From Newsmax

Nearly 300 armed American forces are being positioned in and around Iraq to help secure U.S. assets as President Barack Obama nears a decision on an array of options for combating fast-moving Islamic insurgents, including airstrikes or a contingent of special forces.

The U.S. and Iran also held an initial discussion on how the longtime foes might cooperate to ease the threat from the al-Qaida-linked militants that have swept through Iraq. Still, the White House ruled out the possibility that Washington and Tehran might coordinate military operations in Iraq.

Obama met with his national security team Monday evening to discuss options for stopping the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Officials said the president has made no final decisions on how aggressively the U.S. might get involved in Iraq, though the White House continued to emphasize that any military engagement remained contingent on the government in Baghdad making political reforms.

Still, there were unmistakable signs of Americans returning to a country from which the U.S. military fully withdrew more than two years ago. Obama notified Congress that up to 275 troops would be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. The soldiers – 170 of which have already arrived in Iraq – were armed for combat, though Obama has insisted he does not intend for U.S. forces to be engaged in direct fighting.

“We are hard-wired into their system,” the fledgling democracy that America helped institute, said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. “We can’t walk away from it.”

About 100 additional forces are being put on standby, most likely in Kuwait, and could be used for airfield management, security and logistics support, officials said.

Separately, three U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers to Iraq. Their limited mission – which has not yet been approved – would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation’s north and west as the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011.

Taken together, the developments suggest a willingness by Obama to send Americans into a collapsing security situation in order to quell the brutal fighting in Iraq before it morphs into outright war.

If the U.S. were to deploy an additional team of special forces, the mission almost certainly would be small. One U.S. official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission – meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but would not officially be considered combat troops.

The White House would not confirm that special operations forces were under consideration. But spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that while Obama would not send troops back into combat, “He has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces.”

It’s not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It’s also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation’s north, where the Sunni Muslim insurgency has captured large swaths of territory ringing Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government.

The troops would fall under the authority of the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and would not be authorized to engage in combat, another U.S. official said. Their mission would be “non-operational training” of both regular and counterterrorism units, which the military has in the past interpreted to mean training on military bases, the official said.

However, all U.S. troops are allowed to defend themselves in Iraq if they are under attack.

The three U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the plans by name.

Obama made the end of the war in Iraq one of his signature campaign issues, and has touted the U.S. military withdrawal in December 2011 as one of his top foreign policy successes. But he has been caught over the past week between Iraqi officials pleading for help – as well as Republicans blaming him for the loss of a decade’s worth of gains in Iraq – and his anti-war Democratic political base, which is demanding that the U.S. stay out of the fight.

The crisis has sparked a rare alignment of interests between the U.S. and Iran, which wants to preserve Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government. The U.S. and Iran are engaged in sensitive nuclear negotiations and used a round of talks Monday in Vienna, Austria, to hold a separate bilateral discussion on Iraq.

While the U.S. and Iran have similar short-term goals in Iraq, they have different long-term aims. The United States would like to see an inclusive, representative democracy take hold in Iraq, while predominantly Shiite Iran is more focused on protecting Iraq’s Shiite population and bolstering its own position as a regional power against powerful Sunni Arab states in the Gulf.

Crocker said that Iran should “use all the influence” possible to keep the al-Qaida-style Islamic group from exacerbating the sectarian strife in Iraq.

Appearing Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” Crocker said if he’d have Secretary of State John Kerry “on a plane right now for Baghdad.”

“I would have liked to have seen more sustained, high-level diplomatic engagement with the Iraqis,” Crocker said. He said that for the country to have any change at survival there must quickly be a show of “Kurdish, Shia and Sunni” solidarity.

Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Washington must move immediately “to disrupt their ability to continue their operations.” He said the insurgents are holding sway currently and that “all the ingredients are going into the stew. We see it happening on our watch.”

Appearing on CNN, Rogers said he believes there still is time for the United States to make a difference, but that Washington must move now.

While the White House continues to review its options, Iran’s military leaders are starting to step into the breach.

The commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, was in Iraq on Monday and consulting with the government there on how to stave off insurgents’ gains. Iraqi security officials said the U.S. government was notified in advance of the visit by Soleimani, whose forces are a secretive branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that in the past has organized Shiite militias to target U.S. troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria’s President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels.

For more on this story go to: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iraq-troops-obama/2014/06/16/id/577428#ixzz34tsQSGaq

Related stories:

Don’t Blame Obama for Iraq

By Christopher Ruddy From Newsmax

Oh, the foreign policy woes of a president in his second term.

“Blame Obama” seems to be the mantra of the day, especially from the Republican side of the aisle, whether it be the Bergdahl-Taliban swap or the new crisis in Iraq.

Think for a moment about an American president who deals with the supporters of Islamic terrorism, a rogue organization dead set on killing Americans . . . with a history of having murdered hundreds of American servicemen.

That same American president decides he wants to open up a dialogue with them, and also actually sell them American arms!

