Barack Obama's Iraq Decision

taking our talents to iraqWhite HousePresident Obama is scheduled to make a statement "on the situation in Iraq" at the White House at 12:30p.m 1:15p.m*. Last week, the president indicated he was considering intervening militarily in Iraq. U.S. forces, of course, left the country in 2011 despite efforts by Obama to extend their stay there. 

The White House insisted yesterday the president hadn't made a decision yet, and The Hill reports:

After a meeting with top congressional leaders Wednesday afternoon in the Oval Office, lawmakers said they did not think the president would come to them to ask for authorization for a military strike.

"The president briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for steps that he might take and indicated that he would keep us posted," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a resolution to repeal the Congressional authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq at the beginning of the year, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has not acted on it. President Obama, who has generally not sought any kind of congressional authorization for his various military interventions, is naturally unlikely to do so here, especially given the Congress' inability, or unwillingness, to repeal the Iraq AUMF.

The president initially said he wouldn't be sending troops to Iraq, although a few days later he did send troops to Iraq. He's also considering air strikes against insurgents in Iraq, something Iraq's beleaguered prime minister secretly asked for last month, before the Al-Qaeda linked Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS) made significant gains across the country.

In his statement he announced the U.S. would send 300 military advisors, insisting they were not troops. He reserved the right to order airstrikes as necessary in the future. 

Check Reason 24/7 for reactions.

*The White House delayed the statement by 45 minutes, no word given as to why.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rich||

    I understand he's going to recycle the hard drive toward Baghdad.

  • wareagle||

    so Obama needs to hear himself speak again.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Islamic State of Iraq

    That name was taken back in 2005 or so - whenever they adopted their Constitution declaring themselves an Islamic state.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The president initially said he wouldn't be sending troops to Iraq, although a few days later he did send troops to Iraq.

    275 - to protect our $750 million embassy/shrine.

    Really poorly written, Ed. Obama is not stupid enough to put 150,000 troops into that shithole.

  • Paul.||

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a resolution to repeal the Congressional authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq at the beginning of the year, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has not acted on it.

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHH!

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.19.14 @ 12:08PM|#
    "275 - to protect our $750 million embassy/shrine."

    Yeah, dipshit, you'll only lick a little ass, right?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Just the tip, I promise!

  • The Last American Hero||

    What about the 5,000 "diplomats" that live there. That's a whole lotta diplomacy.

  • anon||

    Really poorly written, Ed. Obama is not stupid enough to put 150,000 troops into that shithole.

    How much you wanna bet on that?

  • CE||

    So 275 troops aren't "troops - troops"?

  • ||

    They are only 8% troops.

  • ||

    Plus 300 "Advisers". That's code for special forces, jackass.

  • ||

    but the Democrat-controlled Senate has not acted on it.

    That's impossible as I have been assured by many an idiot that the Democrats, and especially Obama, are anti-war.

  • ||

    Oh look, there's one of the demfags now.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well they would be, if those mean ol' Obstrublicans would just stop calling them bad names whenever they don't bomb the shit out of other countries. Their hands are forced, don't you see?

  • The Tone Police||

    But Hugh I have been reliably informed by "libertarians" elsewhere that Obama cannot be blamed for this.

    ahem

  • anon||

    8% of them?

  • The Tone Police||

    lol. Just about, probably.

  • ||

    Damn that Booosh and his amazingly far reaching tentacles!

  • anon||

    Bush is Warty?

  • ||

    It all makes sense now.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Warty's "bush" has been fused into a solid codpiece. Of rape.

  • ||

    There have been many iterations of the Doomcock. I'm not exactly sure what the latest specs are.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Obama is taking his talents to South Beach.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a resolution to repeal the Congressional authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq at the beginning of the year, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has not acted on it."

    Every time I feel that old impulse to eschew voting altogether creeping up on me again, Rand Paul does something smart and rational--it's drivin' me nuts.

