Rep. Peter King said Sunday that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a direct threat to the American homeland and is now more powerful than Al Qaeda was on Sept. 11, 2001. 
 
 Responding to comments by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on NBC's "Meet the Press," the New York Republican said the group doesn't just threaten stability in Iraq. "They are more powerful now than Al Qaeda was on 9/11," he said, noting the loss of many of his constituents during the dual attacks on the World Trade Center. 
 
 Durbin said any U.S. military action beyond airstrikes wouldn't be advisable. 
 
 "This is not just Iraq," King added. ISIL is "a direct threat to the United States of America, and what Dick Durbin just said and what President Obama has said, is really a shameful abdication of American leadership." 
 
 The 2011 withdrawal of American troops in Iraq and President Barack Obama's lack of desire to take further action reflects poorly upon the current situation, King said. 
 
 "What a weak leader," the congressman said. "Can you imagine Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman [doing that]?" 
 
 Read more about: Iraq, Dick Durbin, Peter King ||||| Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, last year floated the idea that armed American-operated Predator or Reaper drones might be used to respond to the expanding militant network in Iraq. American officials dismissed that suggestion at the time, saying that the request had not come from Mr. Maliki. 
 
 By March, however, American experts who visited Baghdad 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 inside Iraq, and help Iraq’s beleaguered forces stop them from crossing into Iraq from Syria. 
 
 “Iraqi officials at the highest level said they had requested manned and unmanned U.S. airstrikes this year against ISIS camps in the Jazira desert,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst and National Security Council official, who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and who visited Baghdad in early March. ISIS is the acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, as the militant group is known. 
 
 Video 
 
 As the Sunni insurgents have grown in strength those requests have persisted. In a May 11 meeting with American diplomats and Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of the Central Command, which oversees American military operations in the Middle East, Mr. Maliki said he would like the United States to provide Iraq with the ability to operate drones. But if the United States was not willing to do that, Mr. Maliki indicated he was prepared to allow the United States to carry out strikes using warplanes or drones. 
 
 In a May 16 phone call with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Maliki again suggested that the United States consider using American air power. A written request repeating that point was submitted soon afterward, officials said. 
 
 Some experts say that such American military action could be helpful but only if Mr. Maliki takes steps to make his government more inclusive. 
 
 “U.S. military support for Iraq could have a positive effect but only if it is conditioned on Maliki changing his behavior within Iraq’s political system,” Mr. Pollack said. “He has to bring the Sunni community back in, agree to limits on his executive authority and agree to reform Iraqi security forces to make them more professional and competent.” 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 But so far, the administration has signaled that it is not interested in such a direct American military role. 
 
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 “Ultimately, this is for the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi government to deal with,” Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday. 
 
 The deteriorating situation in Iraq is not what the Obama administration expected when it withdrew the last American troops from there in 2011. In a March 2012 speech, Antony J. Blinken, who is Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, asserted that “Iraq today is less violent” than “at any time in recent history.” 
 
 From the start, experts have stressed that the conflict in Iraq is as much political as military. Mr. Maliki’s failure to include leading Sunnis in his government has heightened the sectarian divisions in Iraq. 
 
 Photo 
 
 But American officials also say that militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria represent a formidable military threat, one that Iraq’s security forces, which lack an effective air force, have been hard pressed to handle on their own. 
 
 The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria grew out of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the militant group that American forces fought during their war there. But while the capabilities of the militants have grown, the Iraq’s military’s effectiveness has diminished. 
 
 Adding to that challenge is the fact that the group controls territory on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border, and the Iraq and Syria conflicts have been feeding each other. 
 
 Said Lakhdar Brahimi, the former United Nations envoy to the collapsed Syria peace talks: “The region is in trouble, starting with Iraq. When I went to Baghdad in December, I was told that for every 100 operations ISIS did in Syria, it did 1,000 in Iraq.” 
 
 Critics say the latest developments show the weakness in an administration strategy designed to shore up Iraqi forces and to combat a growing Islamic militancy in Syria that officials say poses an increasing counterterrorism threat to the United States. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 In a speech on Wednesday, Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, said that the American effort to buttress Iraq’s forces had been effective. “The United States has been fast to provide necessary support for the people and government of Iraq,” she said in remarks at the Center for New American Security in Washington. 
 
