Obama announces expanded air strikes against Isis in Iraq and Syria – speech live updates

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has issued a statement about the president’s speech, in which he makes a special call for a coalition to work together with the US:

President Obama laid out a strong, comprehensive strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy Isil, and the United States military is prepared to carry out its responsibilities in this counter-terrorism campaign.

The men and women of the US armed forces are ready to carry out the orders of our commander in chief, to work with our partners across government, and to work with our friends and allies around the world to accomplish this mission.

As the president made clear, American military power cannot alone eradicate the threats posed by Isil to the United States, our allies, and our friends and partners in the region Iraq’s continued political progress toward a more inclusive government will be critical, as will our coalition’s use of all instruments of power – military, law enforcement, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, and humanitarian assistance – in coordination with countries in the region.”

During a conference call with reporters before the president’s speech, senior administration officials elaborated on the course of action from the US and its partners.

Officials confirmed “there will be action in Syria”, and that the US “will do that as necessary, as we develop targets and as we continue a systematic air campaign, we will not be restricted by a geographic border that frankly does not exist anymore.”

They also explained that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is “committed” to a program to train and equip anti-Isis forces, to be hosted in Saudi Arabia and to proceed without the presence of US personnel.

Of the president’s legal authority, they reiterated the administration position that he has “constitutional and statutory authority [with regard to] national security operations and the threat posed by Isil”.

They went on to tell reporters that Obama took so long to arm members of the Syrian opposition because the “timing for the president was [about] getting it right. He does not shoot first and ask questions later. … Frankly one of the reasons we didn’t want to rush to provide arms to the Syrian opposition was we didn’t want arms to end up in the hands of [groups like] Isil. Now we have two years of relationships [with others in the Syrian opposition].”

Another Republican leader has praised Obama’s speech – Representative Mike Rogers, chair of the House intelligence committee and among the most hawkish in Congress. He issued a statement:

The president is to be commended for his decision to take action against Isil targets, wherever they are, including Syria.

“Much of Isil’s leadership, command and control, and safe haven are inside Syria. As many of us have stated for months, Isil cannot be defeated without taking action in both Iraq and Syria.

“Of course, a commander in chief’s decision to take military action is among the most difficult. This threat has been growing for three years, and I have no doubt that the United States is less safe today than at any time since 9/11. Isil is only one of several Islamic extremist threats against America.

“We need a comprehensive strategy to defeat the terrorist ecosystem that is growing from Africa to the Middle East and into south Asia.

“The president’s plan announced this evening is an encouraging step in the right direction. Success will depend on the details of its implementation. I will work with my colleagues and the Administration to make sure it is implemented in a manner that ensures US success.”

Elaborating on the president’s omissions, Spencer Ackerman questions the lack of any timetable for the campaign against Isis. He warns that this is “clearly an open-ended commitment from a president who pledged last year to get the US off a perpetual war footing”.

Conspicuous by its absence in Barack Obama’s war speech was any reference to a timeline for successful completion. The closest Obama came was to say his new, expanded strategy will “take time” – whatever that means.

This was a far different Obama than the one who said in 2008 that US combat brigades could responsibly leave Iraq in 16 months. It’s also a far different Obama than the one who said the Afghanistan surge could begin to end in July 2011. In the Afghanistan case, at least, Obama meant to pressure the Afghan government; in Iraq he now has the government he wanted (in Syria, not so much).

The Pentagon hasn’t given a name to what might be called Iraq War III (The SyRaq war?), but this conflict risks outlasting Obama’s presidency– and particularly because of its amorphous end-state. Obama wants to “degrade and ultimately destroy”, and that’s the sort of thing that means different things depending on which word you emphasize.

Spencer goes on to note the administration’s ominously ambiguous semantics:

“Degrade” is satisfied by rolling back Isis’ territory, but not bounded by how much Isis has to lose. “Ultimately destroy” is even slipperier: it suggests that the end of Isis is optional, something that may occur at an unknown point, rather than at the conclusion of a specific and coherent series of military and political efforts.

Asked on a conference call with reporters what it meant, a senior US official put it in terms of ultimately destroying the threat Isis poses – which suggests that US strategy could actually live with a weakened Isis limping along.

No wonder there’s no attached expiration date for the latest US war in the Middle East.

In his speech, President Obama left out or did not elaborate on a number of major strategic issues:

• A timeline for military operations in Iraq and/or Syria.
• A specific end-date for operations.
• A description of which Syrian opposition groups with which the US will partner.
• A description of what would come after the objective of Isis’s destruction.
• Specifics of what partners in the region and Nato will do to assist operations against Isis (administration officials have provided some details, however).

