After 2 months of airstrikes and statements that the campaign will likely go on for years, the Administration still have not named this war. The choice would now seem obvious: Operation Voldemort, the war which must not be named.
Previous
Next
World
Kurdish woman suicide bomber attacks ISIS in Syria, killing a number of members
Agence France-Presse
Agence France-Presse
05 Oct 2014
FacebookTwitterMore
Smoke rises from the Syrian town of
Good news from the (perpetual) battle front in the (battered) Middle East! The Pentagon has finally found a purpose for its latest exercise in corrupt squander, the Lockheed-Martin F-22 'Raptor' (Julian Barnes, WSJ):
As America's efforts to "degrade and ultimately destroy" Islamic State militants extend into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV.
President Barack Obama's claim that he doesn't need congressional authorization for his current war in Iraq and Syria is troubling. The country's founders would pass out upon hearing his claim that the post-9/11 congressional approval of force in 200
ISIS begun their assault of one of the Iraq's largest military bases.
The Sunni terrorists held a massive military parade in Abu Ghraib in March.
But only recently took control of the key cities in the region.
At a recent talk at the National Press Club in Washington DC, Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971, says he believes there's not one person in the Pentagon who would agree that President Obama can achieve his aim of destroying
With new war costs mounting, Congress will almost certainly reach for an old standby accounting solution to keep money flowing — the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, a so-called war credit card.
When President Obama attributed the rise in Iraq of the Islamic State, or ISIS, to the failures of the U.S. intelligence community earlier this week, naming and blaming directly National Intelligence Director Gen. James Clapper, he was attempting to
Congressman Mark Meadows claims ISIS has a secret plan to attack America. Should we have objective, corroborated and public evidence of an imminent attack before going to war?
Bush knew for sure that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction (see, for example, here, here, here and here.) If Iraqi WMD presented no excuse or rationale or justification, why did the U.S. attack Iraq?
The answer lies in human psychology. And probably like the old observation about history, people who refuse to understand human psychology are doomed to be victims of psychological manipulation.
The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.