Islamists March On Baghdad 

A few days ago, we reported that Al Qaeda is on the verge of taking control of Iraq. The Iraqi government has been desperately asking for our help. They didn't ask for troops, but instead requested American air strikes.

The New York Times reports that American security experts visiting Iraq "were being told that Iraq's top leaders were hoping that American air power could be used to strike the militants' staging and training areas." That was way back in March. 

While the world was watching developments in Syria and Ukraine, Iraq continued to unravel. On May 16th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called Vice President Joe Biden and again requested U.S. air support.  

But according to the Times, "Iraq's appeals … have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over … in 2011." He not only insisted it was over, he took credit for the "victory." 

This is no way to conduct foreign policy or handle America's national security. Wars don't end based on arbitrary timetables. The enemy gets a vote too. Al Qaeda is not decimated and on the run. It is on the rise while our reputation is on the run. 

Mosul and Tikrit fell this week to the jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Today the jihadists are preparing to assault Baghdad because the White House refused to use U.S. air power months ago when it could have made a difference. This is happening not because Obama ended the war -- he didn't end it. Al Qaeda and its allies are still fighting. 

Tell Me What You Think 

I spend a lot of time with conservatives of all stripes. The overwhelming majority of them still want a strong national defense, but there is a growing quasi anti-interventionist mood, partly driven by distrust of our current commander-in-chief. 

Meanwhile, the world continues to experience events which will have major ramifications. If Iraq falls to Al Qaeda, oil and gas prices will immediately skyrocket, striking another blow against our weak economy. That in turn will bolster oil-rich Russia, which will gain influence if Iraqi energy production collapses. 

Far worse, however, is the rapid spread of radical Islamic groups across the Middle East, which are gaining more breeding ground for jihadists who want to bring to America another, much worse 9/11. 

Remember the reaction in Iran to Obama's West Point address? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told political and military leaders, "They have renounced the idea of any military actions." He said that under a banner that boasted, "America cannot do a d--- thing." It seems the ISIS heard that message too. 

At the very least, I hope developments in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Russia, Iran and China will silence the small but growing number of people on the right who are siding with the left in targeting the Pentagon for major budget cuts. This is not the time to gut our defense budget. 

What do you think? Do you support U.S. air strikes in order to save Baghdad and Iraq from falling to Al Qaeda? If not, why not? Use this link to respond. I'll share the results of our informal survey with our friends on Capitol Hill. 

Hagel On The Hill 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was grilled yesterday for nearly five hours by members of the House Armed Services Committee regarding the Bergdahl/Taliban 5 deal. While admitting that aspects of the deal were mishandled by the administration, he still defended the trade of five Taliban leaders for a possible deserter.

Here are two things that jumped out at me during his testimony: 
 

• The White House's excuse for breaking the congressional notification law was that it had to act quickly to save Bergdahl's life and/or health. That leaves the impression that they had mere days. But this deal was in the works for months. CBS News reports that talks with the Taliban "were restarted in September 2013," and "picked up again in April." The White House had plenty of time to comply with the law. 

  As Byron York notes, the purpose of the notification requirement isn't just to give Congress a "heads up." The notification requirement also includes five specific requirements so that Congress has an opportunity to evaluate and react to any terrorist transfers. Classified assessments determined that "only one of the five released detainees was considered likely to end active participation" with the Taliban. Providing Congress with precisely that kind of information is why the law required notification. 
   

• Hagel was also asked whether or not any American soldiers were killed while looking for Bergdahl. He said, "I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl." Hagel is splitting hairs and his answer is offensive to the families whose loved ones were killed looking for Bergdahl. 

  Members of Congress should not let this go. They should call the soldiers of his platoon up to testify. Since they are already violating non-disclosure agreements, let's get their side of the story, on the record, and find out why they were even forced to sign those agreements in the first place. Let's hear from the families of Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen, Pfc. Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Lt. Darryn Andrews, Pfc. Matthew Martinek and Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey. 

  The more the American people learn about this deal, the less they like it. A new Rasmussen poll proves the point and underscores the need for continued leadership on the issue. A week ago, Rasmussen found the public split 40%-to-43% against the swap. Now just 29% support it while 54% oppose it. That's a 22-point swing in a week. 

  * * * * *

  If you are interested in receiving Mr. Bauer's daily report by e-mail, please call 703-671-9700, visit SIGN UP FOR GARY BAUER'S "END OF DAY REPORT" or simply send a reply e-mail titled "Subscribe" and include your name and address. 

  Visit End of Day archives to share reports on Facebook. Follow Gary On Facebook And Twitter.