Coffee House

Obama: ‘We broke the ISIL siege of Mount Sinjar’

14 August 2014

7:03 PM

14 August 2014

7:03 PM

When President Obama finally turned up to his press conference on Iraq and the situation in Missouri, he made quite clear that he does not intend to increase US involvement in the country.

He said Americans could feel ‘proud’ of the campaign that their country had led, pointing to the discovery that there were far fewer Yazidis trapped on the mountain than previously thought. The President added that he did ‘not expect there to be an additional operation to evacuate people’ from the mountain, and that the majority of military personnel who assessed the situation will be leaving Iraq in the coming days.

He did add that the situation remains ‘dire’ for religious minorities in the country, and that the US would provide assistance where it could. It will continue air strikes against ISIS and that Iraqi and Kurdish forces will also receive US military assistance. The Number 10 read-out of today’s COBR meeting said that ‘we will continue to monitor this situation closely with our US partners and Kurdish forces’ and that ‘we will also maintain our Chinook helicopters in the region so we have the flexibility to help the most vulnerable if the need arises, and our Tornados will also stay out there in case we require further surveillance of the area’. But those who believe that further military action is needed now to alleviate the suffering of other religious minorities such as Christians who are being cut in half by ISIS militants will not get the impression of a mounting sense in Washington (well, Martha’s Vineyard, where the President is currently on holiday) or Westminster that more needs to be done for Iraq.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • English Majority

    Sickeningly, the reason we ourselves aren’t going to bomb ISIS into oblivion is because of the Muslim hordes in our country.

    Bombing ISIS would, tellingly, violently radicalise the vast, unwanted young Muslim population.

    Funny that, isn’t it. You’d almost think the majority of them support ISIS…..

    And they do, of course.

  • Mynydd

    At least President Obama turned up, unlike our Prime Minister Mr Cameron who stayed on holiday.

  • edithgrove

    we’ve turned our backs on them.

  • The Masked Marvel

    One is ever so grateful he could tear himself away from the golf course and lavish parties with the aristocracy for a moment to read out a speech somebody wrote for him. But isn’t this sort of re-purposed White House press release better left to the BBC?

  • the viceroy’s gin

    Maybe the Speccie kids can ask the Cameroons whether they intend to continue to sell weapons to the Saudis, Qataris, the UAE, the Turks and all the others who are financing these islamofascist murderers ISIS.

    You know, as in, the Speccie kids could do a proper job, rather than simply be lackeys .

    • southerner

      That would require an element of journalism which borders on hard work. Much simpler to unquestioningly regurgitate the narrative that they get fed by the Camerloons.

    • Tony_E

      Why not? It means that the more technological weapons they have are ones that can be countered by our own technology – much of what we supply is computerised for guidance for example. When you know the capability of your enemy you are one step ahead.

      Plus, do you really think that these regimes won’t just source somewhere else? They can easily get weapons from the Chinese or the Russians – better the money is used for improvements to our own defence industry.

      Lastly, what evidence do you have about which regimes are financing ISIS. My understanding is that they might have had some help in the initial stages of trying to overthrow Assad, but their current funding comes from the theft of huge bank reserves, oil fields and other assets in the lands they have captured. You will probably find that much of their weaponry comes from Assad’s army (taken in battle) and from the large stock of former Soviet weaponry that still floats around the Middle East since the fall of the USSR.

      You seem to have taken your lead on foreign affairs from the late Robin Cook. There is no such thing as an ‘Ethical Foreign Policy’. There is only one that advances UK interests. And you were the last one I thought would be suckered in by all that leftist bollux.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        So then, what evidence do you have that anything you’re jabbering about is valid?

        Nobody disagrees that ISIS is being supported through the islamofascist neighbors, which would include Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. ISIS wouldn’t exist absent that support. The islamofascists who murdered Americans these past 10-11 years came from the islamofascist neighbors as well.

        Do you think “huge bank reserves” were parked out in the desert? I’d say it’s you that’s being taken in.

        Do you think these islamofascists are pumping oil and sending it out through their islamofascist neighbors with no strings attached? Again, it seem you’re the one being taken in.

        Do you think the islamofascists are profiting off the massive desert agriculture and manufacturing industries they’ve scooped up? I’d say it is you that is being… etc.

        I have no doubt the islamofascists have captured and bought Syrian/Iraqi equipment, but what’s your point here? The cash they bought it with had to come from somewhere, and who do you think that is? And by the way, who is training these islamofascists in Jordan? What nationality do they have? I wonder. Not much, bit I wonder.

