by tyler | Feb 21, 2024 | CNN, politics
The thousands of immigrant children pouring across the nation’s southern border from Central America braved predators and harsh elements only to arrive in the United States and walk right into one of the most toxic issues in Washington.
On the right are those who criticize the White House approach to immigration. They say that by relaxing deportation policies toward immigrant children and their families, the Obama administration unwittingly created conditions for some 60,000 Central American kids to flock to the United States.
On the left are those, including President Barack Obama, who fault Congress, especially House Republicans, for rejecting a Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform package last year and continue bickering over incremental measures.
And in the middle are children, many of them fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. They are the latest pawns in the political fight over immigration reform.
“The thing I learned from the border patrol this weekend from the men and women and their supervisors is that we cannot enforce ourselves out of this crisis. They are being overwhelmed by the large numbers,” Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat who hails from the district where most of the border crossings occur, told CNN in an interview on Monday.
Influx of immigrant children expected to last through summer
The debate over what the White House calls “a humanitarian crisis” is pouring fuel on a raging fire, judging by the rhetoric.
Finger pointing
Republicans, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, place the blame squarely with Obama and his administration dealing with yet another crisis that has left it with a black eye.
“The recent surge of children and teenagers from Central America showing up at our southern border is an administration-made disaster and now President Obama is calling in (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) to mitigate the damage,” Goodlatte said statement on the decision to create a group comprised of government agencies to address the issue.
“Word has gotten out around the world about President Obama’s lax immigration enforcement policies and it has encouraged more individuals to come to the United States illegally, many of whom are children from Central America,” Goodlatte said.
Most of the children crossing the border would not qualify for “amnesty” under the federal program that defers deportation for children brought to the United States previously by their parents or guardians illegally.
Still, there is some evidence to suggest the policy allowing thousands of immigrant children to remain in the country prompted others to strike out for the United States, hoping they, too, could stay, immigration law and policy experts said.
Should Obama use the power of his pen to turn the tide on immigration reform?
“I think it would fall in the category of unintended consequences,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University Law School. “I think the president was clear in 2012 of what his executive action did and did not do. He did not intend to signal that other children should come to the U.S. But many times immigration law gets distorted and (the kids may have made the journey) based on those false of rumors that children will be allowed to stay here.”
The White House may have helped create this crisis, but the administration is not the first to find itself facing a humanitarian conundrum partly of its own making.
When Bill Clinton was campaigning for president in the early 1990s, he criticized then-President George H.W. Bush’s decision to turn back waves of Haitian immigrants in boats trying to escape political chaos in their country.
This, in turn, prompted thousands of Haitians to try and come to the United States after Clinton took office, prompting him to make clear that those trying to skirt the legal channels to citizenship would be turned back.
A problem with many roots
However, it isn’t exactly fair to solely blame Obama and his administration for the flood of children now entering the country, many of them on their own, immigration law and policy experts say.
According to analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, the “deep root causes for this child migration, and for the recent surge in arrivals” are myriad and complicated.
“In reality, there is no single cause. Instead, a confluence of different pull and push factors has contributed to the upsurge,” the report found. “Recent U.S. policies toward unaccompanied children, faltering economies and rising crime and gang activity in Central American countries, the desire for family reunification, and changing operations of smuggling networks have all converged.”
Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Guatemala later this week to discuss the matter with leaders from the three Central American countries at the center of the controversy.
Cuellar and immigration law and policy experts all point to the need to improve assistance to those nations through stronger borders and less violence.
There’s work to do on the home front as well.
A Senate-approved immigration reform package, which included at least seven measures designed to address unaccompanied minors crossing the border, failed to make it out of the Republican -controlled House last year.
Those measures included ensuring high standards of mental and physical health care at the facilities where illegal immigrant children are detained, child welfare training for those who detain minors crossing the border illegally and legal representation for those children among other provisions.
Reports from communities where children are held indicate that kids as young as toddlers are kept in hot and crowded conditions. There have also been reports of abuse and a lack of access to adequate legal representation as federal and community assistance is stretched.
Daniel’s journey: How thousands of children are creating a crisis in America
The sweeping Senate immigration reform package also included a path to citizenship for an estimated 8 million of the more than 11 million undocumented workers in the country.
