Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 09:46 AM Sep 2014

Just released: Joint statement by Secys Kerry & Hagel on ISIL meeting with allies

Source: US Department of State

(posting in its entirety as it's a media/public release)

Joint Statement by Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel on the ISIL Meeting


Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 5, 2014

The following is a Joint Statement by Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel on the ISIL meeting:

Begin text:

This morning we had a meeting with some of our key allies and partners on the serious threat that ISIL poses to Iraq, the entire region, and the international community.

We and the Ministers agreed here today that there is no time to waste in building a broad international coalition to degrade and, ultimately, to destroy the threat posed by ISIL.

The formation of a new and inclusive government in Iraq will be a critical step in this effort. We are hopeful that this process can be completed over the coming days, and we discussed in detail how NATO allies can extend immediate support to a new government in its efforts to unify the country against ISIL.

To be effective, an international coalition to defeat ISIL must coordinate across multiple lines of effort. These include:

Military support to our Iraqi partners;
Stopping the flow of foreign fighters;
Countering ISIL's financing and funding;
Addressing humanitarian crises; and
De-legitimizing ISIL's ideology.

We discussed each of these lines of effort today, and how to build on the contributions that many NATO allies and partners are already making in Iraq.

We agreed to engage in an immediate conversation with a new Iraqi government about accelerating these efforts, including the potential for additional training and equipping of the Iraqi Security Forces at the federal, regional, and provincial level.

We also discussed further cooperation to address the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and noted the shared effort by the military forces of the United States, France, Australia, and the UK to deliver humanitarian supplies to the citizens of Amerli in northern Iraq. This town had been surrounded for two months by ISIL, but today is receiving humanitarian aid and supplies led by a UN team on the ground. Such a common effort will be essential as we move forward.

Across the other lines of effort, we and the ministers noted the strong Chapter 7 UN Security Council Resolution enacted last month that calls on all member states to take decisive action to stop the flow of foreign fighters, counter ISIL's financing, and combat its incitement. We agreed today that NATO allies in particular should work in concert towards these goals.

Specifically, we will form a multinational task force to share more information about the flow of foreign fighters into Syria and from Syria into Iraq. These foreign fighters represent an acute threat to our NATO allies. We also agreed to work in concert to stifle ISIL's sources of revenue, including any trade in petroleum products, and hold accountable those who violate international prohibitions on such trade.

As President Obama has said, the effort to degrade and destroy the threat posed by ISIL will take time and persistence. It will also require a unified approach at the international, regional, and local level – combining military, law enforcement, intelligence, economic, and diplomatic tools. Our NATO allies and partners today have confirmed their readiness to be a full part of this coordinated approach, and over the coming days, we will continue the discussion with our partners in the region, who have an important role to play across these lines of effort.

This effort will also be a focus of the UN General Assembly later this month as we work to establish a truly global coalition. Acting together, with clear objectives and common purpose, we will degrade and destroy ISIL capabilities – and ensure that it can no longer threaten Iraq, the region, and the world.

End text

Read more: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/09/231291.htm

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

blm

(112,919 posts)
3. This may be far more of a breakthrough than media realize at this point.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:31 AM
Sep 2014

Kerry quietly bringing along Iran and Syria to cooperate in this battle may break through the traditional policy barriers formed by their leaders and in that entire region.

Press has been pretty much ignoring Kerry's heavy lifting in that region including his close talks with Iran. They also ignore all the concessions Syria ended up making over the last 10 months.

Corpmedia's cabal of neocon 'experts' like to amplify anything they see as a misstep - but, in fact, they are the ones committing the missteps.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
4. They also ignore that he and later Biden were sent to speak to the Iraqis
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 10:53 AM
Sep 2014

At the time Kerry was sent, it seemed a pretty hopeless task to get the Iraqis to follow their own election process AND create an inclusive government. While they are not there yet and things could fail, pieces have fallen in place that most pundits were pretty skeptical about. I do not recall any media suggesting that the US could do this. In fact, they did - and as importantly - they did it without favoring any specific leader. ( Consider this incredibly self serving oped written by the man who recommended Maliki to Bush in the first place and then complains that Obama did not push him out! Note especially that he was - in this oped - again pushing the US to select Iraq's leader.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-stuck-with-maliki--and-lost-iraq/2014/07/03/0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html )