        Just to wake you up a bit, and you do need a bit of a wake up, this is all about Iran and nukes. Once you understand that, you’ll see why it is the West is once again siding with the Sunni islamofascists. We’ve picked a side. Our side likes to crucify and bury alive and behead and mutilate genitally. You should get comfortable with your choices, and not pick holes in the arguments of those who are pointing out the choice you’ve made. If the Camerloon muppets are being shamed by this exposure, good. Siding with islamofascists is never wise policy… ever.

    • John Dalton

      Don’t be ridiculous – Isabel has TV studios to go and look pretty in! Jolly hockey sticks – toodle pip!

    • goatmince

      Why, laddie? All you’ve got to do is fly a few RQ11 to gather the intelligence that those [citation required] murderers were of any serious threat to anyone at all.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        I doubt you and the rest of your army of sockpuppets have anything of interest to say, lad, on anything.

  • Newcombe

    I’m all for non-intervention, but please let us get those Christians, Yezidis and other non-Muslims out. We did far more for the Muslim refugees from Somalia, Afghan, Iraq etc., so why not Christians and the Yezidis. It is as if we want them to be killed and/or forcefully converted. Is that the deal?

    • the viceroy’s gin

      It must be. Obama, Call Me Dave and Sarkozy first created this ISIS mob, using residual weapons from Libya, so you won’t see them destroying ISIS, I reckon.

      • The Masked Marvel

        In addition, Obama created the vacuum which needed filling when he withdrew all the troops. The barbarians were ready for it because he told them years ago to start planning.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          No, Bush set the timeline for withdrawal, long before the 2008 election even. Obama merely executed that plan.

          The islamofascist barbarians are always ready to murder. They just need financing and support, and that was Obama and company’s contribution .

          • The Masked Marvel

            Bush didn’t set the timeline for full pullout like this. There was always intended to be a negotiated presence of some kind. Obama made this happen.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              No, Bush set the timeline for a 100% pullout in 2011. That was his intention, and that’s what the agreements all stated, with the Iraqis and as per fiscal outlays approved by Congress.

              Obama didn’t make anything happen, he just went along with Bush’s timeline. That may not fit your memory, but you’ll find it fits what happened.

              • Curnonsky

                Not so – Bush envisioned leaving behind a residual force so as not to create a destabilizing power vacuum. Obama, eager to claim the “I ended the war in Iraq” slogan for his re-election campaign, deliberately sabotaged the negotiations that would have allowed American troops to stay in Iraq, thus achieving his goal of turning victory to defeat.

                Now he is playing for time, running out the clock on his tenure and hoping to leave his successor to pick up the pieces (which is why Hillary is so angry).

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  All due respect to your mindreading abilities, but the Bush envisionings that your abilities have produced really shouldn’t enter into a proper analysis here.

                  Because, unfortunately, mindreading cannot substitute for the realities of public policy. That takes place through legislation, funding and the democratic process. That process resulted in agreement with the Iraqis for a withdrawal, orders issued for withdrawal and a funding cut for the occupation of Iraq. Bush participated thoroughly and consistently in that process, signed the requisite bills, and gave the necessary orders as commander in chief .

                  Obama declined to push to restore an occupation. He followed Bush’s plan. If he had done otherwise, the US Congress would have likely voted to strip him of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, and the White House would have lost all flexibility and political leverage re Iraq and the Mideast (that AUMF is what he’s legally using to bomb Iraq right now, by the way).

                  You’d be correct, Obama could have renegotiated an agreement with the Iraqis to maintain the occupation. If the Iraqis signed such an agreement, Obama could then have submitted that agreement to the United States Senate, and if that agreement was approved by a 2/3 supermajority of senators, it could then have come into force, and the extended occupation would then have the required constitutional underpinnings.

                  Then, all Obama would have had to do is to submit a budget request to Congress, to add funds for the restored occupation, funds which had been wound down by previous statute, as voted up by Congress and signed into law by Bush.

                  I can assure you that there are at least a 1/2 dozen potentially terminal activities present in the above workstream, along with at least two mistrustful countries’ body politics, and I’d argue that all of these potentialities would have become realities. What you are claiming was an impossibility, in other words. It never could have happened. I have no use for Obama, mind you, but we shouldn’t entertain false alternate histories.

                  Bush ended the US occupation of Iraq, which is fitting, I’d say. Obama had no choice but to follow the path Bush blazed, and try to take credit for it, as you mention.

                • Curnonsky

                  First of all, the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq was to be an “executive agreement” which would not have required Congressional approval. Bush’s plan, which was never implemented, would have left 10-20,000 troops in Iraq – stationed at bases, presumably, so hardly an occupation. Again, funds would have already been appropriated by Congress so that would hardly have been an issue (much less for Obama with his veto-proof majority).