This path to legalization would have helped ensure economic stability for those who left their children behind in their home countries which, in turn, might make the kids less likely to flee poverty in their homelands, immigration law and policy experts said.
“It would not be as big a deal if we had a working immigration system. There are a lot of provisions in the Senate bill that would have addressed this issue of unaccompanied minors,” Yale-Loehr said adding that for years the problem was like a “tidal wave” in the distance which neither the White House nor Congress anticipated hitting with such force.
“It’s another thing to see it crashing on your shore,” he said.
by tyler | Feb 21, 2024 | CNN, politics
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Thursday that the United States is interested only in communicating with Iran, not working with the country, to push back Islamist militants who are threatening Iraq.
On Thursday, he told NBC News that statements he’d made this week seem to have been misunderstood.
“What I said is we are interested in communicating with Iran to make clear that the Iranians know what we’re thinking and we know what they’re thinking and there’s a sharing of information so people aren’t making mistakes,” the secretary said.
The idea of the U.S. working with Iran would be a “head-scratcher,” he said. “No. We’re not sitting around contemplating if we’re going to do that. That’s not on the table.”
In a Yahoo News interview this week, Kerry was asked: “Can you see cooperating with Iran militarily?
According to a transcript of that interview on the State Department’s website, the secretary responded: “I – at this moment, I think we need to go step by step and see what, in fact, might be a reality, but I wouldn’t rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability, a respect for the constitution, a respect for the election process, and a respect for the ability of the Iraqi people to form a government that represents all of the interests of Iraq, not one sectarian group over another. It has to be inclusive, and that has been one of the great problems of the last few years.”
Kerry was then asked: “If Iran recognizes that, would you be willing to work with that country?”
He answered, “Let’s see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements. I think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold Iraq together, the integrity of the country, and eliminate the presence of outside terrorist forces that are ripping it apart.”
After that interview, there was debate on television news and in print stories about the possibility of the U.S. and Iran working together to help Iraq. CNN asked experts if it was even possible for the longtime foes to join forces.
In Thursday’s NBC interview, Kerry said that “nothing is off the table. All options are available” to President Barack Obama when it comes to batting ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Made up of mostly Sunni Muslims, ISIS is an al Qaeda splinter group that wants to establish a caliphate, or Islamic state, that would stretch from Iraq into northern Syria. The group has had significant success in Syria battling President Bashar al-Assad’s security forces. Since launching its battle for Iraqi territory, ISIS has said it has killed at least 1,700 Shiites.
Scores of Iraqis have fled their homes, prompting fears of a brewing humanitarian crisis.
NBC said to Kerry: “It seems like the U.S. was totally caught off guard by this.”
“Look, our people on the ground in Iraq have seen the increased intensity,” he replied. “We’ve been watching this happening. We have been engaged in efforts over the months. We’ve been beefing up our assistance, our presence.”
On Wednesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that the U.S. has received a request from the Iraqi government to use its air power in the conflict.
Dempsey, the senior ranking member of the U.S. armed forces, spoke before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, saying that the United States’ “national security interest (is) to counter (ISIS) where we find them.”
Kerry stressed in the NBC interview that ISIS is “threatening” to U.S. and Western interests.
He said that the U.S. has not acted so far “for a lot of different reasons,” including that, until recently, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “denied the kind of permissions necessary.”
Kerry then stressed that any assistance to Iraq is “not about Maliki.”
“Let me stress: What the United States is doing is about Iraq,” Kerry said. “It is not about Maliki. Nothing that the President decides to do is going to be focused specifically on Prime Minister Maliki. It is focused on the people of Iraq.”
Kerry said the U.S. is “deeply engaged in working with our allies and friends in the region. We are assisting, training, doing work in terms of providing nonlethal aid and assistance.”
NBC asked Kerry what he would say to Iraq veterans and their families who lost so much during that long war, only to contemplate that the country is on the brink again.
Whether Iraq gets to that terrible point “remains to be seen,” Kerry responded. “The test is in, really, these next few days and weeks. We are going to do everything in our power to follow through and try to get the job done through diplomacy … to honor their sacrifice.”
Obama to Congress: I don’t need new permission on Iraq
Transcript: Obama’s remarks on U.S. response to Iraq crisis
Current fighting pushes Iraqi refugee population past 1 million
by tyler | Feb 21, 2024 | CNN, politics
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody. I just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq. We’ve been meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of Iraq. As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests. So today I wanted to provide you an update on how we’re responding to the situation.
