Good White House background briefing on Iraq airdrops and airstrike order from *10:00 pm* yesterday
August 08, 2014
Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on Iraq
Via Conference Call
10:10 P.M. EDT
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’ll go through what happened most recently, in the last couple of hours. The U.S. military conducted a successful airdrop of food and water for thousands of Iraqi citizens threatened by ISIL near Sinjar. The mission consisted of one C-17 and two C-130 aircrafts. And together, they dropped a total of food and water for about 8,000 people. The C-17 and the -- one C-17 and the C-130 dropped water, about 5,300 gallons of fresh drinking water, and then one of the C-130s dropped about 8,000 meals ready to eat. The aircrafts were over the drop area for less than 15 minutes, flying at a low altitude.
The cargo aircrafts were escorted by two F-18s. They originated from the area of responsibility of the U.S. Central Command. The operations were coordinated with U.S. forces in Iraq, of course, responsible for supporting the ISF -- the Iraqi Security Forces -- and there were no U.S. forces on the ground operating in the area at the time of the drop.
U.S. military will continue to work with State, our international partners, the Government of Iraq, the U.N., NGOs and others to assess the humanitarian needs going on there. We are capable of doing additional drops as necessary in coordination with all the parties I mentioned.
Of course, as my colleague said, the President has authorized airstrikes to protect American personnel and facilities, and to help Iraqi forces press back the siege at Mount Sinjar and protect civilians trapped there. No airstrikes have taken place at this time, but we remain postured to take targeted military action should the situation warrant it.
. . . the President has authorized airstrikes to protect American personnel and facilities, and to help Iraqi forces press back the siege at Mount Sinjar and protect civilians trapped there. No airstrikes have taken place at this time, but we remain postured to take targeted military action should the situation warrant it.
Q Thank you, very much. Can you say how you could break this siege without targeted airstrikes? And if that were to take place, do you expect it would be with a coalition?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure, Andrea. I’ll start and my colleagues may want to come in. The President has authorized airstrikes if we believe they're necessary to help break this siege. So we will be driven by military decision-making as to whether or not there are targets that present themselves that can help relieve the pressure on Mount Sinjar. And we will be watching that very closely.
As my colleague said, we have dedicated a substantial amount of ISR over Iraq and intelligence resources that enable us to track the situation. And one of the two military actions that the President authorized is not just humanitarian airdrops, but airstrikes to support a relief of that siege on the mountain.
And the Peshmerga has been engaged in that area, so they will continue to provide support to the Yazidi population. And again, as we can provide air support to relieve that pressure, the President has given the military the authorization to do so.
. . . more WH background on legal authority used by the president and authorization for military action in Iraq:
Q I was just wondering if you could comment a little bit on what the legal authorities behind this operation and the (inaudible) or some other legal authorities that the President has yet to notify folks 
about?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. I’ll make a couple of comments on that. First of all, with respect to international law, we believe that any actions we would take, to include airstrikes, would be consistent with international law, as we have a request from the Government of Iraq. So we’ve essentially been asked and invited to take these actions by the Government of Iraq, and that provides the international legal basis.
As to the domestic legal basis, we believe the President has the authority under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief to direct these actions, which are consistent with this responsibility to protect U.S. citizens and to further U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Specifically, the protection of U.S. personnel and facilities is among his highest responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, and given the threats that we see on the periphery of Erbil, he has authorized the use of targeted military action.
Similarly, we believe that there is an urgent humanitarian challenge that further poses a threat to U.S. interests. As I said this rises to the level of a potential act of genocide when you have an entire group of people being targeted for killing, and you have a population of the size that is on Mount Sinjar that is threatened with starvation as one option, or, as the President said, coming down that mountain and potentially being massacred by ISIL.
If we do end up taking airstrikes, we would have to do a War Powers report consistent with how we respond when the United States is engaged in hostilities. So we have been consulting Congress for the last several weeks about Iraq, generally. And then throughout the day today we were able to reach a good number of members and leaders of Congress to advise them of our thinking and then of the President’s decision. And again, if there are airstrikes taken, we will comply with our responsibility to file a War Powers report.
. . . question about a broader campaign against ISIS/ISIL (or 'al-Qaeda, as these officials say they're inseparable) :
Q I wanted to ask whether this authorization is limited only geographically to Iraq, or whether it covers Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, any areas where ISIL is operating or may pose a threat. And also, can you just tell us, should we expect to have more planes (inaudible) circling over Erbil now on a constant basis? ThankS.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll take the first question and then my colleague can take the second.
With respect to this authorization, it applies to Iraq. The missions that the President specified are geographically restricted to Iraq. This was not an authorization of a broad-based counterterrorism campaign against ISIL. It had two very narrow and specific objectives: One, the protection of U.S. personnel and facilities; and two, alleviating the huge humanitarian crisis faced by the Yazidi people.
With respect to that first mission, the President has always been very clear that he will take action to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq. Again, the threat that we are most urgently monitoring right now is the threat posed to Erbil, given the advances that ISIL has made. At the same time, we have a significant presence in Baghdad as well, so the principle that we would take action if we saw a need to protect our personnel and facilities in Baghdad also applies here.
So, as the President said in his statement, if we see actions anywhere in Iraq that put at risk American personnel and facilities, he’s authorized the military to act. Again, our focus right now is on the situation outside of Erbil, but that principle applies to all of our personnel and facilities. But this specific operation, again, is focused on Iraq and not other countries.