                  But Obama, during the 2008 campaign, made it clear to Maliki that he did not want to leave any American military presence behind, and when he became president he and Biden imposed impossible conditions on the Iraqis that effectively torpedoed the SOFA.

                  Why this matters is that we are seeing the consequences (and this is only the beginning) of what a post-American world looks like, something for those nations such as Britain who have reduced their military expenditures to a pittance on the assumption that the Yanks would defend them to consider with care.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  First of all, the SOFA agreement was an executive agreement. Not “was to be”… it was that. It was negotiated by Bush, and executed by Bush and Obama. It called for a complete US withdrawal by 2011.

                  Bush’s plan was implemented, then. It was his SOFA. You really should stop blathering about this, because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  The US has thousands of troops in Iraq, in their security zone, along with thousands of private contractors, all legislated and budgeted for by Bush, before he left office. That is independent of any occupation, which ended by agreements and legislation signed by Bush, as previously stated.

                  Obama followed Bush’s path and established law, as mentioned. He had nothing to do with the decisions handed to him. He merely executed the previously established plan.

                  There is plenty of US military presence left behind in Iraq, as mentioned above, but none outside of Bush’s agreements and Congress’ approval and funding. Try to keep up.

                  I really don’t know what your confused last paragraph is supposed to mean. It just seems like more whiny twaddle.

                • Curnonsky

                  You are confusing the SOFA Bush implemented, which expired, and the follow-up SOFA which Obama sabotaged. “Thousands of troops”?? With the latest additions – devoted to embassy security – there are 750 American troops in Iraq. Not legislated by Bush – he is no longer president, in case you hadn’t noticed. Not sure why you are parroting Obama’s serial attempts to blame Bush for his own failures.

                  You’ll feel better if you stop shouting, promise.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I’m not confusing anything, lad, you are.

                  There is only one SOFA, and it is the one Bush brought on, and Bush and Obama executed, as described earlier.

                  There is no other SOFA. You’re whining there should be something, but there never was or even close, because the entire Iraqi and US body politics would have had to agree and budget such, and the communist Chinese would have had to finance such, and that was an impossibility, as mentioned earlier. You don’t understand all that, obviously, but that doesn’t make it any less of a reality.

                  Yes, all of the US presence in Iraq is legislated by Bush. Obama is merely following Bush’s plan, as mentioned. Sorry, lad, but you’re just wrong on everything, apparently.

                  You’ll feel better if you stop whining fantastically, promise.

                • Wessex Man

                  What does it matter who did what? The Yanks have a healthy regard to failure they pratice quite often.

              • Damaris Tighe

                My (admittedly) dim memory of this was that Obama left no troops on the ground in Iraq after the pullout (which was the original plan) because he didn’t like Malaki.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Your memory is too dim to trust then, and I recommend you don’t trust it. That is just not what happened.

              • The Masked Marvel

                The combat troops and accompanying support infrastructure, manned bases and patrols all over the place, yes. Bush’s people always expected there would be some residual support remaining. The original intent never meant zero presence at all and leaving this vacuum.

                Obama knew instability was on the rise, and simply didn’t care. Because he could blame Bush for it all, and knew most everyone else would as well, rather than addressing the current reality on its own merits. Which is now exactly where this debate is for all of us.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  I’ve responded below, and you’re not presenting anything here that my response doesn’t rebut.

                • The Masked Marvel

                  I understand that. Posting a number of links won’t convince you that I’m not imagining mind-reading powers, either, so I’m conceding your victory in the race down this rabbit hole. Whatever the case, it’s a shame that the decision about action seems now to be based on who one blames for starting it.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No rabbit holes, lad, unless they’re ones you’ve dug.

                  Historical reality is about sunshine and, well, reality. I get it that you want “action”, but that won’t change historical reality .

                • The Masked Marvel

                  Okay, fine. Here’s some historical reality for you:


                  “Combat troops”. It was always about “combat troops”. That’s not the same as what’s happened, nor is what you keep claiming. The reality is that something could have been negotiated to maintain some presence, but neither Maliki nor Obama wanted it. The former so he could pursue his sectarian ugliness, the latter because he wanted to claim he had ended the war as promised, regardless of the outcome which he saw coming.

                  You don’t want anything done about it, but placing blame on who started it isn’t much of a reason in my view. Do you see where this has gotten us?

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  You’re not making any point, lad, and your link merely confirms what I’ve stated here, that Obama followed the path Bush blazed. You’re just whining about it, is all. Sorry, but that’s not worthy of a response.

