114

The Rocky forces halted ISIS's advancement towards Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, which is significant for the presence of a US airbase here.
The White House and the Pentagon aimed to prevent Erbil from falling like Mosul.

On 08/07/2014, President Obama authorized an air campaign focused on two main objectives:
- To defend American forces in Iraq.
- To protect non-Sunni groups threatened by ISIS.
Initial air strikes targeted IS fighters and achieved the immediate goal of pushing them back from Erbil.

Obama announced this intervention publicly the following day, emphasizing his intent to avoid another war in Iraq, saying: "I will not allow The United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq."
IS had previously kidnapped two American journalists, James Foley and Stephen Sommel, creating a tense situation and escalating the stakes.

On 08/19/2014, ISIS released a video showing the murder of James Foley by beheading, using it to threaten the US.
Another video surfaced on 09/02/2014 showing the murder of Stephen Sommel. This put Obama’s previous comments about ISIS being a junior varsity version of Al Qaeda into question, especially following the loss of American lives.
Despite the causal sequence of ISIS actions following US intervention, Obama maintained a distinction between ISIS and 9/11 hijackers, asserting that ISIS did not pose a direct threat to American soil.

Obama described that ISIS warranted a military response calibrated to the threat level:
- Emphasizing that the response would involve airstrikes and support for Iraqi and Kurdish forces but would not escalate into a full ground war.

On 09/10/2014, while US airstrikes against ISIS were ongoing, they were still not officially named, though military action would persist for an extended period.
Obama’s focus emphasized the need to diminish ISIS, which he referred to as ISIL, as part of a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy.

Key points of Obama’s military strategy included:
- Sustained airstrikes targeting ISIL.
- Increased support for local forces combating ISIS.
- Acknowledgement of the importance of a multi-national coalition to maximize efficiency.
- Security for the US personnel and facilities in the region.

"As commander in chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people."
"ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocent, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim."

The overarching goal was to degrade and destroy ISIS through a concerted offensive and sustained military pressure, indicating military operations would occur beyond Iraq into Syria.
Obama announced:
- Additional 475 service members would be deployed to Iraq to aid in training and supporting local forces without engaging directly in combat.
- Further military support to the Syrian opposition.

Obama emphasized that the US would not assume the role of frontline fighters; they would support local efforts instead.
He reiterated that this campaign would differ from previous prolonged engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The nature of US involvement raised concerns about the potential for escalation and the limits of military engagement.

Discussion on the need for a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to address ISIS was raised, given the broken ties between Baghdadi’s forces and Al Qaeda.
Obama’s administration relied on pre-existing AUMF from post-9/11 permission, despite concerns that it might not apply directly due to the changed context of established organizations.

By October 2014, the allied coalition included over 60 countries cooperating in the effort against ISIS.
The operation was formally named Operation Inherent Resolve, with multi-national contributions from various countries including Canada, Australia, and several European nations.

The military situation highlighted the importance of the balance of power on the ground, which was crucial for the success of the strategy proposed by the US.
Obama insisted upon restraint and a strategic approach in order to avoid another military quagmire like previous conflicts in Iraq.

ISIS managed to capture Mosul and other significant cities, taking advantage of weaknesses in the Iraqi army and local support structures, revealing the effectiveness of their military and ideological strategies.
They declared a caliphate and advanced under the impression of establishing an Islamic state that transcended national borders, thus promoting recruitment both locally and internationally.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s sermon in Mosul served as a rallying point for new recruits, showcasing their emergence as a legitimate and formidable faction compared to previous extremist groups.
The ideological narrative propagated by ISIS effectively mobilized disenfranchised youth, appealing to fundamentalist beliefs and providing a sense of purpose amid social and economic disillusionment.

The rise of ISIS and their brutal tactics influenced regional and international dynamics, forcing nations to reconsider their geopolitical strategies, including cooperation with unaligned regional actors for broader anti-terrorism efforts.
The situation in Iraq shifted due to new Iraqi leadership under Prime Minister Haidar Abadi, creating a more cooperative environment for US intervention.

Obama’s complex stance against ISIS was characterized by a commitment to airpower and support for local capacities, thereby attempting to prevent a repeat of large-scale ground battles. The necessity for a recalibrated military strategy aligned against a different kind of enemy underscored the evolving landscape of conflict in the Middle East.
The ongoing intervention would be marked by scrutiny, debate, and the challenging task of balancing military action with diplomatic and humanitarian considerations as it sought to address the persistent threat posed by ISIS while fostering long-term stability within Iraq and Syria.