US air strikes in Iraq will have minimal impact on Isis – Pentagon

[bigtree]

Senior Pentagon planning officer says strikes have slowed Isis’s advance on Irbil but are unlikely to affect militants significantly


____ A senior Pentagon planning officer expects the current US air strikes in Iraq to have minimal and fleeting impact on the forces of the Islamic State (Isis) that have overrun much of the country.

“In the immediate areas where we have focused our strikes, we’ve had a very temporary effect and we may have blunted some tactical decisions to move in those directions, further east to Irbil,” Army Lt Gen William Mayville told reporters on Monday, providing a dour view of the “limited strikes” president Barack Obama authorized on Thursday.

“What I expect Isil to do is to look for other things to do, to pick up and move elsewhere. So I in no way want to suggest that we have effectively contained or that we are somehow breaking the momentum of the threat posed by Isil.”

The air strikes, now in their fourth day and still something less than a concerted air campaign, have bought US-backed Kurdish irregular forces, known as Peshmerga, “time to fortify their defensive positions” outside the regional capital of Irbil, said Mayville, the director of operations for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, and have slowed Isis’ advance toward the crucial city.


read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-air-strikes-iraq-isis-minimal-impact-pentagon

[JoePhilly]

1. Is the goal to "have an impact on ISIS" (whatever that means) ...

... or ... to stop them from slaughtering refugees long enough to save the refugees?

After arguing we're doing too much, are some now upset we aren't doing more??

[bigtree]

2. isn't that the question surrounding this deployment and the possibility of escalation?

. . . I provide this info Joe for people like you who either question or outright dismiss that possibility.

This is what the military officials are saying. These are the questions that the administration and Congress, as well, will need to consider as they look at the mission in Iraq beyond the humanitarian mission.

And it's not been an entire focus on the Kurdish civilians taking refuge in the mountains.

Take a step back from the political nonsense and consider what the motivation of the Pentagon and the administration is beyond the rescue. If you completely ignore their statements about the actual threat they perceive from ISIL - the way that they've repeatedly conflated that threat from the insurgent group with their 'war on terror.'

Don't ignore the way that the deployment began - not ANYTHING said about Kurds trapped in the mountains. it began with the justification of defending embassy personnel. Then it developed into aiding Iraqi fighters in opposing ISIS. Then the humanitarian mission . . . it's not only fair to ask what's next, the administration's incremental escalation DEMANDS it.

And try and be a little HONEST about my own position as you defend the president. Don't conflate the push from republicans to do even more militarily in Iraq with MY position that ZERO U.S. troops should be there.

It's fine to defend the president and his actions, but it's dishonest to suggest that my concern is about doing more militarily. I'm doing my best to highlight the ways in which this mission is likely to 'creep' into a full fledged battle against the insurgents. This military official is telling the press that they're not anywhere close to defeating ISIS. That signals to me that they want to do more (along the lines of what REPUBLICANS want, not me).

Play your politics, but get it right.

[JoePhilly]

4. Here's what I see ...

The President says we going to take limited action to prevent refugees from being slaughtered.

Some on DU freak out and predict a new war in Iraq, one in which we send thousands of troops.

Then, we bomb the terrorists threatening to kill the refugees, and they disperse. The administration says we think we stopped the terrorists and the refugees will be OK.

Some on DU now claim that the refugees were never in danger, and the fact that the only impact of the bombing was to stop the slaughter represents a failure of the administrations ulterior motive ... starting a new full scale war.

Let's take this statement .... "I'm doing my best to highlight the ways in which this mission is likely to 'creep' into a full fledged battle against the insurgents."

So the administration says its protecting refugees (which you say isn't their real goal). Then they say their bombing as protected them. And you claim their effort to reengage in a full scale war is failing, because the only impact was to prevent the slaughter.

I saw this same game being played with Syria a while back. Part of DU was apoplectic, totally sure Obama was planning to "creep" us into a full scale war in that country. And when it didn't happen, they took credit for stopping his evil plan (or they gave Putin credit, that varied).

So here we are again. Obama says he's taking a limited action, and then does so. But on DU, its total freak out.

I'll ask you a simple question. When will we invade Iraq? Make a prediction.

My prediction. Its not happening, just like it didn't happen in Syria. We are not sending thousands of troops back into Iraq to "defeat" ISIS.

Can you make such a prediction?? ... or will you continue to claim that something bad is probably going to happen very very soon, but maybe not soon ... and everyone should light their hair on fire in anticipation of this evil event?

[bigtree]

3. they can't even hear the words coming out of the other side of their mouths

The New York Times ‏@nytimes 25m
The U.S. said it broke the siege on Mount Sinjar in Iraq, allowing thousands of Yazidis to escape http://nyti.ms/1uPIjBr

“What I expect Isil to do is to look for other things to do, to pick up and move elsewhere. So I in no way want to suggest that we have effectively contained or that we are somehow breaking the momentum of the threat posed by Isil.”