Aid and Airstrikes to Iraq (But Don't Call It 'War')

Assistance for groups threatened by ISIL, and support for U.S. personnel.


THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.  Today I authorized two operations in Iraq—targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death.  Let me explain the actions we're taking and why.    

First, I said in June—as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq—that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it.  In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces…

I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these.  I understand that.  I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that's what we've done.  As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.

NEXT: Plagiarism Accusation Forces John Walsh Out of Senate Run

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How dare the United States help some people out.

    1. Yep, this will definitely help these people from this situation that definitely had no cause.

    2. Lyle|8.7.14 @ 10:40PM|#
      “How dare the United States help some people out.”

      Which people are ‘helped’ and why should the US gov’t do so?

      1. Why? The military can use the live fire practice.

        1. Can they? They’ve had a lot of practice for the last decade or so.

    3. how is this going to help? The second the bombs stop falling, ISIS will regroup and retake everything. The Iraqis need to fight for themselves. If they don’t, too bad for them.

  2. Ok, so, NOW is it his war? Or is this still BOOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!

    1. It’s Obo, so whatever it is, Bush is to blame.
      Unless it works out, in which case Obo and Shrillary argue about the credit.

      1. “Obo and Shrillary argue about the credit.”

        A small price to pay for a good outcome.

        1. It’s not a small price anymore once you take into account the overall total price of their foreign policy failures: lost American lives, billions of dollars wasted, not to mention allies that hate us and broken campaign promises.

          1. “lost American lives, billions of dollars wasted, not to mention allies that hate us and broken campaign promises.”

            Lost American lives? Presumably soldiers who signed on voluntarily, knew the risks and took their chances anyway. Dollars wasted, promises broken? Can’t get myself too worked up about that. Allies that hate us? What about the opportunity of new friendships, new alliances?

            I am no fan of Obama, and I’m not sure what success is with regard to this ISIS crew, but they are at best bullies and at worst modern day equivalents of previous war machines like Hitler, Napoleon and Alexander.

            Obama has to take some action and these airstrikes are the traditional American default when faced with a problem in Asia. A permanent solution would involve forging new alliances and splitting the Jihadists from the tribal base and the Baathists.

  3. So is now a good time to pull out those Boooosh quotes about how super awesome it was going to be once American troops established democracy in Iraq and what a menace Saddam Hussein was? I remember arguing at the time as the body bags and destruction caused by this completely idiotic, illegal, and destructive war that I knew the perfect person to run the country back in 2006.

    I’m for a limited military campaign to fight back against ISIS– fully aware that Iraq may be too far gone for it to be any good.

    1. Again USA, perhaps inadvertently, in spite of everything, finds itself on the same side of a fight as Iran, a country not mentioned in the address.

      This must be a case of ‘natural allies’ that strategist speak of.

    2. Yeah, you’re a regular Amazing Kreskin. I’m sure your opposition to the war had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it was a Republican in the White House, and that you were every bit as opposed to the completely idiotic, illegal, and destructive interventions in the Balkans under Bill Clinton.

      1. I wasn’t for bombing Serbia. I thought there were good arguments on both sides though.

    3. What were your thoughts on Obama’s actions in Libya?

      1. should have stayed out. Let them solve their own problems.

    4. Good, so we both agree that this is a bad idea and the President doesn’t have the authority to just send military forces wherever and whenever he/she pleases. Glad to see there’s some common ground.

    5. No. Now is the time to pull out the Obama quotes about how that war was wrong. And there is no such thing as a “limited military campaign”. Besides, what exactly is the US goal that we are sacrificing American dollars and lives to? You’re for a “limited campaign” simply because you can’t face the fact that Obama is both wrong on the facts and a liar.

      1. I’m definitely not a military person so I don’t have any expertise on what should be targeted. It seems to me a logical limited campaign would be to chase ISIS away from the Mosul dam and protect Kurdish refugees in the north.

    6. I’m for a limited military campaign to fight back against ISIS– fully aware that Iraq may be too far gone for it to be any good.

      I suppose then that you’d be willing to lay down your life for the sake of nothing? We already know you’d be willing to lay down other people’s lives.

    7. completely idiotic, illegal, and destructive war

      Illegal? I’ll grant you the other 2 adjectives, but illegal? It was authorized by Congress, which is more than can be said for Obama’s Libya adventure. Oh wait, that’s right, that wasn’t a real war, just a “kinetic military action,” my bad.

      I’m for a limited military campaign to fight back against ISIS

      And if McLame or Shit Romney were president, you’d feel the same way, right? Because you’re such an enlightened and nuanced thinker, and not just a mindless shill for whatever the Choco-Nixon dreamboat wants.

  4. Unfortunately, Presidents have been sending military forced wherever since the end of WWII. There has not been a declaration of war since WWII. Just dead soldiers and civilians everywhere.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.