First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq. As President, I have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas. So I’ve taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we’ve sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities.
Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq. And this will give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat.
Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi security forces. We’re prepared to create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL. Through our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, we’re prepared to work with Congress to provide additional equipment. We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors – up to 300 – to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.
American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.
Fourth, in recent days, we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region. Because of our increased intelligence resources, we’re developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL. And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it. If we do, I will consult closely with Congress and leaders in Iraq and in the region.
I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead.
Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq. At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners. And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.
Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future. Shia, Sunni, Kurds – all Iraqis – must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities. Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible. The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.
Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders. It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis. Meanwhile, the United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another. There’s no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States. But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.
In closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America’s war in Iraq. Alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 American patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the rest of their lives. Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we’ve seen some of those debates resurface.
But what’s clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action. The most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and center – the issue that I keep front and center – is what is in the national security interests of the United States of America. As Commander-in-Chief, that’s what I stay focused on. As Americans, that’s what all of us should be focused on.
And going forward, we will continue to consult closely with Congress. We will keep the American people informed. We will remain vigilant. And we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the United States and the safety of the American people.
So with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions. I’ll start with Colleen McCain Nelson of the Wall Street Journal.
Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Do you have any confidence in Prime Minister Maliki at this point? And can Maliki bring political stability to Iraq?
OBAMA: As I said, it’s not our job to choose Iraq’s leaders. Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in Iraq was the right and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own destiny and choose their own leaders. But I don’t think there’s any secret that right now at least there is deep divisions between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders. And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.
And so we’ve consulted with Prime Minister Maliki, and we’ve said that to him privately. We’ve said it publicly that whether he is prime minister, or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia and Kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process. And we’ve seen over the last two years, actually dating back to 2008, 2009 – but I think worse over the last two years – the sense among Sunnis that their interests were not being served, that legislation that had been promised around, for example, De-Ba’athification had been stalled.
I think that you hear similar complaints that the government in Baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them in to a process that gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single nation-state. And that has to be worked through.
Part of the reason why we saw better-equipped Iraqi security forces with larger numbers not be able to hold contested territory against ISIL probably reflects that lack of a sense of commitment on the part of Sunni communities to work with Baghdad. And that has to be fixed if we’re going to get through this crisis.
Jim Acosta.
Q . Thank you, Mr. President. Americans may look at this decision that you’re making today as a sneak preview of coming attractions; that the number of advisors that you’re planning to send in may just be the beginning of a boots-on-the-ground scenario down the road. Why is Iraq’s civil war in the national security interests of the United States? And are you concerned about the potential for mission creep?
OBAMA: I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.
We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq. Ultimately, this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.
It is in our national security interests not to see an all-out civil war inside of Iraq, not just for humanitarian reasons, but because that ultimately can be destabilizing throughout the region. And in addition to having strong allies there that we are committed to protecting, obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continues to be important.
We also have an interest in making sure that we don’t have a safe haven that continues to grow for ISIL and other extremist jihadist groups who could use that as a base of operations for planning and targeting ourselves, our personnel overseas, and eventually the homeland. And if they accumulate more money, they accumulate more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great dangers not just to allies of ours like Jordan, which is very close by, but it also poses a great danger potentially to Europe and ultimately the United States.
We have already seen inside of Syria that – or groups like ISIL that right now are fighting with other extremist groups, or an Assad regime that was non-responsive to a Sunni majority there, that that has attracted more and more jihadists or would-be jihadists, some of them from Europe. They then start traveling back to Europe, and that, over time, can create a cadre of terrorists that could harm us.
So we have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed. We have strategic interests in stability in the region. We have counterterrorism interests. All those have to be addressed.
The initial effort for us to get situational awareness through the reconnaissance and surveillance that we’ve already done, coupled with some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what the situation is – starting, by the way, with the perimeter around Baghdad and making sure that that’s not overrun – that’s a good investment for us to make. But that does not foreshadow a larger commitment of troops to actually fight in Iraq. That would not be effective in meeting the core interests that we have.
Q. Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq? Any regrets about that decision in 2011?
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government. We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces. We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they’re provided immunity since they’re being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they’re not somehow hauled before a foreign court. That’s a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere.