I hope that people on this site read this rather than just jump to the conclusion that this is at all similar to 2002/2003. In fact, "It will also require a unified approach at the international, regional, and local level – combining military, law enforcement, intelligence, economic, and diplomatic tools." sounds pretty much like what the Democratic nominee argued for as policy in 2004 -- and, at that time, was seen as not being as strong as Bush/Cheney's starting 2 wars that still are responsible for chaos in the countries where they were fought.

blm

(112,919 posts)
10. Some here show all the discernment of RW propaganda industry. None.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 12:58 PM
Sep 2014

In fact, I think some of the worst offenders are here to distort the debate deliberately.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
11. Not sure I agree
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 01:31 PM
Sep 2014

First of all, there much of the negativity is coming from the completely antiwar left, who are completely consistent with their positions against military force - now and since 2002! It is not fair to take their comments as anti Obama, RW - they aren't they simply are 100% suspicious of anything that threatens to use or uses military force.

There are also some who consciously or unconsciously do repeat the current RW , Republican and MSM meme that Obama failed to see this coming, failed to act when he could have and is still not responding fast enough. However, it may be their owned informed opinions, possibly influenced by Democratic politicians or pundits they respect. There are certainly many insiders - Democratic and Republican repeating these type of comments.

I suspect that the reason we have seen some Democrats running this year take a position - milder than the Republicans, but suggesting Obama has been "too timid" might be that they are willing to bet Obama's policy fails and they want to be seen as having taken a tougher position. While this may be good politics, it does weaken Obama - making success harder.

As to why for those running it could be seen as good politics is 1) if things get worse, they have to the degree they can decoupled themselves and 2) if it succeeds, they could even in a move of sheer chutzpah claim that Obama responded to all their calls to get tougher - even as Obama's policy has been pretty consistent. ie No downside.

Now, as a contrarian, I think both 1) and 2) really don't work. 1) I suspect that there really is no way that Democrats can genuinely separate themselves. Remember the Republicans tried in 2006 and 2008 with very little success. 2) They might have really upset some of the people who typically would be among those actually out there working for their election. Add to that the real damage they can do to Obama who is facing constant stories of how unpopular, unsuccessful he is and how "failed" his presidency is. Even if Ukraine and Iraq/ISIS greatly improve -- showing the wisdom of Obama's approach, it is not clear the negativity of the last year will be completely erased.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
13. Not really, but thanks
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 02:00 PM
Sep 2014

Here, I am just differentiating the antiwar from the others. In addition, because several Democratic politicians have made comments similar, though less strident, that Obama has been weak, I think it better to argue the case on the merits. If they are repeating what a Democratic Senator they admire or a former administration official has said, it is more productive to argue they are wrong, not right wing.

What I have unsuccessfully been trying to figure out why some Democrats think the best political play is to abandon their President when he really is doing exactly what has been the Democratic position on dealing with terrorism since 2004.

blm

(112,919 posts)
14. And I hope your efforts are appreciated.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 02:47 PM
Sep 2014

Your fuse is a long one, Karyn.....I am kinda jealous.......I have no fuse left. ; )

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
5. Had Russia done something belligerent during these talks, the media and Obama haters would have
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 11:01 AM
Sep 2014

swiftly condemned Obama and idolized Putin. There is no swift praise for what just happened and there will be none. Granted, we don't know if the agreement will hold but the resolve demonstrated by Obama in his address in Estonia has led Russia to blink IMHO.

Response to Triana (Original post)

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
9. "These foreign fighters represent an acute threat to our NATO allies." Someone should tell Turkey.
Fri Sep 5, 2014, 12:37 PM
Sep 2014

Turkey has a big responsibility in this mess. In its effort to intervene in the internal affairs of its neighbor, Syria, it has been a staging ground for ISIS and other rebels. It's the Turkish border with Syria where the jihadis are crossing to the battlefield. Turkey, don't help "acute threats" to your NATO buddies.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Just released: Joint stat...