    Run, Rand, Run.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Oh, the world will sing of an tyrant king 1,000 years from now, and not because he passed some laws or had that lofty brow. While bonny good senator Rand leads the great crusade he's on, we'll all have to slave away for that good for nothin' Obama. Incredible as he is inept, whenever the history books are kept, they'll call him the Phony King of America.
    A pox on the phony king of America!
    He stands alone on a giant throne, pretending he's the king; a little tyke who's rather like a puppet on a string. Then he throws an angry tantrum if he cannot have his way. Then he calls for mom, while he's suckin' his thumb. You see, he doesn't wanna play.
    Too late to be known as Barry the first, he's sure to be known as Barry the worst, a pox on that phony king of America!
    While he taxes us to pieces and he robs us of our bread, the global crown keeps slippin' down around that pointed head. But while there is a merry man in Rands wily pack, we'll find a way to make him pay and steal our money back. A minute before he knows we're there old Ted'll snatch his underwear the breezy and uneasy king of America! That snivelin'- grovelin', measly- weaslin', blabberin'- jabberin', gibberin'- jabberin', plunderin'- plottin', wheelin- dealin, Barry O, that Phony king of Amerika, Yeah!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    From a libertarian standpoint, was Richard I or John the worse king?

  • VicRattlehead||

    ALL "kings" are bad from a libertarian standpoint, no one man has the right to rule another.
    its just a catchy tune and I was watching robin hood with my 3y/o

  • Brandon||

    Excellent. That's a great kids' movie, and so is The Sword in the Stone.

  • VicRattlehead||

    I had a tear in my eye when she copied the little bunny when he cries out "Death to tyrants!"
    shes growing up so fast

  • Brandon||

    Nice.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Thanks its been in my head for a day figured id share with the troops

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    My kids loved that movie. Played it over and over. Good thing it's a terrific film. I still respond "Yes sir, Sheriff sir!" when my wife gets bossy.

  • antisocial-ist||

    What's the over under on Obama's "plan" being completely inefective vs. making things worse?

  • The Tone Police||

    Why can't it be both?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Because if it makes things worse, it had an effect and thus is not ineffective.

    I think you mean "counterproductive" rather than "ineffective".

  • anon||

    Impossible to guage; by being ineffective, it'll make things worse, so I can't win the bet.

  • Sevo||

    It'll still be Bush's Fault (tm).

  • anon||

    If I wanted to watch a narcissistic psychopath lie for half an hour, I'd rather watch Archer than this shitstain.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Danger Zone!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Archer is actually competent at things and can be fun to be around.

  • Gadianton||

    He's late.

  • ||

    His tee time got pushed back, so...

  • Gadianton||

    Yah. And I see they just pushed the time on the window to 1:15PM.

  • anon||

    He has to figure out exactly which lie to tell.

  • SugarFree||

    Time is just a social construct, man. It's, like, 12:30 whenever he says it is, yaknow?

  • anon||

    I actually thought it was just colored people time.

  • SugarFree||

    Race is just a social construct too, man. Like it's just all pink inside, dude.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Too many black jokes. You're on notice.

  • anon||

    Just like you crackers; black man gets uppity and you gotta put him in chains.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Is it you American?

  • anon||

    Nah, I guess I just feel like emulating him today.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    You might want to tone down the apropos of thing introduction of race into every comment thread. It's kinda a dead give away. My suggestion is to find a productive hobby, knitting or welding art objects perhaps.

  • anon||

    Oh, are you being serious?

    Ya'll provided opportunity for race jokes, so I made race jokes.

    If there were dead baby jokes to be made, I would've made those.

    Apparently you're just a cunt with a stick up her ass though. If you can't take a joke, fuck you.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Funny how your racial jokes always target blacks, Aye?

    Yes, yes, Fuck me.

    You really should consider seeing a professional about your borderline personality issues.

  • anon||

    Wow. You're all levels of fucking stupid. No wonder you still live in New Jersey. Enjoy your former-fat-fuck lying governor and shit stain of a state.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    You'll need to change your login name quick because you're pretty much done with this one.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Jesus, dude. Take it down a notch!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Jesus, dude. Take it down a notch!