Even though they have held American hostages, he sends emissaries to do a deal and doesn’t even bother informing Congress. No, this wasn’t Barack Obama, and it wasn’t the recent deal with the Taliban to free Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. This was the story of President Ronald Reagan and his behind-the-scenes deal with Iran in the mid-1980s.

So step back for a second and remember that time, just a few years after the diabolical Iranian hostage crisis when 66 Americans were held at gunpoint at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for 444 days.

Those same Iranians were implicated in the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 of our soldiers. But in 1985, Reagan thought he could use Iran’s influence to free American hostages in Lebanon while potentially opening a new dialogue with Tehran.

Thus, he authorized the sale of hundreds of anti-tank missiles and other weapons to the Iranians, who were then in a rather desperate war with Iraq.

At the time, the behind-the-scenes deal was not disclosed to Congress. But even worse, it later became clear that several Reagan administration officials had concocted a scheme by which profits from the sale of those missiles to Iran were diverted to support the anti-communist guerrillas in Nicaragua, known as the Contras, in direct contravention to federal law.

Hence was born the Iran-Contra scandal.

None of the critics of the recent Bergdahl-Taliban deal authorized by Obama are suggesting anything as nefarious here.

What they are suggesting is bad judgment. And in that I agree — the president cut a bad deal. But I don’t think it was an evil deal or a dishonest one in its intent.

Through the years I have generally given Obama high marks for his handling of foreign policy.

As president, Obama has enlarged and enhanced the global war on terror that President George W. Bush first developed. To President Bush’s credit, it laid the groundwork for more than a decade of surprising security and safety for Americans at home and abroad.

But remember the days in 2008 when Obama was campaigning against much of President Bush’s war on terror? He talked like a dove then but has ended up being quite a hawk.

Enter onto the stage the latest Iraqi crisis. Obama’s critics are now saying he’s to blame for that as well. The fact is, Obama asked Nouri al-Maliki’s government in Iraq to keep a residual U.S. force in place precisely to prevent what is occurring now.

Maliki refused.

America had given birth to a new sovereign Islamic republic in Iraq, and the U.S. can no longer dictate its decision-making, as bad as it may be. Sure, we can prop up the Maliki government for a short time with military intervention. But, in the long run, we will not be able to sustain an independent Iraq without the use of permanent American forces on the ground. The American public won’t support that option.

The rapid growth of ISIS did not materialize out of nothing. Billions of dollars of aid are flowing to this terrorist group helping to fashion them into a real army. U.S. policymakers would be wise to find out who is funding them — and cut off that funding.

On the home front, Republicans should remember if they complain about everything, they complain about nothing.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to criticize the president about. I have done, and will continue to do, my share. The president has overseen the longest recession U.S. history. The economy remains stagnant at best, total employment has declined to record lows, and Obamacare remains a massive drag on economic growth.

As for Obama, he could save us all a lot of aggravation by taking a lesson from Reagan. Faced with the Iran-Contra mess, Reagan went on national television to apologize for his bad judgment.

“I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration,” he said, adding that the American people “deserve the truth.”

Obama should admit that maybe the Taliban deal wasn’t the best for America, but his intentions were good.

For more on this story go to: http://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/maliki-iraq-contra-war/2014/06/16/id/577240#ixzz34ua013AG

Ex-CIA Official: Not in US Interest to work with Iran on Iraq

By Wanda Carruthers From Newsmax

It is not in the interest of the United States to work with Iran on trying to solve problems in Iraq due to the unrest posed by Islamic militant insurgents, said former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell.

Iran has indicated a willingness to work with the United States on the Iraqi conflict. Secretary of State John Kerry said he was open to the idea of working with Iran to find solutions to Iraq’s crisis.

“I do not believe it is in the interest of the United States for us to work with Iran,” Morell told CBS’ “This Morning” on Monday. “I don’t think we want to give Iran a foothold in Iraq.”

“We need to help the Iraqis. The moderate [Persian] Gulf states need to help the Iraqis. We need to keep the Iranians out of this,” he added.

Al-Qaida inspired militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have quickly seized regions in northern Iraq and overtaken the cities of Mosul, Tikrit, and Tal Afar, and are threatening the capital of Baghdad. President Barack Obama on Friday said he was weighing options for how the United States might respond to the crisis.

Morell described the conflict as a “long-term struggle going on in the Middle East between Iran and our allies, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the moderate Gulf states — a fight going on for influence.”

Morell blamed Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the crisis in that country.

“Maliki himself has created problems. He has created resentment among the Sunnis. That’s why they’re supporting ISIS. So, Maliki’s been a problem,” he said. “Maliki wouldn’t work with us for a couple of years after the withdrawal of U.S. forces.”

The unrest in Iraq is a “very, very big deal,” Morell said, with numerous implications. He said the conflict posed the potential for a “bloody sectarian war that kills civilians,” and presents a “broader risk to stability in the region.”

Additionally, he said, “The risk to the United States homeland is real,” and the possibility of Iraq breaking up has implications for the Kurds, who want to “form their own state.”

For more on this story go to: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Mike-Morell-Iran-Iraq-CIA/2014/06/16/id/577321#ixzz34uqqjdd2