Skip to comments.US Warships With Tomahawk Missiles Move Into Persian Gulf
Posted on 06/14/2014 5:35:16 AM PDT by Strategy
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Friday he is weighing a range of options for countering the violent Islamic insurgency in Iraq, but he warned government leaders in Baghdad the U.S. will not take military action unless they move to address deep political troubles.
"We're not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which, while we're there we're keeping a lid on things, and after enormous sacrifices by us, after we're not there, people start acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country," Obama said from the South Lawn of the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Perfect. A chance for Mullah Obama to shoot our remaining stockpile of Tomahawk missiles at some camels in the desert.
The only good those Tomahawks are is to destroy fixed concentrated targets. The ‘insurgents’ consisting of loosely formed, mobile forces aren’t the targets.
It is either a wildly idiotic and uninformed decision, or it is intentionally designed to further destabilize those forces the US left in charge.
what are the odds 0bama and hildabeast helped secure US made ship killer missiles for AQ or the MB via Benghazi?
Like bringing in a battery of howitzers to take care of a mosquito problem.
This is complete posturing. Obama is dithering just long enough for ISIS to overthrow Baghdad. Either that, or for the mullahs of Iran to get a toehold in Iraq. I don't think he cares which it is, so long as radical Islam comes out ahead.
Tomahawks = treason?
We’ve killed a great many terrorists with tomahawks. They all need to sleep, meet and resupply.
Any other assets you believe should be taken off the table? Drones? RFSA? Satellites?
I have come to think that He is SO ideological, and SO firm in his convictions, that He really, truly cannot see the mindset and goals and dearly-held beliefs of the enemies are so very basically different, and inimical, to “ours,” that having them all “just get along” isn’t ever gonna happen.
They’re tribal: and they’ll all be at each other’s throats for the next 1400 years as well.
The ONLY thing western civilization can do is contain the poison to the sandy wastes where it was born.
I truly wish we COULD all play nice together, but unlike our leaders — blinded by their own assumptions — we “ordinary people” can see the Evil for what it is, and they can’t. It would seem hopeless.
I didn’t read the article. Did 0bama draw a red line?
Missiles? Do they have bullets too?
Missiles? Do they have bullets too?
What other name would you call it?
Look at where they’ve been SUCCESSFULLY used in the past. Yeah, Clinton was mucho successful on those Al Qaeda tents in the desert and the factories he attacked with over 100 Tomahawks when he was trying to divert attention from Lewinsky problems. He took out a baby milk factory or aspirin factory or some such crap. The most successful use was on mostly fixed and non-transient targets as in the run up to invading IRAQ.
The best choice would be a continuous air cap with strike capability for short term targets and use of heavily armed drones and satellite intel if needed.
Your posit that I think other stuff should be taken off the table is just diversionist and irrelevant.
Absent some last minute reversal of fortune, it looks like a coalition of terrorist groups will grab Iraq which, combined with territory it already has in Syria, will constitute the long dreamed of Caliphate, stretching from the border with Iran to the Mediterranean. With the American built military hardware the terrorists will have seized along with Iraq, it would have a pretty good chance of putting an end to Bashir Assad.
Obama could have prevented this by forging a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. But so eager was he to pull out of Iraq that he didn't even try. Iraq was left alone to try to keep the republic that we had spent so much blood and treasure helping it to acquire. As a result, it looks like the helicopters are going to ascend from the rooftops of the American embassy in the Green Zone after all in a replay of Vietnam, 1975.
Interesting insight as to this securing the creation of the caliphate...
Interesting for sure. Obama certainly isn’t showing any respect for the 4500+ lives America sacrificed to secure freedom for Iraq, that’s for sure.
He’s showing more respect and dedication for illegals in this country than he is IRAQ.
Tomahawks are NOT the weapon for this encounter. Overwhelming ground force, backed up by close tactical air support is the way to deal with these pockets of insurgent troops who have no qualms using innocents as cover.
The fact that the thousands of Iraqi troops simply walked away from their duty when faced with clearly smaller numbers of insurgents is a sad commentary on that nation.
If they are not willing to defend themselves and their country, there is NO good reason for us to do it for them.
We have squandered enough blood and treasure in that part of the world, thanks to Zero and the 0bamunists.
“...people start acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country,”
Sounds like Obama is describing himself.
Translation: “I gotta golf game in Palm Springs - I’m up outta here.”
Are these the same “rebel forces” we’re supporting in Syria to overthrow Assad?