    I think he's American. If I'm wrong, he definitely went full retard regardless.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Not american. Just doesn't like to be told what to do or say, apparently.

  • ||

    I figured he was making black jokes because we were talking about Obama.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    "I figured he was making black jokes because we were talking about Obama."

    Possibly, but on another thread he made another unrelated to Obama black joke.

    If he's not American then he's asshole.

  • The Tone Police||

    Lady Berturm, you're waaaaay out of line here.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Yes? How so?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

  • The Tone Police||

    I'll give you pass, but the proper spelling is "chainz"

  • Homple||

    The correct spelling "crackas". Rendering it as "crackers" is prima facie evidence of white privilege.

    He'd write in cursive if H&R had such a font.

  • Acosmist||

    Wow, lots of butthurt here.

  • ||

    I totally read that as "color purple time" originally.

  • The Tone Police||

    He's always on Chicago time.

  • VicRattlehead||

    time is, like, relative to the observer, Dude!

  • CE||

    Can't anyone read the War Powers Act? Why does no one enforce it?
    The president can send in troops in an emergency without consulting Congress first, but this is clearly no emergency -- everyone is talking about it in advance. Go and arrest him.

  • Homple||

    The Department of Holder will get right on it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    AUMF is open-ended.

    Thanks, Bush.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Yeah, Bush wrote the AUMF.

    Do you EVER open your mouth without a vomitous mass of shit exuding from it?

  • JWatts||

    Yes, because the AUMF which is a Congressional authorization for the President to use force is Bush's fault.

    BOOSH!!!!!!

  • ||

    So Obama is incapable of restraint? Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?

  • SugarFree||

    While you wait, watch Gawker jump up and down with unbridled glee that a white guy has been killed.

    Get some cream on that sore dick, Adam Weinstein... a school might get shot up tomorrow and you might need to whack off about it 6 or 7 times while watching them cart out the tiny bodies.

  • anon||

    9mm pistol fired a shot that traveled more than half a football field away, tore through Ayers' house, and killed him.

    I call bullshit.

  • The Tone Police||

    50-60 yards is the outside limit, but I can't imagine that it could make it through walls after that, so I'm with you.

  • Drake||

    It went through a glass slider, not a wall in the victim's house. I wasn't clear if the shooter was inside or outside.

  • antisocial-ist||

    Maybe if he were living in a cardboard box.

  • ||

    It's like they don't even understand basic fucking physics.

  • db||

    Um, a 124 grain 9mm bullet retains about 96% of its muzzle energy at 50 yards.

  • db||

    Sorry, 87%. Used the wrong ballistic coefficient in my calcs. Still lethal.

  • ||

    Yeah, but each impact with a surface is going to reduce that percentage.

    Right? (Now I'm totally second guessing my own physics.)

  • db||

    Not enough to make it nonlethal, unless you are talking about multiple layers of wood and siding.

  • Otisjay||

    then the question becomes did it go though a glass slider,or a wall.

  • anon||

    Velocity doesn't equal energy. At 50 yards, it's lost 25% of its impact energy.

    Considering at 10 feet a 9mm round won't penetrate a car door, I have a very hard time believing it'll penetrate a house at 150 feet.

  • anon||

    Sorry, penetrating a house, then continuing through (what I assume) is a skull for a kill shot.

    Hitting a window would easily reduce the energy by what, half?

    It'd be like getting hit with a pellet.

  • db||

    Okay, you go stand on that side of this window, I'll shoot the gun.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So what are you suggesting? Justin Ayers faked getting shot in the head just to make gun owners look bad?

  • ||

    I think what's being suggested is that the shooter was closer than "half a football field".

  • db||

    No, I used energy. 275 ftlb muzzle energy (1000 ft/s), 240 ftlb (934.8 ft/s) at 50 yd.

  • db||

    Also, what car door have you shot at 10 feet that a 9mm didn't penetrate? I have shot car doors at 30 yards and 9mm has gone straight through.