The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity. And so I think it is important though to recognize that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.
Juliet Eilperin.
Q. Mr. President, you just mentioned Syria a moment ago. The United States has been slow to provide significant weapons and training directly to the Syrian opposition. Has the expansion of the Syria war into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we’re now willing to give the opposition there? Is that what prompted Secretary Kerry to say of Syria, “We are augmenting our assistance in significant ways”? And can you elaborate on what you are you doing now that you weren’t doing before?
OBAMA: That assessment about the dangers of what was happening in Syria have existed since the very beginning of the Syrian civil war. The question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem. The question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless.
And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support. Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize them. And that continues to be a challenge. And even before the situation that we saw with ISIL going into Iraq, we had already tried to maximize what we could do to support a moderate opposition that not only can counteract the brutality of Assad, but also can make sure that in the minds of Sunnis they don’t think that their only alternative is either Mr. Assad or extremist groups like ISIL or al Nusra.
Q. And can you speak to what you might be doing differently, as the Secretary of State alluded to?
OBAMA: Well, I think that the key to both Syria and Iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country working with the moderate Syrian opposition, working with an Iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same direction. And I alluded to this in the West Point speech. I talked about it today with respect to the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund.
There is going to be a long-term problem in this region in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values. And at the same time, we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing. And rather than try to play Whac-a-Mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships, make sure that they have capacity. Some of the assets that have been devoted solely to Afghanistan over the last decade we’ve got to shift to make sure that we have coverage in the Middle East and North Africa.
You look at a country like Yemen – a very impoverished country and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions – there, we do have a committed partner in President Hadi and his government. And we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground at the same time as we’ve got enough CT, or counterterrorism capabilities that we’re able to go after folks that might try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism into Europe or the United States.
And looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be part of the solution in dealing with both Syria and Iraq. But in order for us to do that, we still need to have actual governments on the ground that we can partner with and that we’ve got some confidence are going to pursue the political policies of inclusiveness. In Yemen, for example, a wide-ranging national dialogue that took a long time, but helped to give people a sense that there is a legitimate political outlet for grievances that they may have.
Peter Maer.
Q. Thank you, sir. Going back to where you see Prime Minister al-Maliki playing a role at this point, you said that it’s a time to rise above differences, that there’s a need for more inclusive government. Is he a unifier? And how much clout does the United States ultimately have with any of the leadership in Iraq at this point really?
OBAMA: Well, we still provide them significant assistance. I think they recognize that, unlike some other players in the region, we don’t have territorial ambitions in their country. We’re not looking to control their assets or their energy. We want to make sure that we’re vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our troops in giving them an opportunity to build a stable, inclusive society that can prosper and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people.
And at the same time, they are a sovereign country. They have their own politics. And what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems. Now that they are in crisis, we are indicating to them that there is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue. If you start seeing the various groups inside of Iraq simply go to their respective corners, then it is almost certain that Baghdad and the central government will not be able to control huge chunks of their own country. The only way they can do that is if there are credible Sunni leaders, both at the national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a Shia majority, that the Kurds, that all those folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country.
Right now, that doesn’t exist. There’s too much suspicion, there’s too much mistrust. And the good news is that an election took place in which despite all this mistrust, despite all this frustration, despite all this anger, you still had millions of Iraqis turn out – in some cases, in very dangerous circumstances. You now have a court that has certified those elections, and you have a constitutional process to advance government formation.
So far, at least, the one bit of encouraging news that we’ve seen inside of Iraq is that all the parties have said they continue to be committed to choosing a leadership and a government through the existing constitutional order.
So what you’re seeing I think is, as the prospects of civil war heighten, many Iraq leaders stepping back and saying, let’s not plunge back into the abyss; let’s see if we can resolve this politically. But they don’t have a lot of time. And you have a group like ISIL that is doing everything that it can to descend the country back into chaos.
And so one of the messages that we had for Prime Minister Maliki but also for the Speaker of the House and the other leadership inside of Iraq is, get going on this government formation. It’ll make it a lot easier for them to shape a military strategy. It’ll also make it possible for us to partner much more effectively than we can currently.
Q. Given the Prime Minister’s track record, is he a unifier? Can he play that role after what we’ve seen play out over the last couple of weeks is brought into play?
