Obama authorizes renewed airstrikes in Iraq

By From page A1 | August 08, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq Thursday night, warning they would be launched if needed to defend Americans from advancing Islamic militants and protect civilians under siege. His announcement threatened a renewal of U.S. military involvement in the country’s long sectarian war.

In a televised late-night statement from the White House, Obama said American military planes already had carried out airdrops of humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of Iraqi religious minorities surrounded by militants and desperately in need of food and water.

“Today America is coming to help,” he declared.

The announcements reflected the deepest American engagement in Iraq since U.S. troops withdrew in late 2011 after nearly a decade of war. Obama, who made his remarks in a steady and somber tone, has staked much of his legacy as president on ending what he has called the “dumb war” in Iraq.

Obama said the humanitarian airdrops were made at the request of the Iraqi government. The food and water supplies were delivered to the tens of thousands of Yazidis trapped on a mountain without food and water. The Yazidis, who follow an ancient religion with ties to Zoroastrianism, fled their homes after the Islamic State group issued an ultimatum to convert to Islam, pay a religious fine, flee their homes or face death.

Mindful of the public’s aversion to another lengthy war, Obama acknowledged that the prospect of a new round of U.S. military action would be a cause for concern among many Americans. He vowed anew not to put American combat troops back on the ground in Iraq and said there was no U.S. military solution to the crisis.

“As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,” Obama said.

Even so, he outlined a rationale for airstrikes if the Islamic State militants advance on American troops in the northern city of Irbil and the U.S. consulate there in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The troops were sent to Iraq earlier this year as part of the White House response to the extremist group’s swift movement across the border with Syria and into Iraq.

“When the lives of American citizens are at risk, we will take action,” Obama said. “That’s my responsibility as commander in chief.”

He said he had also authorized the use of targeted military strikes if necessary to help the Iraqi security forces protect civilians.

Obama spoke following a day of urgent discussions with his national security team. He addressed the nation only after the American military aircraft delivering food and water to the Iraqis had safely left the drop site in northern Iraq.

The Pentagon said the airdrops were performed by one C-17 and two C-130 cargo aircraft that together delivered a total of 72 bundles of food and water. They were escorted by two F/A-18 fighters from an undisclosed air base in the region.

The planes delivered 5,300 gallons of fresh drinking water and 8,000 pre-packaged meals and were over the drop area for less than 15 minutes at a low altitude.

The president cast the mission to assist the Yazidis as part of the American mandate to assist around the world when the U.S. has the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre.

In those cases, Obama said, “we can act carefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide.”

Officials said the U.S. was prepared to undertake additional humanitarian airdrops if necessary, though they did not say how quickly those missions could occur.

Administration officials said they believe unilateral U.S. strikes would be consistent with international law in part because the Iraqi government has asked for Washington to take military action. They also said Obama had the constitutional authority to act on his own in order to protect American citizens.

Still, there was no guarantee that the president’s threat of military strikes would actually be followed by action. He similarly authorized strikes in Syria last summer after chemical weapons were deployed, but those attacks were never carried out, in part because of domestic political concerns and also because an international agreement to strip Syria of its stockpiles of the deadly gases.

The president has also faced persistent calls to take military action in Syria on humanitarian grounds, given that more than 170,000 people have been killed there.

Critics, including some Republicans in Congress, have argued that Obama’s cautious approach to Syria has allowed the Islamic State group to flourish there, growing strong enough to move across the border with Iraq and make swift gains.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina praised Obama’s proposed actions Thursday night but said much more will be necessary.

“This should include the provision of military and other assistance to our Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian partners” who are fighting the militants, airstrikes against the militants’ leaders and forces and support for Sunni Iraqis who seek to resist the extremists, they said in a statement.

In light of the militants’ advances, Obama dispatched about 800 U.S. forces to Iraq earlier this year, with those troops largely split between joint operation centers in Baghdad and Irbil.

More than half are providing security for the embassy and U.S. personnel. American service members also are involved in improving U.S. intelligence, providing security cooperation and conducting assessments of Iraqi capabilities.

Officials said there were no plans to evacuate those Americans from Iraq but that the U.S. was conducting enhanced intelligence flights over Irbil with both manned and unmanned aircrafts in order to monitor the deteriorating conditions.

If the president were to order actual airstrikes in Iraq, it’s all but certain he would proceed without formal congressional approval. Lawmakers left town last week for a five-week recess, and there was no sign that Congress was being called back.

However, officials said the White House was in contact throughout Thursday with some lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Some Republicans have expressly called for the president to take action and have said he doesn’t need the approval of lawmakers.