  • VicRattlehead||

    yeah unless he was shooting at 50cent in his "bulletproof" escalade
    9mm is a shit round for close quarters because it has a higher probability of penetration, still cant believe they have military running around with em should have made the switch to .40 better stopping power (and personally more accuracy) but without the over-penetration
    risks associated with a 9mm

  • Drake||

    Why? - pistols are purely decorative in the military. No pistol, except maybe those new 5.7 FNs, will penetrate body armor. And they aren't accurate much past 30 yards.

  • db||

    Pistols are plenty accurate beyond 30 yards. The wielder of the pistol is the variable.

  • Drake||

    Soldiers and Marines are terrible pistol shots. I fired a total of 3 pistol shots in training. But I fired hundreds of rifles rounds out to 500 yards.

  • VicRattlehead||

    The navy got more pistol training than this, i would spend 700 to 1500 rounds a week in 9mm and 5.56 for maritime interdiction operations training

  • VicRattlehead||

    the face has no armor
    the hands and legs are not armored
    and most of the enemy combatants like the weaver stance which makes body armor a moot point

  • Drake||

    In my experience, they like to get as deep as possible into a ditch or hole and fire AK's out of it. You can try getting close enough for a pistol. I'll stick with a rifle if there isn't any arty around.

  • ||

    The comments there are a gold mine of stupid.

  • waffles||

    This is why we need to ban guns as in zero exceptions... guns = gone and if you have a gun you = jail.

    I find this logic unassailable. There's no way a criminal would have a gun if he = jail.

  • PRX||

    if only there were a law against felons owning guns illegally.

  • VicRattlehead||

    If only we criminalized guns to such a degree that we could create a massive black market and a new "war on gunz" because of the organized crime prohibition always creates

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    So, what did the light bringer say?
    I ain't watching.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    My company is limiting bandwidth today so I can't stream video. Too many people streaming soccer.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    He speaketh!

  • Sevo||

    He lieth!

  • VicRattlehead||

    The Taxman always Lieth

  • BakedPenguin||

    "It's not America's place to choose Iraq's leaders. However, any leaders unacceptable to us will not be chosen."

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a resolution to repeal the Congressional authorization of the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq at the beginning of the year, but the Democrat-controlled Senate has not acted on it.

    AUMF:

    IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    I'm pretty sure we've gotten all those responsible for 911. The AUMF is no longer applicable.

  • ||

    Unfortunately our overlords in DC don't see it that way.

  • Ed||

    The Iraq AUMF was a different one.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Got it.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

    My error.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "There won't be any US troops on the ground in Iraq, ever".

    Well, not until 2017 anyway.

  • Brett L||

    Just advisors.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.19.14 @ 1:44PM|#
    "There won't be any US troops on the ground in Iraq, ever".

    So he's not even bothering to hide the lie even a little?
    Well, with dipshits like shreek, why bother?

  • JWatts||

    "Well, not until 2017 anyway."

    Or maybe next week...

    "We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisers -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise and support Iraqi security forces going forward."

  • ||

    Advisers = Special Forces, just like they did in Vietnam.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    So I'm not watching but let me see if I can guess: Just the tip this time, swearsies.

  • NoVAHockey||

    i think he's just rambling.

  • Sevo||

    Don't worry, there's a series of lies buried in that word salad.

  • ||

    Gawd, he's still yakkin'.

  • db||

    Maybe his strategy was to talk long enough to.force the Wikileaks announcement to tomorrow afternoon.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    On luck break at work, annoyed that CBS interrupted The Price is Righg for this crap.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Luck break? You run to the corner store and buy some scratch offs or something?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    My iPhone has the most retarded keyboard and autocorrect.

    And maybe I should have, I won $30 a few days ago.

  • antisocial-ist||

    Do that a few more times and you could buy a better phone.

  • db||

    Man I sincerely hope we don't send troops in. Send a few, they'll get massacred and then the hawks will howl for a massive revenge mission which re-wets the quagmire. Send a bunch and instant quagmire.

  • antisocial-ist||

    We already sent a few. 275 + 5000 "diplomats"

  • John||

    He is doing just what I figured he would do. He is sending 300 "advisers". Just enough people to get a significant number of Americans killed but not enough to make any difference. Obama has a gift for finding and executing the worst option available.