OBAMA: I think the test is before him and other Iraqi leaders as we speak. Right now, they can make a series of decisions. Regardless of what’s happened in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance, and the test for all of them is going to be whether they can overcome the mistrust, the deep sectarian divisions, in some cases just political opportunism, and say this is bigger than any one of us and we’ve got to make sure that we do what’s right for the Iraqi people. And that’s a challenge.
That’s not something that the United States can do for them. That’s not something, by the way, that the United States Armed Forces can do for them. We can provide them the space, we can provide them the tools. But ultimately, they’re going to have to make those decisions.
In the meantime, my job is to make sure that American personnel there are safe; that we are consulting with the Iraqi security forces; that we’re getting a better assessment of what’s on the ground; and that we’re recognizing the dangers of ISIL over the long term, and developing the kinds of comprehensive counterterrorism strategies that we’re going to need to deal with this issue. And that’s going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that ISIL is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly or our allies and partners. But it also is going to require some long-term strategies, as well.
Because part of what we’ve with respect to ISIL is a broader trend that I talked about at West Point – rather than a single network, a discreet network of terrorists, this fluid combination of hardened terrorists, disaffected local leadership. And where there’s vacuums, they’re filling it and creating the potential for serious danger for all concerned.
Thank you very much.
Q. On Iran, Mr. President, any words on what you’re willing to do, and are you also willing to work with them?
OBAMA: Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government that we’re sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it’s inclusive and that if the interests of Sunni, Shia and Kurd are all respected. If Iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the Shia, and if it is framed in that fashion, then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would actually be constructive over the long term.
Q. What’s your sense of that right now?
OBAMA: Well, I think that just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us. We’ve indicated to them that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war.
And the one thing that I think has to be emphasized – we have deep differences with Iran across the board on a whole host of issues. Obviously, what’s happened in Syria in part is the result of Iran coming in hot and heavy on one side. And Iran obviously should consider the fact that if its view of the region is solely through sectarian frames, they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places. And that’s probably not good for the Iranian economy or the Iranian people over the long term either. I suspect there are folks in Iran who recognize that. A Iraq in chaos on their borders is probably not in their interests. But old habits die hard, and we’ll have to see whether they can take what I think would be a more promising path over the next several days.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Obama announces military advisers going to Iraq
Kerry: U.S. would communicate with Iran, not work with it
Current fighting pushes Iraqi refugee population past 1 million
by tyler | Feb 21, 2024 | CNN, politics
The U.S. government says it has reached milestone in the decades-long war on drugs: The Cali cartel, once the biggest drug trafficking organization in the world, is no more.
The Treasury Department on Thursday removed 308 people and entities from its financial sanctions list, the largest ever single such de-listing. Treasury officials say the Cali cartel is now considered defunct.
The move affects 78 people and 230 companies, real estate holdings and other entities the United States claims were used for money laundering during the heyday of the cartel named for the southern Colombian city famed for its music and mountains.
Cartel leaders Miguel and Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela, who were both first placed on the sanctions list in 1995, are serving 30-year prison sentences after pleading guilty in 2006 in Miami to drug trafficking charges. As part of their plea agreement they surrendered $2.1 billion in assets around the world.
After the brothers’ guilty plea, 28 members of their family signed agreements with the United States to sever ties to narco-trafficking and to surrender assets to the Colombian government.
“Today’s action demonstrates the successful use of targeted sanctions, which have destroyed the Rodriguez Orejuela brothers’ business empire,” said Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control Adam J. Szubin in a statement.
“The sustained economic pressure on the Cali cartel, at its height the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world, stemmed from close coordination between multiple U.S. law enforcement agencies and our Colombian counterparts,” Szubin said.
The Cali cartel has been replaced by other drug trafficking groups, even as Colombia has made strides to reduce drug violence and reclaim cities and other parts of the country that were once controlled by cartel gangs and rebel factions that aided trafficking.
In recent years, U.S. authorities say there’s been the rise of so-called Bandas Criminales, criminal gangs who operate trafficking businesses.
A senior Treasury official, in a conference call with reporters Thursday, acknowledged the drug trade remains robust, but said: “It’s a very significant thing to take down a cartel.”
The official said the newer organizations are more manageable for authorities to deal with.