My colleague may want to address the other question.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. In terms of what we have over Erbil, obviously as my colleague just said, given our extreme focus on Erbil right now, we have oriented both our manned and unmanned ISR to take a particular and constant look at Erbil to make sure we know what’s going on and have eyes on. So to your question about whether we have fighter jets or planes above Erbil at any one time, we almost consistently have either manned or unmanned ISR over Erbil right now, given the concerns.
Q I wanted to ask whether the President has authorized a broad campaign against ISIL, perspectively. And to take an example, ISIL’s presence reportedly at the Mosul dam, giving it considerable strategic leverage for the future -- what’s being done about that kind of threat?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll just make a couple comments, David. First of all, this is focused on the protection of our personnel and facilities, in addition to the humanitarian mission associated with the Yazidis. I'd say a couple of additional things, though. One is given the strategic nature of Erbil and Baghdad, clearly we would be concerned about and prepared to take action if we saw ISIL advances that put our facilities at risk. So we're laying down a marker here that even though ISIL has not penetrated Erbil, just their presence in the periphery and the potential threat they pose could lead us to take action as targets present themselves.
At the same time, we would also be concerned about critical infrastructure that could impose a risk to our personnel and facilities -- for instance, a significant breach of a dam that could, frankly, cause flooding that would again potentially compromise our embassy in Baghdad. So we will be making assessments on what may endanger U.S. personnel and facilities. And again, the military has been authorized to act as necessary. Our focus right now is very much on the situation in Erbil.
We are not launching a sustained U.S. campaign against ISIL here, because our belief is the best way to deal with the threat of ISIL over the long term is for the Iraqis to do so. But that does not mean that we’re not going to support them in that effort through additional assistance, training, equipping, intelligence, advice . . .
. . . question of whether the administration is considering just taking the U.S. personnel we're defending with the threat of airstrikes out of harm's way - evacuating them?
Q I wanted to ask a question about those advisors and consulate employees in Erbil. Has any consideration been taken to perhaps try to organize some sort of evacuation of those employees of the U.S. government? And what does that pose as a challenge long term as you have advisors and State Department employees in that country at various locations?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, I can say we are -- obviously, anywhere around the world, we’re constantly reviewing our posture and our personnel. In a situation like this, we’re looking -- we had a similar circumstance obviously in Baghdad back in June. It’s a question of do we have the right people there, do we have to rebalance, do we have to bring in more people. So that is an ongoing conversation. But certainly and particularly given that, we will make sure that ISIL cannot approach Erbil, we’re very confident that our consulate is safe and our people will continue to be at work.
(not really answering that question)
. . . question of how will the administration and military keep this order for airstrikes from expanding into a larger war?
Q A quick question. Given the fact that you guys talked about laying down markers in the various places that the President has now authorized potential strikes, how do you reassure the American public, how do you reassure the President that this won’t metastasize into a broader U.S. involvement that looks much more like a kind of big United States presence -- albeit not on the ground but in the air?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’d just say, first of all, the President has placed limits on the type of action that we’re taking. First of all, these are focused on the two objectives he articulated tonight -- protection of our personnel and facilities and addressing the humanitarian crisis faced by the Yazidis -- even as the protection of our personnel and facilities involves ensuring that ISIL is not, for instance, making advances that threaten Erbil.
At the same time, he has also made clear that we’re not going to introduce combat troops to be engaged on the ground in Iraq, that what he has authorized are airstrikes, and the additional support we’ve already provided is in the form of advisors who are not engaged in combat but are rather assessing the Iraqi Security Forces, making determinations about how we can further train and equip them as they go after ISIL.
So those are fairly clear limits in terms of not introducing ground forces into combat in Iraq, and carrying out a set off narrow objectives that are clearly in the U.S. national interest.
It is a core interest of the United States to protect our personnel and facilities, and also to prevent what would be an act of genocide, where you have ISIL threatening an entire population of people with elimination and acting on those threats. And, as the President said, we have a capability in this instance to take action, to provide humanitarian airdrops and to help break that siege. We have a mandate in terms of requests from the Iraqi government, and so those circumstances converged to compel him to take action on this humanitarian instance.
We have not taken action to address every humanitarian challenge that is faced across the region with our military. So in Syria, for instance, we’ve provided a significant amount of humanitarian aid but we have not seen a viable military option that is as clear and distinct as what we’re doing to assist the Yazidis today and going forward in the days ahead. So all that is to say that I think the American people understand the need to protect our personnel and facilities, and they understand the need and responsibility that the United States has to prevent this scale of massacre when we have the capabilities to do so.
At the same time, we’ve always made clear that, ultimately, Iraq’s future is up to Iraqis. They’ll have our support -- their security forces will have our support, but they need to be in the lead to take the fight to terrorists. And this is consistent, by the way, with the approach the President had laid out at West Point -- that we’re working to build capacity among our partners, but if we need to act to fill gaps, we will do so when our core interests are implicated. And that is certainly the case here in Iraq . . .
read more here: http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/08/background-briefing-senior-administration-officials-iraq
. . . reports from this morning
PBS NewsHour World @NewsHourWorld 59m
Pentagon: US launches first airstrikes in Iraq http://to.pbs.org/1sEQKz2
Michael Holmes @holmescnn 2h
Two F/A-18's dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs on ISIS mobile artillery nr Erbil. #iraq Side Note: Planes from carrier George Bush
W.G. Dunlop @wgdunlop 1h
US aircraft struck Islamic State positions in northern Iraq, Pentagon says http://yhoo.it/1r6beyE @AFP
The Hill @thehill 41m
U.S. strikes could reach outside Baghdad http://ow.ly/A6NDT by @JTSTheHill #Iraq #ISIS
= new reply since forum marked as read
