorities really are better now than in 2003 when we invaded.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business