I find this exchange where the Defense Department tries to explain we are bombing in Iraq only for humanitarian reasons and to protect deployed American military and diplomatic personnel just ridiculous:
Q: ... And also on Tikrit, the Kurds and Iraqis seem to be having a hard time taking back Tikrit. Is it unlikely we'll see U.S. airstrikes because there's no humanitarian crisis here or an issue with U.S. personnel or facilities?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, I won't speculate about future operations, Tom, so we can just take that one right off the table. On the...
Q: It's been narrowed to humanitarian crisis, U.S. personnel, facilities?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We have two missions by which airstrikes are authorized. One is in humanitarian assistance operations and one is to protect U.S. personnel and facilities. That's the two -- those are the two guidelines. That's how decisions are made with respect to airstrikes. And again, I'm just not going to speculate about future operations.
Bombing jihadis in the Mosul region is okay. Bombing jihadis in the Tikrit region is not.
Imagine if we'd fought World War II with the theory that killing Nazis in Germany, France, and Belgium was okay, but not okay in Italy, Norway, and Denmark? With lawyers still scrutinizing the Netherlands and wondering what to do about Luxembourg?
And worse, tying our use of military force to humanitarian missions just encourages Russia to use the same reasoning in eastern Ukraine, doesn't it?
I heard this morning that Congress won't address current operations in Iraq because the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq still applies.
Well, yes. I appreciate that recognition that the war was not responsibly ended by executive declaration.
And the Islamic State nutballs sure seem at war with us, you must admit:
Islamic State militants posted a video on Tuesday that purported to show the beheading of American journalist James Foley in revenge for U.S. air strikes against the insurgents in Iraq.
Let's get on with the long job of killing jihadis in Iraq. Our hiatus and absence didn't improve matters.
UPDATE: Stories that Foley got. Before he was brutally murdered by thugs who deserve swift death before they do more damage to civilization.
UPDATE: It is possible Foley was a fool:
Daniel Greenfield is a reliable journalist, and he writes an article to spell out that Foley held the United States in contempt and had gone to Syria to associate with the Sunni rebels and help them overthrow Bashar Assad.
This makes the ISIL murder of Foley no less horrific.
It reminds us that the jihadis want to kill Westerners who oppose them, but they'll settle for Moslems who oppose them, Moslems slightly different than them, and fellow Arabs who aren't Moslems--and Westerners who have sympathy for them and perhaps sport one of those COEXIST bumper stickers.
Remember, as I wrote in 2004:
We indeed have traveled a long way since 9-11. Too many people are back to 9-10. They hate us, people. All of us. Not just the current administration. Not just the Red State citizens. Owning a bongo and tie-dyed shirts won’t save you. Nor will spouting sympathy for their cause. We’re all targets and they’ll dance over our graves if we let them.
But it isn't okay to kill even our fools.
The only good jihadi is a dead jihadi. And even the JV squads want to kill in the big leagues.
