US sends missiles and drones to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq

More confused and confusing foreign policy from the Obama administration.

While the State Department is “considering” forging closer ties with “rebel” jihadists in Syria, the same Obama administration just dispatched 75 Hellfire missiles to fight al-Qaeda jihadists in Iraq.

From Lockheed Martin:

The HELLFIRE II missile is a combat–proven tactical missile system that can be launched from multiple air, sea, and ground platforms. Offering multi–mission, multi-target capability and precision–strike lethality, the HELLFIRE II missile is the primary 100 lb class air–to–ground precision weapon for the armed forces of the United States

The question must also be asked:

I thought the U.S. war in Iraq had ended?

Didn’t Obama travel to Fort Bragg on December 21, 2011 and there, with great fanfare, marked the exit of the last American troops from Iraq, officially ending nearly nine years of war there and leaving Iraq’s future in the hands of its people?

Hellfire II missileHellfire II missile

Iran’s Press TV reports (via, Dec. 27, 2013:

The United States is providing Iraq with missiles and surveillance drones to counter attacks by al-Qaeda, according to US and Iraqi officials.

A shipment of 75 Hellfire missiles was sent to Iraq last week and 10 ScanEagle reconnaissance drones are scheduled to be delivered by March 2014.

Scan Eagle droneScanEagle reconnaissance drone on catapult launcher

‘The recent delivery of Hellfire missiles and an upcoming delivery of Scan Eagles are standard (foreign military sales) cases that we have with Iraq to strengthen their capabilities to combat this threat,’ a State Department spokeswoman said.

‘We remain committed to supporting the government of Iraq in meeting its defense needs in the face of these challenges,’ Jennifer Psaki added.

Hellfires are widely used by US forces to target al-Qaeda militants often targeting their hideouts or vehicles.

The weapons deliveries come as the US has been accused of adopting double standards and supporting the same militants in Iraq’s neighbor, Syria.

The US has been supplying weapons to militants in Syria, some of which have ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda-linked groups most notably the notorious al-Nusrah Front.

The US had already promised to deliver 18 F-16 fighter jets to Iraq, with the first delivery to take place in the fall of 2014 and the rest to be shipped over the course of two years.

Al-Qaeda-linked groups are seeking to destabilize Iraq with a growing number of systematic bombings in recent months, according to Iraqi officials.

On December 1, Iraq’s ministries of health and defense said that 948 people, including 852 civilians, 53 police officers and 43 soldiers, had been killed in violent attacks across the country in November.

The figures make November one of the deadliest months in 2013, with civilians accounting for about 90 percent of the fatalities.

The United Nations says at least 8,000 people have lost their lives in Iraq so far this year.

Iraq’s Interior Ministry has said that militants have launched an open war in Iraq and they want to push the Middle Eastern country into chaos.


10 responses to “US sends missiles and drones to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq

  1. Because the US is sellingt or giving weapons to Iraq doesn’t mean that we are “in” the Iraq war again. We removed American troops for Iraq, but we sell and/or give weapons to Iraq and many other nations in which we do not have ground troops.There is an important distinction to be made here. Insofar as Obama has a policy in the Middle East, this action does not conflict with it.


    • “Insofar as Obama has a policy in the Middle East, this action does not conflict with it.”

      Do tell us what that policy is, and how “this action does not conflict with it.”


      • The current Iraqi regime installed by GWB has been supported by the Obama administration. Using these missiles and drones against Al Qaeda forces in Iraq may (emphasis on “may”) reduce their effectiveness elsewhere. But nothing is simple in the Middle East. There are too many players and too many interrelationships to formulate a policy that can be enunciated in a few paragraphs.


        • Since you are a member of this Consortium, you are not delimited by “a few paragraphs” but can write an essay on Obama’s Middle East policy, which I will publish on CODA – immediately!


  2. Reblogged this on and commented:
    Very slick. Iraq. Strategic point for rapid deployment in Iran, or Sudan. Weaponry in the region will be escalated and the sock puppet media will remain mute to the buildup, as ordered.


  3. Pingback: U.S. Sends Missiles And Drones To Fight al-Qaeda In Iraq | Fortuna's Corner

  4. A. James Gregor, Ph.D. & Professor

    If anyone has a notion of what the Obama administration’s “Middle Eastern policy” might be, revealing it to the rest of us would be an illumination!


    • Nobody has any idea about what Obama’s policy goals are in the Middle East. He has no personal expertise in any foreign policy area and depends on whoever talked to him last. Biden and Kerry do have some expereince there, but they appear to have different outlooks, so Obama is not getting consistent advice good or bad. Obama just wants the whole Asian continent area to go away so he can focus on his domestic agenda. Hence his bumbling and fumbling on the China-Japan situation.

      I have often stated that there is no hectare of ground between the Suez Canal and the Indus River over which at least two groups do not have legitimate claims. As long as tribal and sectarian interests continue to prevail over national interests, the situation will remain the same. The Balkans on steroids.


    • Ditto! The inconsistencies reflected in the actions of the king and his administration provide no foreign policy whatsoever in the Middle East. It’s like they are playing Monopoly.


  5. A. James Gregor, Ph.D. & Professor

    Well articulated. There is no explicit “Obama policy” for the vast region between the Suez and the Indus. As those who will pay for the present administration’s non-policy, it behooves us to point out that there are parts of that non-policy that overtly and palpably conflict with other parts–and that aiding and abetting real or potential opponents in one place may not be compatible with what might be identified as the “generic interests” of the United States in another. What was the objection to the original posted information?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s