Forty years ago today, President Nixon addressed the nation to announce he would be resigning the next day -- the only time in US history this has happened. Today, President Obama announced the US will be dropping bombs on Iraq once again. That's a pretty heavy-duty amount of the past to contemplate, in one week.
CREDO commends President Obama for responding to a clear humanitarian crisis with emergency supplies. More is needed, the U.S. need not continue alone, but starting quickly while refugees are literally dying on the mountain is the right thing to do now.
You cannot bomb away a political movement. You cannot kill an idea that motivates millions of people with a Hellfire missile.
If the members of the Security Council of UN do not address the crisis facing non-Muslims in Iraq and Syria and put a stop to ethno-religious cleansing and the destruction of the invaluable cultural heritage of its victims, the organization will have lost its credibility and had its authority undermined once and for all.
So the question falls to President Obama and the U.S. Congress: Are you going to step up to what has to be done? Yes, this is a watershed test of U.S leadership. Yes, it will require the United States to lead the charge.
ISIS has attacked the Yazidi people -- a sect of the Kurds -- in Iraq. The jihadists have driven the survivors to the slopes of Mt. Sinjar, where the Yazidi are running out of food, water and hope. Who are the Yazidi? Why is ISIS after them, why have Sunni and Shi'a attacked them in the past, and why are they at risk of genocide now?
With the lives of 40,000 at immediate risk of genocide in northern Iraq, we should support and applaud President Obama's decision to take action to protect innocent civilians.
Every time the president -- this president or any president -- is allowed to "cut corners" on the Constitutional question of Congressional war powers, it sets a bad precedent for the future, eroding a key Constitutional, democratic speed bump against unnecessary wars of choice.
The president was correct in announcing humanitarian action yesterday in Iraq. He will be helping to prevent genocide. But, more than that, his announcement of limited military action, both to overtly protect US troops and installations, and tacitly support the Kurds in their fight against the Islamic State, is the correct move. In fact, today's air strikes against Islamic State forces outside Irbil serves two purposes. First, it protect U.S. interests in a city we cannot afford to lose, lest we see another Benghazi-type situation there. Second it help the Kurds, our best ally in the region, in their efforts to prevent genocide. This kind of action is the right call. Here's why.
I have been a vocal opponent of that war since George W. Bush proposed the invasion in 2002. I strongly believe that the actions President Obama announced in Iraq last night deserve progressive support.
While the world's first concern is, and should be, humanitarian, it also needs to pay close attention to a key aspect of both these terrorist organizations that could escalate the crisis in the Middle East beyond measure and quite possibly bring the region to the brink of destruction.
It amazes me that there is absolutely no coverage about the atrocities against the indigenous Christians of Iraq and Syria.
The White House has some thinking to do. Is the security situation in northwestern Iraq so dire that the administration's "one Iraq" policy needs to be reviewed and perhaps changed?
There's a disconnect between armies and ideologies and those who bear the burden of conflicts like those raging in Israel, Gaza, Iraq, Syria and the Ukraine. This has always been true and it's true now.
After approximately a year of extremely minimal confrontation with the Syrian government, the Islamic State is now also in the midst of a major offensive against Syrian Arab Army (SAA) facilities in northeastern Syria.
For the past two years, Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra has, to all intents and purposes, adopted a surprisingly pragmatic strategy in Syria, focused on maintaining at least tacitly cooperative relationships with opposition actors of all stripes.