Treasury’s OFAC also says the action illustrates that the sanctions list is always under review. It has removed more than 800 persons from its specially designated nationals and blocked persons sanctions list since 2012 and more than 1,300 in the past seven years.
by tyler | Feb 21, 2024 | CNN, politics
President Barack Obama announced Thursday he is sending up to 300 military advisers to Iraq, and could down the road authorize targeted military action, if necessary.
Advisers will help train and support Iraqi forces, while gathering intelligence on the militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which has taken several cities in the north and west of Iraq.
Obama said such action was necessary to help prevent a civil war in Iraq that could destabilize the region, and also prevent creation of a terrorist safe haven.
One aircraft carrier and five warships are already positioned in the Persian Gulf, U.S. drones are flying intelligence missions over Iraq and military sources tell CNN a list of ISIS targets has been compiled.
Special forces teams will arrive in Iraq soon. They could ultimately assist in calling in airstrikes, if they are authorized.
“Going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it,” Obama said on Thursday.
Without deploying combat troops – which Obama has ruled out – how could the United States take further military action?
Airstrikes: Air power is the most talked about option to target ISIS fighters who have seized cities in northwestern Iraq and could advance into Baghdad.
Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, which could facilitate an emergency evacuation of U.S. personnel in Iraq, would also enable missile strikes or bombing.
Striking from the air could hamper the movement of ISIS fighters, said Karl Mueller, associate director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources program at RAND Arroyo Center.
Airstrikes would “help stem the advancing tide of ISIS, mainly by striking their forces advancing toward Baghdad or other cities not already under their control,” he said.
Targeted strikes could help shift the momentum from ISIS fighters to Iraqi soldiers and could be highly effective and low risk, Mueller said.
As during the 2011 intervention in Libya, ground forces are unlikely to pose a significant threat to U.S. air power and ISIS’s air defenses “would likely be even weaker,” Mueller said.
American bombing would not only give Iraqi forces the upper hand against ISIS, but could provide a much-needed “psychological boost” to Iraqi forces after soldiers abandoned their posts in Mosul, which was quickly captured by ISIS.
Another benefit? U.S. airstrikes would be achievable without deploying U.S. military personnel near the ground targets, CNN military analyst retired Gen. James “Spider” Marks said.
While some have raised concerns that an air campaign could result in a high number of civilian casualties, Marks called ISIS a “very conventional force,” boasting armored vehicles, artillery and ammo stockpiles.
Precision strikes would be difficult to call in without forces on the ground, but the advisers Obama is now deploying could fulfill that task, CNN military analyst Rick Francona said.
U.S. special forces would be “in a great position to call in any air strikes,” Francona said.
Retired Army Gen. Mark Kimmitt called airstrikes “one of the best guarantees” to keep Iraq in one piece, but argued that ISIS is more focused on consolidating their gains and may not be interested in pushing into Baghdad.
“It’s highly unlikely that they have either the manpower or the capability – or quite frankly the desire – to go well south into the southern, predominantly almost exclusively Shia areas,” Kimmitt said.
Drones: What if Obama decides he doesn’t want U.S. pilots flying over Iraq at all?
Drones have already been at the forefront of the U.S.’s fight against terrorism in the Middle East and perhaps the most recognizable weapon of the Obama administration’s policy in countries like Yemen and Pakistan.
But drones are best used to strike small, specific targets like vehicles and individual suspected terrorists and several military officials have told CNN that drone strikes would have a limited impact on a force like ISIS.
Drones would help U.S. military officials fill the intelligence gap they need to seal in order to strike ISIS precisely, effectively and with limited civilian casualties.
Experts and critics have cited the lack of updated military intelligence in ISIS-controlled areas as a hindrance to identifying specific targets.
And the Pentagon has ramped up drone surveillance over northern and western Iraq since ISIS took several cities.
But some say that is not enough.
On the ground, intelligence-gathering: Obama has ruled out sending troops “back into combat.”
Plans for advisers are similar to those that retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command, called for Monday on CNN.
“They can provide some of that ground intelligence … that we’re lacking,” he said. “They also can control airstrikes if necessary. They can function as advisers.”
Zinni suggested the elite forces could work with Iraqi forces as well as with Kurdish fighters who recently seized control of the northern, oil-rich city of Kirkuk and are also battling the Islamist militants.