Congressional leaders started responding to the speech, with two major figures from both sides of the aisle applauding the president’s speech in subdued tones.

John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House, has praised Obama’s speech in a backhanded manner, saying the president “finally [has] begun to make the case the nation has needed him to make for quite some time”.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, says: “I applaud him for recognizing the seriousness of the threat and for going on the offense against this threat.”

Though Obama made a particular point of the US effort to help Yazidis on and near Mount Sinjar, which was besieged by Isis a few weeks ago, Yazidis still stranded on the mountain are in dire need of weapons and aid.

An ongoing humanitarian crisis is still taking place on Mount Sinjar, where some 4,000-5,000 Yazidis remain. Yazidis on the mountain told the Guardian of scenes of “starving children”, sickness, fear and a life trapped among rocks and crevices on the south slope, away from the escape route to the north.

“I heard a lot about US planes dropping aid to the Yazidi refugees stranded on the mountain, but I swear to God I have not got anything till today,” one refugee told the Guardian, while a Yazidi fighter said: “We need weapons now more than food or water.”

You can read the special report here.

Spencer Ackerman, the Guardian’s national security editor, notes that Obama has declared he has the authority to wage war against Isis, though he “welcomes” congressional action and approval. Spencer continues:

The wellspring for that authority? The 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al-Qaeda, which the administration interprets to cover Isis, even though al-Qaeda has officially rebuked and split with al-Qaeda. It’s also an authorization Obama said last year should eventually be repealed.

For more on the administration’s legal reasoning see this new and longer piece.

And with that Obama has finished speaking, authorizing strikes in Syria, promising a ramped up air assault in Iraq, and promising additional troops, arms, intelligence coordination with Iraq and coalition partners in the Middle East and Nato.

“When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here’s what one of them said: ‘We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.’

“That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for: timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the earth.

“May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.”

“America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding.

“Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. I do so as a commander in chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform: pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East, and service members who support our partners on the ground.”

“Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny.

“It is America. Our scientists, our doctors, our know-how, that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people, or the world, again.

“And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance and a more hopeful future.”

“My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. Next week marks six years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks, through the pain we have felt and the gruelling work required to bounce back, America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on earth.

“Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day. And that makes me more confident than ever about our country’s future.”

“This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out Isil wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to the international order.”

“My administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I have the authority to address the threat from Isil. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

“Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like Isil. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved – especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions.

“But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

“So this is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners.

“Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid.

“Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands.

“This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom; and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.”

“Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization.

“This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.”

“Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent Isil attacks.

“Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. And in two weeks I will chair a meeting of the UN security council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.”

“Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against Isil, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost.

“Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like Isil, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.”

“I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them, with strength and resolve. Last month I ordered our military to take targeted action against Isil to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed Isil fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

“But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. That’s why I’ve insisted that additional US action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days.

“So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.”

“In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists, Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

“So Isil poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, Isil leaders have threatened America and our allies.

“Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners, including Europeans and some Americans, have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.”

“Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and north Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is Isil, which calls itself the Islamic State.

“Now let’s make two things clear: Isil is not ‘Islamic’. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of Isil’s victims have been Muslim. And Isil is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaida’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. Isil is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

Three former US military commanders have weighed how they would go about fighting Isis.

One, retired admiral James G Stavridis, proposes cutting off Isis’ resources of ammunition, fuel and financial support. He lays out strategies of a three-front war and aggressive hunting of Isis’ funding.

Both Michael D Barbero, a retired lieutenant general, and Paul D Eaton, a retired major general, propose setting up incentives for Sunnis to rally against Isis, and arming Iraqi and Kurdish forces, and Eaton points out how important diplomacy is to avoid a power vacuum.

You can read the full piece here.

Critics have attacked the president’s foreign policy from all sides in recent weeks, especially over his handling of Syria a year ago, which the Guardian’s Paul Lewis notes casts a shade of irony over tonight’s speech.

Obama will also likely describe to what extent Isis poses a threat to the US and its allies – a matter of much debate.

Senior Pentagon officials have called Isis an “apocalyptic” group, “beyond anything we’ve seen”, but US intelligence has also said that Isis is not comparable to “al-Qaida pre-9/11”. Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson said Wednesday that there is “no credible information that Isis is planning to attack the US”.

The White House described the new offensive plans as akin to the special forces operation against bin Laden, or the ongoing drone strikes against al-Qaida. A member of the House intelligence committee, Republican Mike Pompeo of Kansas, wrote that Isis presents an “existential threat to America.”

Of American-born fighters, US officials give conflicting numbers. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told CNN as many as 100 fighters with American passports are with Isis, while the departing director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center has said there are 100 Americans in all of Syria, some of which fight for Isis.