                • The Masked Marvel

                  “Combat troops”.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …is that fragment supposed to mean something, lad?

    • The Masked Marvel

      And how, exactly, does one accomplish that without getting engaged for a longer term? It’s not as simple as it seems in the movies.

    • In2minds

      Helping non-Muslims, the new world order?

      • Wessex Man

        Why not?

        • Damaris Tighe

          Shall we start with Israel then?

  • Tom Chance

    “Mission accomplished”

    • Terry Field

      I did not think I would live to see such American gutlessness.

      • English Majority

        It correlates precisely with America being overrun – and led by – black and Mexican immigrants.

        The cancer of multiculturalism and immigration is truly destroying everything.

        • HookesLaw

          Yet more racism from our resident white supremacist. Go away and stick to polishing your tatoos.

          • English Majority

            Actually, you’re right.

            That Swastika on my bum could do with a re-colour.

          • Terry Field

            Not really. Simply observation of reality around the globe. Please identify where his observation is in error?????????

        • Shazza

          I have this theory.

          If we invite all the Africans to come and live in Europe and all the whites in Europe up sticks and move to Africa, within 10 years we would have the new Europeans trying to get back to Africa………..

          • English Majority


            Africans are unable to build or maintain any level of civilisation. They’ve also never created anything or invented anything – not even a written language, or a working sewege system.

            They only survive by living off Whites.

            If you listen to the blacks themselves, of course, they’ll tell you that its them who invented everything.

            They genuinely believe this shi*e.

        • The Masked Marvel

          Eh? Black immigrants? And the majority of the latest deluge of Spanish-speaking illegals seem to be from further south than Mexico.

        • ChuckieStane

          America was overrun by white immigrants who then brought the black there against their will, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your racist bile.

          • Terry Field

            And what is the data on relative intelligence – don’t search too far – it is easy to find.

          • the viceroy’s gin

            Au contraire. The white immigrants liberated the Americas from the invaders who crossed the Bering Straight 15,000 years ago and overran the continents.

        • Terry Field

          It is almost beyond remedy. Almost. But not there yet. Civil war may beckon if things continue at this pace.

          • English Majority

            White Revolution.


      • Tony_E

        Or it’s about the first sensible thing that the Yanks have done under Obama.

        There’s no point in getting ourselves involved in this fight. There is no strategic advantage in arming one sect against another in Iraq – it is for the government of Iraq to sort it’s own territory out.

        The Turks, our NATO allies, will be very concerned to see the Kurds assisted in anything but the most basic form of protection, as they have territorial interests which Turkey does not want to see advanced into their own ground.

        Arm one side heavily now, and we probably upset the balance of power in the region further, exacerbating the trouble to come. Maliki is gone. The Iraqi army is starting to get organised and is curtailing the spread south of ISIS. They are well enough armed and resourced to do the job and it is their country. You will not get stability by arming the other groups – you will simply encourage another territorial dispute further down the road as the arms will strengthen the factions that are not part of the government, which is backed by Iran (now the region’s largest player and whose pressure shifted the sectarian Mailiki).

        • Terry Field

          I am not suggesting military involvement to stir the pot with any of these Islamic barbarians – of any variety. God knows they only respond to any outside intervention by killing us and each other in vast numbers.
          Their religion is a global danger.
          They are a force for unmitigated evil, even if a few of them held onto a few Greek texts in the middle ages.
          I simply suggest the extraction of threatened Christians and other persecuted peoples is easy for a super power.
          Our civilisation is threatened by these creatures. Action and resolve is long overdue.

          We are allowing our home civilisations to be destroyed by this alien horror. Our ancestors understood the danger, and acted to suppress the threat. Remember the Turks at the gates of Vienna – and remember the Mahdi. Remember the Reconquest of Spain. Where has our sense of self-regard and self protection gone. And please, if you are some disconnected bloody English socialist or corporate-employed value-free scumbag, do not whine on about ‘globalisation’ – these barbaric, civilisation-smashing death-loving, Christian and Jew – hating aliens have no place in our midst.
          It is long past being exclusion time.

    • HookesLaw

      Except that ”the US would provide assistance where it could. It will continue air
      strikes against ISIS and that Iraqi and Kurdish forces will also receive
      US military assistance”

      You seem to have difficulty reading.

      • Ron Todd

        You seem to have difficulty reading between the lines.

      • Terry Field

        Come on!
        DOn’t you get it!
        Bush; the Aircraft-carier, etc. God wake up, sausage.

        • HookesLaw

          I remember the banner. And there is no hubris evident in the announcement.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here