If so, what a real big mess this has turned out to be.
Obama is Now Officially Arming the Syrian Rebels
Time to threaten the moon rock with a transition to marbles.
Actually, I think that arming of the Syrian rebels was what Benghazi was all about and why the US opened a mission there where they had a CIA installation. Much there that hasn’t been explained.
I can see no valid reason to dedicate any Tomahawk platform to deal with on-the-move insurgents. Especially at between $1M and $1.5M apiece. Air cap and drones with $60K Hellfires are much better, IMO.
I think he just wants to waste the Tomahawks.
Awwwwww, come on guys...At least the media and the president will “feel” better about doing something.../sarc
I thought I better put in that tag, before someone thought I might be serious...
Its effectiveness is not a political factor (but a PR boom for the administration to use against critics of the action)in one sliver of the reason to utilize this capability...
No one I know here will buy into this action, nor will I be surprised that we shot off millions od dollars of tactical weapons on a bunch of goat humpers, and their pimped out rides...
If it might make you feel better, give your congress critter a call Monday (bright and early) and tell the staffer, who got the crap job of taking constituent phone calls that morning (Mondays really suck for them), and give them a short piece of yer mind...republican or democrat, it doesn’t matter...
If you want a few more ideas on what more to do about these deficiencies, I’ll be glad to throw a few more your way...You might even have some fun doing so...I know I do...
Just remember, every single target (tactical) will be micromanaged by D.C. before those missiles leave the launchers...Perfect for an ineffective tactical need to make these shots count...
The correct tool for this job are B-52’s and cluster munitions, not Tomahawks.
I thought King Obama decreed that we don’t need Tomahawk missiles any more, so he stopped buying them. It must be that he’s trying to use up the remaining ones before he leaves office.
Tomahawks are the tool to use when we don’t have full control of the airspace. In this case F-15Es, B-52s and B-1s are the better and more cost effective option, with A-10s for close in work.
Iirc we haven’t replenished our Tomahawk stocks from previous actions (like all the ones we popped off into Libya) So I’d definitely see this as, possibly, an opportunity to draw them down even further, limiting future action.
That said, a Tomahawk is a mighty expensive way to hit a moving truck or house full of terrorists.
Iraq needs armed drones for intelligence & the ability to hit targets of opportunity. Obama has rejected that request.
Drones would require US forces to operate, which puts US troops on the ground, something that Obama does not want to do. Maliki PO’d Obama during the failed status of forces agreement, so this is payback.
How does a drone piloted from Nellis AFB or an Indian Ocean facility need to have troops on the ground?
That battle was one snapshot of the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, a militant Sunni group whose thousands of fighters have occupied crucial swatches of Syria and have now surged into northern Iraq. The group has vowed to create a caliphate spanning the Sunni-dominated sections of neighboring countries.
In doing so, it is simultaneously battling the Syrian and Iraqi governments and Sunni rebels it considers insufficiently committed to Islam. Having seized vast areas of Iraqi territory and several large and strategic cities, including the countrys second-biggest, Mosul, it controls territory greater than many countries and now rivals, and perhaps overshadows, Al Qaeda as the worlds most powerful and active jihadist group.
The fighting in Minbej took place six months ago, but the methods the Islamists used so effectively in northern Syria helped set the stage for their blitzkrieg in Mosul, Tikrit and other important Iraqi cities this week.
Can’t you figure it out yet, Mr. President?! Islamic maniacs who wish to establish a caliphate in the Middle East are rampaging through the country killing and beheading people, especially Christians.
Then again, perhaps you have figured it out, and approve. Have a nice weekend at your fundraisers, and hope you get a little golf in there too.
are Tomahawk missiles offensive to Native American Indians like the Washington Redskins?
maintenance & support.
Iraq needs a bunch of drones, armed & unarmed, small & large. No time to train the Iraqis. Also, anything we give the Iraqis we are, in effect, giving to Iran. They need battlefield assistance today, not 3 month from now.
A couple of Predators would help, but they need far more than that.
Nah, there is a real and valid need for Tomahawks in the region: to destroy our embassy after it is taken when Iraq falls. That’s one helluva fixed target.
That means no Israel.
This may be off topic, but are not Tomahawk missiles by their very nature racist?
Should they not be called, say, Eagle Feather missiles?
Or maybe, Native American Get You Good missiles?
He had some left when he was done trashing Libya.
Smile for camera missile