Wary of mission creep and campaigns without exit plans after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many Americans are concerned by the rhetoric coming from the White House.

In an op-ed, Trevor Timm sees parallels in politicians’ maneuverings, and wonders “where to from here?”

Well, those airstrikes the public have been scared into supporting, which already numbering the hundreds, will reportedly expand fast – not only in Iraq but into Syri. The White House even has shiny new euphemism for such military attacks, as the Wall Street Journal reported: “Mr. Obama could green-light the new ‘sovereignty strikes’ in his address on Wednesday.” George Orwell would be proud.

You can read the full piece here.

President Obama will deliver his speech in a fraught political atmosphere, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, two months before congressional elections, and just over a year after he gave a speech about the US decision not to strike Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria.

According to the White House, President Obama does not believe he needs congressional approval for the “next, more offensive” campaign against Isis, but many in Congress support a broader assault regardless. Some Republican hawks, including those who met with former vice-president Dick Cheney on Tuesday, believe the US should recommit ground troops. Many Republicans have pushed for intervention in Syria and Iraq, though the party also has a faction that is increasingly isolationist.

Some Democrats, meanwhile, fear that a perception of the president as weak abroad will affect their chances at re-election, and many on both sides of the aisle would rather not be forced to vote on what could be a decision with controversial long-term consequences. A Washington Post poll found that 71% of Americans support increased air strikes against Isis.

The White House has framed the offensive against Isis as a “counter-terrorism operation”, but in recent weeks the Pentagon has expressed doubts as to what shape a campaign should take.

Obama has said that “this is not the equivalent of the Iraq war” and pledged no “boots on the ground”. The presumed crux of a new strategy against Isis would be air strikes in Syria, which administration sources say Obama will authorize.

Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the group “will have to be addressed on both sides of what is at this point essentially a non-existent border”. He and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that Isis “can be contained, but not in perpetuity”. Both men demurred about new intervention would look like.

Earlier in August, a senior Pentagon official told the Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) that limited air strikes would have only a minimal impact on Isis, slowing it’s advance but doing little to dismantle it.

The US has several bases in the Persian Gulf and an aircraft carrier, the USS George HW Bush, in the region, along with other navy vessels. A New York Times report also described efforts to partially restructure Iraq’s military so that regional governors can command locally drawn national guard, paid by the government.

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Baghdad this week to galvanise support in the Middle East. He will also attend talks in Saudi Arabia with ministers from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the six Gulf states. Jordan will likely use its intelligence and special forces, and Turkey is set to figure largely as well. Guardian Middle East editor Ian Black has more:

The Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis and Qataris – all sworn enemies of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria – are being asked to crack down hard on the movement of money and men to join Isis. The Saudis in particular have been advertising arrests of suspected terrorists in recent weeks. Kerry is likely to press them for funds for Sunni fighters – initially in Iraq – who can take on the jihadis.

The US hopes that Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia can influence Sunni Iraqis and draw them away from extremist groups fueling tensions with Shia Iraqis. Iran, a rival of Saudi Arabia, has sent its General Qassam Suleiman to coordinate Iraqi militias against Isis, and holds enormous influence in Baghdad.

The president will likely tout the US-led international coalition to fight Isis, and has repeatedly said no US ground troops will engage in combat with the jihadis – insisting that regional partners take up that mantle.

Last week Obama announced a “core coalition” of 10 Nato countries, each willing to aid but none willing to deploy “boots on the ground”; Australia did say it would be “prepared to participate” in air strikes. The group includes the US, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark.

Protecting US personnel in Irbil and Baghdad and boosting Kurdish and Iraqi counteroffensives have made up the bulk of US operations in Iraq since June, but the open-ended nature of these objectives has come under criticism.

Since June, US intervention in Iraq has comprised more than 150 air strikes, first launched to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect US personnel in Irbil. Strikes have since expanded to include areas near the Mosul dam and Irbil, where Kurdish peshmerga forces have been fighting for weeks. US objectives have expanded to include “protecting ‘critical’ Iraqi infrastructure”.

The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) accounted for the strength and locations of known US forces in Iraq last week.

Of the more than 1,200 special forces and military “advisers” deployed in Iraq, nearly 1,000 are protecting the US embassy and acting in Baghdad, and 87 special operations advisers are in the Kurdish city of Irbil, near the frontlines with Isis. The article here documents all 1,211, and notes the legal disputes surrounding US deployment under the War Powers Acts.

The US and UK have both been delivering aid and arms to Kurdish forces, who face Isis militants armed with heavy vehicles and weaponry, sometimes US-made, captured from the Iraqi and Syrian armies.