  • John||

    I do not think we should do anything more than maybe provide air support and I am not even sure about that. I have a sinking feeling however that Obama is going to blunder us ass deep in this. Sending a few people never solves a problem. It just gives you a reason to send more.

    The only upside is that the LULZ of watching the kool aide drinkers explain how Iraq is still Bush's war and not Obama's fault is going to be epic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sending them to protect the embassy as it is evac'd wouldn't be such a bad idea.

  • John||

    But that is not really "sending them in". That is just a NEO operation. To me that counts as staying out of it, which is a better option whatever its merits than sending in 300 advisers to serve as potential hostages or very public casualties.

  • Christophe||

    Are they actually evacuating the embassy though? Or is that thing going to be a modern day Krak des Chevaliers?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Good question.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I doubt they are going to evacuate it any time soon. Personally, I'd be pissed to hand over a billion dollar embassy the size of the Vatican to this rabble.

  • db||

    Can you imagine having a Crusader outpost in the middle of all that? Imagine if West Berlin had been shelled constantly by the East Germans and Soviets. That is what it would look like.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    If the US only involved itself militarily to the extent of protecting the embassy and staff, I don't know that the insurgents would put too much effort into attacking it. Of course, there could be false flag attacks on the embaassy to instigate a violent response to the insurgents.

  • John||

    They would put a lot of effort into attacking it. Killing a US ambassador is good sport. And kidnapping and holding Americans hostage a very profitable business under Obama. If some nobody deserter like Bergdahl is worth the five top Taliban commanders at GUITMO, what would a US Ambassador or military attache be worth?

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Yes, but a large scale attack on the embassy would invoke a large American response. With Benghazi, there was no carrier group waiting in the gulf to bomb them back to the stone age.

  • John||

    Not necessarily. The military had assets ready at Bengazi. Any American presence will be there under strict ROE and the political people in the White House will demand any commitment of forces get White House approval. Look at who we are talking about here. I could totally see the White House dithering while it worked out the talking points and did everything it could to keep from being involved and allowing our embassy to be overrun.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the people guarding the embassy are not allowed to have live ammunition. You think I kid but these people are really that stupid. Whatever forces we send in there will be there under the edict to do as little as possible and will have their ability to defend themselves completely hamstrung out of the fear that it might look in the media like we are involved.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I admit I did not account for the amazing level of stupidity demonstrated by this admin.

    I'd still hate to lose the embassy. Not sure why. We never should have built the thing so huge to begin with. It really is asking to be a target.

  • John||

    Losing an embassy would be a national humiliation and set up an open season on Americans everywhere in the world. Defending Americans abroad is a basic and essential function of government. No one short of Nick Gillespie or Sheldon Richman would be such a peacenik to think otherwise.

  • Batgirl||

    Didn't Vietnam start with Kennedy sending in a few hundred green beret advisors?

  • db||

    At this point the cynic in me says they're sending in a few sacrificial lambs to generate a desire in the.American public for revenge at their slaughter.

  • John||

    They are not that smart. They don't want to do anything but feel that politics compels them to do something. So they are just sending in a small number of people so they can say they did something and hoping for the best. IF that gets those guys slaughtered and the US involved in a wider war, no one will be more surprised than the Obama people. Years from now there will be interviews of old Obama staffers talking about what horrible luck Obama had in his second term especially that hostage crisis and massacre of US military advisers in Iraq. They will be completely dumbfounded by Obama's bad luck to have such a thing happen during his presidency and in no way suspect they or him had anything to do with it occurring.

  • What's that smell?||

    *The White House delayed the statement by 45 minutes, no word given as to why.

    B.P.T. (Black People Time)

  • GILMORE||

    IT IS SAD HOW OUR LEADER CONTINUES TO BE MIND CONTROLLED BY BUSH

  • db||

    BOOOOOOSSSHHHHH hung Kryptonite around Superman's neck!

  • John||

    And don't forget we had to elect Obama because if we didn't we would wind up in a really big war.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement