What's all this, from 'senior U.S. intelligence,' about an ISIS threat to attack the United States?

[bigtree]

. . . is it the first pitch in the Obama administration bid to justify military action in Iraq beyond their military-backed 'humanitarian mission' they were hawking to rescue the 40,000 or so that they just happened to find out yesterday had already left the mountain?

here's a AP report being hawked by NBC:

On Thursday, some of the most senior U.S. intelligence experts on terrorism briefed reporters in detail on the Islamic State group. They described a battle-hardened, well-funded terrorist organization that is bent on governing the territory it has seized in Syria and Iraq while also encouraging attacks in Europe and the United States.

"We assess that the group probably sees conflict with the United States as inevitable," one of the officials said, speaking, as the others did, under ground rules that he not be identified.

. . . yes, I know the President hasn't actually, yet, committed U.S. forces already deployed to Iraq to 'assist' the Iraqi military in defending against this threat his intelligence officials are busy hawking to the AP. They sure seem adamant, though, about the 'inevitability' of that 'threat' to the U.S. Besides all of that, there's oil involved, they say . . .

U.S. intelligence has concluded that even a new government in Iraq would need "external help" to make gains against the group and that neutralizing the Islamic State group would be unlikely without addressing its safe haven in Syria, where it has a headquarters. The Islamic State has access to oil revenues and other income sources worth several hundred million dollars a year, the officials said.

but, hey, as the U.S. generals (and admirals) are telling the AP, that military-backed 'humanitarian mission' of theirs knows no bounds . . .

The humanitarian crisis is "not bounded necessarily by geography" or the number of Iraqis in crisis, according to Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon's press secretary.

. . . well, that's certainly something to consider as we move beyond this rescue mission of Yazidis on a mountain who they apparently didn't realize had already been spirited away across the border north by Syrian Kurds.

Maybe there will be more 'humanitarian missions' for our Special Forces troops left deployed there; just so long as they're hovering several inches above the Iraqi soil, to avoid the 'boots on the ground' the President has insisted, over and over, that he doesn't want.

By the way, when did our military and intelligence actually know that the overwhelming number of the tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians they were claiming were besieged on that mountaintop had already been rescued away to Syria? When did they realize that some 4,000 to 1,000 Yazidis already lived in those mountains?

What did they actually know and when did they know it?

[Enrique]

1. they are worried about Maliki leaving

now Iraq has a chance to become a stable country and that has the MIC terrified.

[bigtree]

6. You mean Abadi isn't our boo?

Spencer Ackerman @attackerman · 17h

OK, cue the profiles of Abadi, calling him inclusive and yet a strong leader, thumbsucking on his relations w Iran, that we'll regret later.

[Enrique]

9. that's a good point

Iraq isn't going to be peaches and cream, but that's why I said "a chance". Corporate power is worried about risk, and Maliki was a known entity who was proven to be good for sectarian strife and terrorism, and thus good for the MIC. Abadi could put that at risk.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Sounds like they discovered YouTube.

Since one of those dips already posted a video about planting a flag at the White House that's been in the news off and on for a week or two.

Oh, and

"We assess that the group probably sees conflict with the United States as inevitable," one of the officials said, speaking, as the others did, under ground rules that he not be identified.

You mean since we've already been bombing them, and thus are ALREADY 'in conflict' with them?

Thank the Gods we pay our 'intelligence' officials so highly.

[bigtree]

10. of course

. . . they're just chatting with this major news organization the day after their 'humanitarian mission' dried up. Just shooting the shit.

Not as if, as you say, we hadn't already been fed the nonsense.

I remember how Bush used to echo the words of terrorists by relating them verbatim to the American people in his campaign speeches. Good times . . .

[DonViejo]

3. ISIS has issued threats...

Supporters of the ISIS terror group tweeted thousands of messages on Friday bearing the hashtag #AmessagefromISIStoUS featuring gruesome photos and threats to U.S. soldiers and citizens after American airstrikes took out terrorist targets in Iraq for the first time.

Some tweeted photos depict dead U.S. Army soldiers, U.S. marines hung from bridges in Fallujah, decapitated men, human heads on spikes, and the twin towers in flames on September 11, 2001.

'This is a message for every American citizen,' read one message sent with the hashtag. 'You are the target of every Muslim in the world wherever you are.'

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10025359167

[bigtree]

4. how about that?

. . . by all means, we need to consider attacks on the U.S. a distinct and real possibility, then.

Let me get out my duct tape.

[DonViejo]

5. If that's the way you choose to respond,...

then by all means, go for it!

[bigtree]

7. right

. . . I'm absolutely serious that ISIS is poised and able to attack my small town in Md., and I'm sure you didn't realize that.

Carry on . . .

[DonViejo]

11. ...

I'm not looking for an argument or a deep discussion with you. You asked a question, I provided you with an answer that was posted on DU six days ago. If you want to believe the info I provided, fine; if you don't want to believe it, that's fine too.

[bigtree]

13. I asked cynical and rhetorical questions with a healthy dose of sarcasm

. . . as I said though, I'm sure you didn't realize that when you thought it appropriate to post even more propaganda than our government has managed, so far, about the 'threat' to the U.S. from ISIS.

Carry on.

[AngryAmish]

18. I think both of you are forgetting Poland.

[bigtree]

26. oh, that's right

. . . maybe we can revisit that missile shield boondoggle without relying on some silly threat from Iranian rockets to justify it. Just go directly at their perceived threat to our 'interests' in Poland from Russia and spread our military beneficence in a ring around Putin.

[DonViejo]

19. Ah. I see...

I posted an article from the Daily Mail, a right wing publication that is totally unreliable as a news source (kind of like the New York Post but different ownership). An article which supports "your cynical and rhetorical questions with a healthy dose of sarcasm" and you decide that I'm advancing the propaganda you rightly belittle. Gotchya! Clearly I should have realized the great bigtree is the only one allowed to be cynical and rhetorical! Bad Don Viejo, BAD!

Have a great day!

[bigtree]

21. hey, thanks for keeping us informed

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. heh.

[leftynyc]

23. Is it okay with you

if those of us in places the terrorists are likely to strike (and not in some small town that doesn't) take the threat more seriously than you and don't downplay it?

[bigtree]

27. sure

. . . but don't expect support from me to direct and carry out a defense of wherever you are with U.S. troops based and operating out of Iraq.

I believe that option has already been demonstrated counterproductive and actually fuels and fosters more resistant violence directed against the U.S. and our 'interests' than we're actually able to put down.

(btw, I live just outside of the nation's capital)

[leftynyc]

35. I don't expect

anything from you so we're fine on that point.

[bigtree]

40. hmm

. . . I remember Bush standing on a pile of rubble and humanity in your state with a bullhorn to elevate himself and talk down to us from some lofty perch.

He was practicing his new protection scheme pitch in which, as the explainer-in-chief, he was methodical and zealous in his elevation of Osama bin-Laden; carefully reciting the most offensive and threatening of the terrorist's statements and dispatches as he contemplated taking advantage of that tragedy and pressing forward with an invasion and occupation of Iraq which he and his PNAC surrogates and benefactors had already been planning and pining after for years.

Good times . . .

[leftynyc]

41. Which has fuck all to do with

the fact there are those out there that do want to attack Americans.

[bigtree]

42. the invasion of Iraq has everything to do with any 'threat' from individuals bent on violence

. . . toward America.

2006 National Intelligence Estimate: U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq fueling terrorism

Agency: Iraq war creating worse threat

WASHINGTON - 2006— A stark assessment of terrorism trends by U.S. intelligence agencies has found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, said several officials in Washington who were involved in preparing the assessment or have read the final document. The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," said one U.S. intelligence official.

read: http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/news/ci_4389778

As Bush's own spy agencies correctly cautioned in their 2006 intelligence estimate, our military activity in Iraq had the effect of fostering and fueling even more individuals bent on violent resistance to U.S., our allies, and our interests, than they were able to put down.

It should be no surprise at all to see the report this month from President Obama's own intelligence agencies that our military presence and activity in Iraq - however altruistic the mission - is having the exact same effect of drawing more individuals looking to do battle with our nation, from around the globe, to rally to this emerging insurgent group's deadly cause.

Our nation has, years ago in our invasion and occupation in Iraq, forfeited any moral authority we may believe we have which would distinguish the difference in the minds of many Iraqis - and in the minds of many individuals around the world who associate their religion with the twisted and contradictory fundamentalism promoted by groups like ISIS/ISIL or al-Qaeda - between the killing and atrocities advertised from this insurgent group, from our own nation's vigilantist, or charitable violence.

from this latest intelligence report:

U.S. spy agencies have begun to see groups of fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa to join the rival Islamist organization that has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and been targeted in American airstrikes, U.S. officials said.

The movements are seen by U.S. counterterrorism analysts as a worrisome indication of the expanding appeal of a group known as the Islamic State that has overwhelmed military forces in the region and may now see itself in direct conflict with the United States.

. . . The launching of U.S. airstrikes has raised new questions, including whether the bombings will hurt the Islamic State’s ability to draw recruits or elevate its status among jihadists. “Does that increase the spigot or close it?” said a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity and noted that U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere have crippled al-Qaeda but also served as rallying cries against the United States.

Longer-term, U.S. officials expressed concern that the Islamic State, which so far has been focused predominantly on its goal of reestablishing an Islamic caliphate, may now place greater emphasis on carrying out attacks against the United States and its allies.

. . . some seem to be sleepwalking through history.

Here's an idea . . .how about we abandon the idea that preemptive war waged in Iraq (or most elsewhere) isn't the best way to lessen the possibility of any threat to the U.S., our interests or our allies?

[leftynyc]

44. Since 9/11 happened

before we stepped foot in Iraq, your screed is either meaningless or just an excuse to use to make you feel better about the fact there are, in fact, those who want to kill Americans.

[bigtree]

46. as you failed to read or inform yourself

. . . it was our nation's (Bush's) response to that attack which incited a great deal of the animosity and the desire or motivation of individuals looking to do our nation or our interests harm - both in the aftermath of his Iraq invasion (which produced the terrorists which our government and military relies on to justify and conflate their current 'war on terror' with this latest insurgent group), and even today, with this deployment.

That dynamic or equation hasn't changed and they still don't get that our very military presence in Iraq - not to mention the direct military actions - exacerbates that 'threat' they're jazzed about, not lessens it.

here's a senior administration official Aug. 8:

The Yazidi population has been targeted by ISIL. This is not something new. ISIL originally was the group led by Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization we know very well. It’s important to keep in mind that ISIL is not a new phenomenon. It is al Qaeda in Iraq, and a part of the ideology which was spawned by Zarqawi all the way back in 2003. And to date, the largest terrorist attack ever in Iraq took place up in the Sinjar region in August of 2007, killing about 700 Yazidi civilians in a series of devastating car bombs then conducted by al Qaeda in Iraq.

It is their mission -- ISIL, and then al Qaeda in Iraq, same organization --

. . . their words, their tragic myopia.

[CJCRANE]

50. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.

They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

GWB

[Politicalboi]

52. Don't forget the plastic

This time they'll send 20 "terrorist" to take the US hostage for hours without us even knowing it, or do anything about it.

[Pholus]

12. Really. U.S. Marines hung from the bridges of Fallujah in ADDITION to Blackwater mercenaries?

I would have thought I could easily find a reference to that, but it seems elusive.

[Octafish]

8. The 100,000 strong ISIS? The 10,000 strong ISIS? The 1,000 strong ISIS? The neo-enemy ISIS?

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -- Hermann Göring, on trial for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg

And Bush Jr and co. did the same thing in 2001.
And Bush Sr and co. did the same thing in 1990.
And Reagan and co. did the same thing in 1983.
And Johnson and co. did the same thing in 1964.
And McKinley and co. did the same thing in 1898.

[bigtree]

14. throw in a 'humanitarian mission' or two (or three)

. . . and you've got the contemporary U.S. equivalent.

[Octafish]

15. Wish Detroit got some parachute relief from the government.

The governor sent us an Emergency Manager who declared bankruptcy and tore up the contracts with the employees and retirees. After almost all the manufacturing jobs left, they were the only ones with any money coming in.

As for war on ISIS: Get ready for the next big thing, no matter what the People say.

[bigtree]

16. I remember those humanitarian air drops of water over Detroit

. . . then it stopped raining.

[AngryAmish]

17. What is the legal authority for the new Iraq war?

[bigtree]

20. the most prominent would be the cic authority

. . . the next would be a unilateral declaration by the president of a theat he perceives to our 'national security' or our national security 'interests.'

That dubious and nebulous authority is already contained in a number of AUMFs that haven't been expired. One specifically related to Iraq, and the others related to the 9-11 attacks.

There's almost unlimited 'authority' for the president to draw from. I fleshed much of that out here:

The President's ability to wage limited war appears almost unlimited. . . and then some

(not agreeing with it, of course, but just reflecting on that broad power a president has. He can assume as much as Congress allows, and then some)

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Isn't that nice.

The President't ability to wage limited war appears almost unlimited...and then someI

[bigtree]

31. it is special

. . . exceptional, even.

[JayhawkSD]

47. The Obama crowd is big on "R2P"

That is why the "humanitarian crisis" angle of this mess is being so heavily touted. Susan Rice and Samantha Powers are whispering in Obama's ears that we have a "responsibility to protect" those who are threatened with genocide, and are reminding him of the national shame that we suffered by not intervening in Rwanda.

The Libyan war was based on the "responsibility to protect" the citizens of Benghazi, who Ghadaffi said he was going to "hunt down like rats" and kill. Two problems with that. First, he was not talking about the entire population, but about the rebels who had fled to and were hiding in Benghazi. Second, it was typical insane rambling from Ghadaffi. He had said similar things many times and had never followed through in any of them. But it gave Obama the excuse to throw in on "protecting the people of Benghazi" by bombing Tripoli and all parts of Libya and saying that he would keep doing so until "Ghadaffi is gone."

[Maedhros]

53. Whenever I hear the Pentagon/White House use the word "genocide"

I automatically assume they are using it for propaganda purposes:

Saddam Hussein was going to commit "genocide," so we had to invade Iraq.

Ghaddafi was going to commit "genocide," so we had to bomb Libya.

Assad was going to commit "genocide," so we had to bomb Syria (oops! Kerry gave us a diplomatic out. Damn!).

Now, ISIL is going to commit "genocide," so we have to invade Iraq. Again.

[malaise]

24. All BS all the time

and then some

I knew that Yazidis 'besieged on a mountaintop' was BS from day one.
Great pretext for going in though!

[Savannahmann]

28. You don't mean the same UN Intelligence that was astonished that ISIS existed do you?

Because the first we heard about them was while they were marching across Iraq kicking the Iraqi Army's ass. Hey, here's a thought. Instead of giving all that military crap to the cops, why don't we give it to the Iraqi Army so they have a fighting chance while outnumbered by the unknown army?

[bigtree]

29. of course, according to 'senior administration officials' ISIS/ISIL = al-Qaeda

from the WH briefing the night before the airstrike order:

The Yazidi population has been targeted by ISIL. This is not something new. ISIL originally was the group led by Zarqawi and al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization we know very well. It’s important to keep in mind that ISIL is not a new phenomenon. It is al Qaeda in Iraq, and a part of the ideology which was spawned by Zarqawi all the way back in 2003. And to date, the largest terrorist attack ever in Iraq took place up in the Sinjar region in August of 2007, killing about 700 Yazidi civilians in a series of devastating car bombs then conducted by al Qaeda in Iraq.

It is their mission -- ISIL, and then al Qaeda in Iraq, same organization --

. . . it's an extension of this administration's co-opting of Bush's 'war on terror.' (I should get one of those corporate copyright logos to go with that phrase)

[WinkyDink]

30. The U.S. is not nor will be "under attack." Another treasonous hoax is being perpetrated.

[stevenleser]

32. Your OP has a big problem. We're pulling out the folks we sent to evaluate and not sending more.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/obama-us-discontinue-airdrops-iraq

Barack Obama, claiming victory for the United States in ending the Islamic State (Isis) siege of thousands of Iraqis atop Mount Sinjar, indicated that the US and UK militaries will no longer drop food, water and medicine to beleaguered Yazidis.

A dramatic operation on Wednesday placed a handful of US special operations forces and aid workers on a reconnaissance mission atop the mountain deep inside Isis-plagued Iraq, where the US had feared a genocide would unfold.

“Because of the skill and professionalism of our military, and the generosity of our efforts, we broke the [Isis] siege of Mount Sinjar, we helped vulnerable people reach safety, and we helped save many innocent lives,” Obama said.

The reinforcement complement of US advisers, who Obama sent sent this week to Irbil and who helped with the reconnaissance effort, will leave Iraq in the coming days, he said. Their arrival stirred great speculation that the US was “Americanizing” the latest Iraq war by degree.

-----------------------------------------------
So the answer to your ..."is it the first pitch in the Obama administration bid to justify military action in Iraq beyond their military-backed 'humanitarian mission..."

is NO.

[bigtree]

34. actually, your defense of the president here has a bit of an omission problem

President:

"The majority of the military personnel who conducted the assessment will be leaving Iraq in the coming days."

Not all, but some.

Maybe he's referring to the 20 or so, out of the 130 he sent in this week, who actually visited the mountaintop this week and pretended that they didn't already know the vast majority of the Yazidis they'd been telling us were in danger had already been rescued away north by Syrian Kurds.

But we don't really know just who and how many will actually be leaving 'in the coming days,' do we?

and, don't forget . . .

Despite Rescue, Iraq Airstrikes Will Continue, Obama Says

The U.S. military said a mix of fighters and drone aircraft attacked two of the Islamic group's armed vehicles and a U.S.-made troop carrier, near the city of Irbil. U.S. Central Command said the two armed vehicles were attacked after they fired on Kurdish forces, and moments later the troop carrier was hit near the site of the two previous strikes. The Islamic fighters have been operating U.S.-made equipment they captured from Iraqi army forces.

. . . to defend the 'personnel and facilities' of his own opportunistic deployments in Iraq, I presume.

[stevenleser]

37. No omission. I provided a link to the Guardian to back me up.

I trust their assessment.

[bigtree]

39. and,

. . . he gave no indication he intends to shift from the limited, defensive military campaign he announced last week to one designed to use American might to push back and eventually defeat an emboldened Islamic State army, which has made rapid and broad advances across western and northern Iraq since June.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-4-500-atop-iraqi-mountain-143228547--politics.html?.tsrc=samsungwn&.sep=table

also . . .

Rear Admiral John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to say whether and where any future U.S. air strikes in Iraq might take place, but said Obama had authorized the use of strikes to protect U.S. personnel anywhere in Iraq.

[Iggo]

33. They're worried I'm not afraid.

And they're right.

[Scuba]

36. We should all be afraid, very afraid.

Not of ISIS or Al Queda, of course, but afraid nonetheless.

[CJCRANE]

38. How did they get that safe haven in Syria?

Who trained them and equipped them?

Do your jobs to protect us instead of creating new enemies for us to fight and be attacked by.

[Kablooie]

43. Hold on to your hats. Here we go again. Wheeeee!

Just hope someone doesn't pull away the last section of track like they did the last time.

[CJCRANE]

45. We got one term

without the terra! terra! BS, now the neocons are back on track full steam ahead like they never left.

[bigtree]

48. I found the new pretext for escalated military action against ISIS - CNN, of course

. . .complete with a report of 'kidnapping' of women and a 'massacre.'

Report says U.S. military calls them "a credible alternative/replacement to al-Qaeda."

Lots of 'concern coupled with rhetoric about 'attacks on our homeland."

"No choice now . . ." and comments like that.

It was just a matter of time. The MIC is restless.

It comes complete with this curious disclaimer . . .

CNN cannot independently confirm the killings and abductions, but the claims are similar to reports provided by survivors of ISIS attacks on minority communities.

[CJCRANE]

49. Enough of this "war fatigue" America! Get over there and fight!

The neocons will watch and critique from a safe distance half a planet away.

[arcane1]

51. So are we at code yellow now?