The Associated Press

The Associated Press


Discussion | 23 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • DanielAugust 08, 2014 - 5:14 am

    Why did he pull out in the first place? It was boneheaded.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodAugust 08, 2014 - 10:21 pm

    Seriously? Everyone raise their hand if the wish we were still in Iraq.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Rick WoodAugust 08, 2014 - 10:22 pm


    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 17, 2014 - 3:11 pm

    Mr.S: What about you?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithAugust 17, 2014 - 3:43 pm

    Rlw: Apparently you overlooked my post from yesterday where I clearly said I do not want American boots on the ground. What I said was that is probably what is needed to actually end the ISIS threat, but it won't happen now. I can live with that.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 17, 2014 - 5:08 pm

    Mr.S: OK, I understand. But I disagree that US troops on the ground would be needed to end the "ISIS threat," if by that you mean pushing ISIS back into Syria. That will happen without US ground troops. It may take longer, but it will happen, plus the result will be more sustainable if we stay out. Again, watch the Turks.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JimboAugust 08, 2014 - 10:39 pm

    Derp still thinks those WMD's must be there somewhere.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PornacAugust 08, 2014 - 7:18 am

    This a smart distraction maneuver by Obama to get the focus away from Benghazi.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithAugust 08, 2014 - 6:07 pm

    Rlw895: Is that you? You're now posting as Pornac?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 08, 2014 - 9:50 pm


    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JimboAugust 08, 2014 - 10:40 pm

    Nothing will ever get the wingnuts to focus on anything else. It is all they have.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 08, 2014 - 8:15 am

    The bombs started falling within 12 hours of this announcement. What was it, the Kurds calling for help or Iraqi Christians being attacked?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithAugust 08, 2014 - 8:51 am

    Um.....what bombs, rlw?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithAugust 08, 2014 - 11:16 am

    Oh, THOSE bombs. Good for Obama. Now, one wonders if this would have been necessary if ISIS had been checked much earlier in the game.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 08, 2014 - 5:38 pm

    Not with US troops. No thanks. Obama is letting this situation run it's course. Let's see what happens. I was surprised ISIS attacked the Kurd held regions. That should prove to be a fatal mistake. It's already forced the US to step up.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithAugust 08, 2014 - 6:05 pm

    This is what "leading from behind" leads to in today's world. By a bored and disengaged president. And it well might be Obama's Waterloo. We continue to let the Kurds twist in the wind by not arming them, at the insistence of the "Iraqi government." The Kurds are the only force that could stop this terrorist army that Obama labeled "the JV team" a while back. They are facing a demonic force armed with US war weaponry abandoned by the Iraqi army we trained and propped up for years. Yet we won't arm the Kurds. If Obama lets this "play out" he is setting the US up for future terrorist attacks on our homeland by the "JV" team known as ISIL. Two F-18 jet fighters dropping a little ordinance on ISIL may impress you, rlw, but it sure as heck does not impress the terrorists intent on enslaving the entire middle east and eventually the world.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 08, 2014 - 9:48 pm

    Mr.S: It never ceases to amaze me how easily you scare. Obama is a cooler head. He's playing this out shrewdly. The Republican views are irrelevant because EVERYTHING they say is politically motivated. And we ARE rearming the Kurds. Things are developing too fast for your comments to be up to date. Why don't you give it a rest/

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. SmithAugust 08, 2014 - 9:59 pm

    Ok, rlw. I will give it a rest and watch as Obama supplies arms to the Kurds. After all, I must be the only one in the US who is "scared" enough to criticize Obama. That's really what ticks you off, isn't it? The criticism.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 08, 2014 - 10:15 pm

    Mr.S: No, it's that a smart guy like you never seems to "get it" when it comes to Obama. It's not good for our country. The next significant development will be whether al Maliki continues as prime minister of Iraq. Obama wants him out or to change his attitude towards the Sunnis. We will not apply the full force of our military in any event, but our willingness to help the Iraqi government will depend on that. Will a taste of what our military can do "leading from behind" be enough? The Kurds will take it if al Maliki won't.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 17, 2014 - 3:18 pm

    Mr.S: So al-Maliki is out and the Shiites have a chance at a "do-over." This will free up the US and our allies to bring in more aid and get further engaged. It's the beginning of the end for the Islamic State. Do you not agree? Still not one American life lost. Let's hope it stays that way.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Obama..the Prince of FoolsAugust 08, 2014 - 8:10 pm

    Only a electorate of Fools would have been able to elect their Prince...This Country is doomed because of these foolish fools and their elected Prince!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895August 08, 2014 - 10:07 pm

    The country would not be doomed even if he was an elected prince, because he will be termed out. What is an elected prince anyway? If the country is doomed it will be because people like you have failed to see the opportunities Obama has offered. Your "elected prince" nonsense is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JimboAugust 08, 2014 - 10:43 pm

    prince,noun, the son of a monarch.............obviously someone never bothered looking up its actual meaning.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.