This is nice:
U.S. and nine key allies agreed Friday that the Islamic State group is a significant threat to NATO countries and that they will take on the militants by squeezing their financial resources and going after them with military might.
The "core" is:
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the group would be the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey.
It will need to get bigger to match the level our "unilateral" war in Iraq reached.
Britain, Australia, and Poland were involved in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Turkey allowed limited American forces in Turkey (but refused to allow 4th Infantry Division to strike Iraq from the north), but otherwise didn't contribute despite talk of post-invasion participation.
Denmark and Italy provided troops during the counter-insurgency phase.
Canada, France, and Germany did not participate at all the last time (but they did contribute to the Afghan campaign after the Taliban were routed--Canada especially fought well and hard, suffering relatively heavy casualties).
I do not know what each country brings to the new coalition.
I extend my thanks to these countries for their willingness to help in Iraq.
If I may be so bold, if the public in these countries and others in Europe hadn't been such jerks about complaining about the America-led fight against the al Qaeda invasion of Iraq after we defeated Saddam, cheerleading for an anti-Bush to lead America, we wouldn't be here today seeking to re-defeat the jihadis in Iraq.
The same goes for the former "anti-war" Democrats who have suddenly become hawkish on jihadis in Iraq:
A week which began with a revolt among key Senate Democrats over the White House’s strategy, or lack thereof, to address the proliferating threats to American national security overseas has only accelerated over the last several days. On Wednesday, a number of Democrats publicly urged President Barack Obama to adopt a more hawkish approach to combating the threat posed by the Islamic State.
Yeah, maybe if you hadn't cheered President Obama on to "responsibly end" the Iraq War rather than remain to keep the Iraqis in order to wipe out the largely defeated al Qaeda in Iraq, you wouldn't have to urge our president to take on the surging jihadis in Iraq.
Note that this group includes Elizabeth Warren! (Funny, she doesn't look NeoConish ...)
I say, will the charge of "chicken-hawk" be revived to describe left-wing Democrats without military experience urging a tougher line on ISIL?
Will Cindy Sheehan's every utterance about the war again be broadcast live?
Will fake soldiers who don't even know how to wear a military uniform be listened to as speaking truth to power about the war?
Well, better late than never. If it makes these people feel better, resisting jihadis is the "real" front in the war on women. Better to fight it "over there"--again--so we don't actually have it "over here" in the West.