Gen. Mark Hertling also called intelligence-gathering essential to distinguish between ISIS fighters and civilians.
“Intelligence is the driver. You can’t drop bombs or hit targets without intelligence,” Hertling said. “In order to get intel, especially in a nation that’s like Iraq, you have to have people seeking that intel on the ground. It just can’t come from satellite photos, or an airplane moving at 200 knots above a target and say: ‘Hey, that’s good enough, let’s drop a bomb.’”
To those urging Obama to take swift military action to strike ISIS, Hertling has a message: easier said than done.
He urged caution, warning that without more intelligence, U.S. strikes could hit civilians.
“And as soon as the first bomb or the first strafing run hits a school bus or a car full of civilians, then the Americans are to blame for that,” he said.
But sending advisers could just be a first step to a larger U.S. mission in Iraq, experts warned.
“This is the first step. This is how you get drawn into these situations,” Francona, a CNN military analyst, said.
Cooperating with Iran: Obama also said that Iran can play a constructive role in Iraq if it is not “coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the Shia.”
Iran deployed about 500 Revolutionary Guard troops to help the Iraqi government.
But Iran’s growing influence in Iraq continues to worry experts and U.S. officials as Iran’s involvement risks further inflaming sectarian tensions already at a boiling point in the region.
As Iranian planes fly through Iraq to arm the Syrian regime and as the war in Syria swells into neighboring countries, experts are warning of a possible regional war between Sunnis and Shiites.
To keep Iraq from breaking into pieces, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States would consider communicating with Iran to kill the advance of ISIS militants.
Kerry is heading to Iraq for consultations on the situation there.
“We’re open to discussions if there’s something constructive that can be contributed by Iran,” he said in an interview with Yahoo News, responding to a question about cooperating with the Iranian military. “I think we need to go step by step and see what, in fact, might be a reality.”
Kerry clarified Thursday that the United States is only “interested in communicating with Iran” and sharing information to prevent mistakes.
But the powder-keg situation in Iraq has convinced even one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate to consider working with Iran.
“The Iranians can provide some assets to make sure Baghdad doesn’t fall,” Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said.
Meghan O’Sullivan, a former deputy national security adviser, agreed that a coordinated effort in Iraq between the U.S. and Iran might benefit both sides.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress coordination with Iran would not be a first as the United States had previously “worked with the Iranians on that western border in Afghanistan.”
Others worried that a collaboration with Iran could further alienate Sunni Iraqis who are already weary of the Iraqi government or Iran’s regional rivals.
House Speaker John Boehner said the U.S. should rule out any partnership with Iran.
“I can just imagine what our friends in the region, our allies will be thinking by reaching out to Iran at a time when they continue to pay for terrorists and foster terrorism not only in Syria, in Lebanon but in Israel as well,” Boehner said.
Obama announces military advisers going to Iraq
Transcript: Obama’s remarks on U.S. response to Iraq crisis
Obama: Military advisers will go to Iraq, but U.S. not returning to combat
by tyler | Feb 21, 2024 | CNN, politics
Former President George W. Bush left the White House more than five years ago and has since stayed out of most Washington debates. But it would be hard to tell that if you have been listening to Hillary Clinton over the past month.
From defending her record at the State Department to defining her economic vision, Clinton has used Bush as her primary rhetorical device to both explain her vision for the future and defend her past.
“The biggest accomplishment in the four years as secretary of state was helping to restore American leadership and we did that in a number of ways,” Clinton said earlier this month before faulting Bush for the U.S. standing on the world stage when he left the White House in 2009.
Democrats have always been fond of faulting Bush and it was part of President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.
But the fact that Clinton, who is admittedly thinking about running for president in 2016, is attacking him says as much about how she views her future as it does about the state of the Republican Party.
The former first lady has started pointing to the Bush administration when talking about the turmoil in Iraq, too.
When pressed about Obama removing troops from the country, Clinton regularly points out – and did so at a CNN town hall on Tuesday – that the withdrawal decision was made by Bush, not Obama.
When asked earlier this month in New York about troops in Iraq and the failure to get a status of forces agreement, Clinton said, “The deadline on Iraq was set by the prior administration, that if there were not a status of forces agreement… there would not be American troops.”
Strategy not without problems
Democrats close to Clinton love the Bush lines.
