Obama plans limited airstrike in Iraq

President Barack Obama wants to take his time before intervening in Iraq. In a meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, Obama merely present options meditates the White House to stop the advancing jihad in the country that the U.S. invaded in 2003 and eight years later abandoned.

Iraq Calls for U.S. to bomb positions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (EIIL) find little support in the Obama Administration. Neither the public nor Congress are pushing for Obama attack soon.

A precondition to any U.S. action could be that the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ‘s Shiite, Surrender the power to allow a government of national reconciliation that includes Sunnis and Kurds.

Nobody sees clear by now the benefits of an air operation. Pentagon chiefs warned in an appearance before the Senate of the risks of getting into the Iraqi civil war and the dangers of bombing without defined political and military objectives.

Obama rules out sending ground troops. The other options available ranging from strengthening the existing support for the Iraqi Government to launch Tomahawk missiles from the Persian Gulf, through drone strikes or conventional aircraft.

The White House, however, has leaked these days the American media a message: attacks will be limited. No large-scale bombing as the president prepared last September, canceling at the last minute, Syria. The aid could include drone strikes, drones, similar to what the U.S. has already done in countries like Yemen or Pakistan.

The second message is that the decision is not imminent. The president can take days to decide how to intervene in Iraq. Not even certain to finish speaking.

The third message, and Obama made last week in a statement in the White House, is that the U.S. will do nothing without an effort by the government of al – Maliki to Washington who attributes some of the responsibility for the current mess – to reconcile with Sunnis.

In the Senate, the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and the head of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey, insisted that no political change in Baghdad military intervention made little sense. They also recalled how difficult it would embark on an effective operation.

“Not as easy as watching a video of a convoy on a iPhone and shoot straight,” said Gen. Dempsey. Although ordered to attack Obama, the U.S. lack a reliable list of objectives. “There must be a goal. Where does this leave us? What effect does the effort to reach a political solution? “Hagel said.

The political debate in Washington is whether the current escalation is the responsibility of Democrat Obama for withdrawing all U.S. troops in 2011; his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, by turning the Mesopotamian tinderbox with the invasion of Iraq; or Maliki for having excluded the Sunni government after the U.S. withdrawal.

Vice President Joe Biden called Maliki the prime minister to declare that the U.S. is “prepared to reinforce” supporting Iraq in the fight against EIIL. But he urged the prime minister and other Iraqis to “govern inclusively, promever stability and unity among the people of Iraq and address the legitimate needs of the diverse communities of Iraq ” leaders.

In a symposium conservative think American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Sen. John McCain blamed Obama for not having current negotiated permemanecia a residual U.S. force in Iraq. McCain, a hawk on foreign policy, said the priority should be to stabilize the military front and only then would be the time to order the departure of Al Maliki.

The White House plan is reversed: first, political front; after the military. When asked if Maliki should resign, Jay Carney, Obama’s spokesman, said: “It’s something that the Iraqi people should decide, no United States or a foreign nation.”

Short URL: https://www.newspakistan.pk/?p=45456

Posted by Nadeem Bajwa on Jun 20 2014. Filed under Latest News, USA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.