“Seems to me Hillary thinks George W. Bush was a terrible President,” Paul Begala, a CNN contributor and a longtime Clinton confidant, said before enumerating a number of ways he feels Bush failed, including two “botched” wars, turning “a massive surplus into a crippling debt” and presiding “over an economic collapse.”
“I hope she keeps it up,” Begala said.
But the strategy does not come without problems.
While Bush was unpopular in office – and still is with Democrats – his standing has improved since leaving Washington.
His overall approval rating hit a seven-year high in 2013 with 47% of Americans approving how he handled his tenure. While 50% said they disapproved, the trend has been been up in recent years. Most presidents experience this when they leave the job.
By bashing Bush, Clinton is also looking backward. Her book tour/campaign has carefully tried to keep her looking forward.
She told an audience in Canada on Wednesday that she doesn’t think much about her legacy because she is “very present-oriented and future-oriented.”
Republicans see any strategy that has Clinton looking backward as a winner for them.
“She is the personification of a political system that voters believe needs new blood and new energy,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and former Mitt Romney spokesman.
“So looking back, Clinton may feel that she has an advantage because she gets to point fingers at George W. Bush, but it is problematic for a candidate who is essentially part of the status quo for the last 25 years,” Madden said.
People close to Clinton reject that idea.
“Part of charting a new course for the future is a clear-eyed assessment of where we are and how we got here,” Begala said. “Hillary is simply speaking her mind. Radical candor – I love it.”
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
For Clinton, bashing Bush might be more than just a standard red and blue tactic, though.
In front of a liberal audience at the New America Foundation in Washington last month, Clinton brought out her most fiery Bush rhetoric.
The speech was, in part, an attempt to make inroads with progressive Democrats, some of whom have been apprehensive about Clinton’s more moderate positions.
Bush, she said, “allowed the evolution of an entire shadow banking system that operated without accountability” and failed “to invest adequately in infrastructure, education, basic research and then the housing crash, the financial crisis hit like a flash flood.”
Clinton then went on to say that the Bush years showed that “we can turn surpluses into debt, we can return to rising defects, that is what happens when your only policy prescription is to cut taxes for the wealthy.”
CNN contributor and progressive activist Sally Kohn said if she were in Clinton’s camp, bashing Bush “is exactly what I would be doing.”
Kohn is an outspoken Clinton critic. In a recent CNN opinion piece she asked, “Does Hillary Clinton have to be so boring?”
Other than changing her positions on a number of fundamental issues, Kohn said, siding with the left by showing her distaste for a shared bogeyman could be effective.
“He is a universally known quantity,” Kohn said. “It is a way for her to run against something that is concrete because she can’t run against President Obama.”
To Kohn, Bush is Clinton’s foil against the left. She shows that she shares their opinion on him, but subtly says to progressives that she doesn’t “want too much noise or else” you will get another Bush.
Don’t elevate anyone current
Few president run for elected office again and Bush seems more content these days with painting than politicking.
And Clinton knows that. By focusing on Bush, Clinton isn’t elevating any other potential rivals who don’t have the name recognition she does.
When Clinton is asked about gridlock in Washington or the lack of legislation getting passed on Capitol Hill, she regularly mentions House or congressional Republicans in general terms and never mentions some of her possible 2016 contenders – like Sen. Ted Cruz or Sen. Rand Paul – by name.
“There is no distinctive Republican head of the party for her to post up against,” Madden said. “So she is again going to this habitual reflex: Just blame Bush.”
On the contrary to Clinton, Republicans like Cruz and Paul are ready and willing to be mentioned with Clinton.
Paul regularly jumps at the opportunity to fault Clinton and frequently says the Benghazi terrorist attack should disqualify Clinton from holding higher office in the future.
Asked about Paul’s attacks last week, Clinton told ABC that “He can talk about whatever he wants to talk about. And if he decides to run, he’ll be fair game too.”
Clinton did not, however, refer to Paul by name in her answer.
Cruz, too, is eager to confront Clinton.
“Secretary Clinton from the beginning has stonewalled on this rather than acting as a partner getting to the bottom of what happened,” the Texas Republican said on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” after the town hall.
This strategy, Madden says, helps elevate their profile on a level with hers and may be the most potent way to build “a strong national profile as a potential Republican candidate.”