 The United States has provided a $14 billion foreign military aid package to Iraq that includes F-16 fighter jets, Apache attack helicopters and M-16 rifles. It has rushed hundreds of Hellfire missiles as well as ScanEagle reconnaissance drones. 
 
 A second round of counterterrorism training between American Special Operations commandos and Iraqi troops started in Jordan this week. At least two F-16s are set to arrive in Iraq by September, and six Apaches will be leased for training later this year, Iraqi and Pentagon officials said. 
 
 But some former generals who served in Iraq said a greater effort was needed. 
 
 James M. Dubik, a retired Army lieutenant general who oversaw the training of the Iraqi army during the surge, summed it up this way: “We should fly some of our manned and unmanned aircraft and put advisers into Iraq that can help the Iraqi Army plan and execute a proper defense, then help them transition to a counter offensive.” ||||| President Obama said Thursday it is now clear Iraq will need help from the United States as the situation there deteriorates, adding that he wouldn't "rule out anything," including drone strikes and air strikes, but not ground troops. 
 
 "What we’ve seen over the last couple of days indicates the degree to which Iraq’s going to need more help," Obama said during a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the White House. "So my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. I don’t rule out anything, because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria, for that matter." 
 
 When asked Thursday whether the United States is considering drone strikes or any other action to stop the insurgency in Iraq, President Obama says he's looking at all options. (Reuters) 
 
 U.S. officials in Congress and the White House have been mulling options on how to help Iraqis, including potential air strikes, for awhile, but insurgents have made rapid gains in the last few days. The country was on the brink of disintegration Thursday as al-Qaeda-inspired fighters bore down on Baghdad and Kurdish soldiers seized the city of Kirkuk without a fight. So far this June 701 civilians have already been killed in Iraq, according to Iraq Body Count. 
 
 Obama said the U.S. government hoped to provide relief as soon as possible. "I think it’s fair to say that, in our consultations with the Iraqis, there will be some short-term, immediate things that need to be done militarily," he said. 
 
 At a press briefing, Jay Carney clarified some of the president's comments, saying “We are not contemplating ground troops. I want to be clear about that." He continued, "When he said that he’s not ruling anything out he was responding to the question about air strikes and would he consider air strikes and that’s what he meant.” 
 
 Obama also said that there were political ways to provide relief for Iraqi citizens which would have to originate from the Iraqi government. "But this should be also a wake-up call for the Iraqi government," he said. "There has to be a political component to this so that Sunni and Shia who care about building a functioning state that can bring about security and prosperity to all people inside of Iraq come together and work diligently against these extremists. And that is going to require concessions on the part of both Shia and Sunni that we haven’t seen so far." 
 
 The United States has grown less supportive of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki over the years, as order in the country has disintegrated. Sen. Bob Corker, the top Republican on the on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Associated Press yesterday, “He’s obviously not been a good prime minister." 
 
 Dovetailing with recent addresses the president has given on American foreign policy, Obama ended by discussing the longterm role the United States will have in countries like Iraq. 
 
 "We’re not going to be able to be everywhere all the time," he said. "But what we can do is to make sure that we are consistently helping to finance, train, advise military forces with partner countries, including Iraq, that have the capacity to maintain their own security. And that is a long and laborious process, but it’s one that we need to get started." ||||| Sen. Lindsey Graham on Sunday implored President Barack Obama to be honest to Americans about the threat facing the United States from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. 
 
 And Graham repeatedly pressed the president during the interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" to take more action to protect American interests. 
 
 "If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want guys want to call it, they are coming here. This is just not about Baghdad. This is just not about Syria. And if we do get attacked, then he will have committed a blunder for the ages," the South Carolina Republican said. 
 
 "When I look at the map ... I think of the United States. I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorists' ability to operate in Syria and Iraq," said Graham, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The director of national security, the FBI director, the director of Homeland Security and others have repeatedly told the president of the threat, he said. 
 
 "So, Mr. President, you have never once spoken directly to the American people about the threat we face from Syria, now Iraq. What is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland?" Graham asked. "They have expressed a desire to do so." 
 
 Asked about the president's strategy of limited strikes on ISIL mortars and convoys, the senator said the president needs to do more. 
 
 "He's trying to avoid a bad news story on his watch," Graham said, noting numerous threats from ISIL to the homeland. "We have to have a sustained air campaign. We need to go on offense. There is no force within the U.S. or the Middle East that can neutralize or destroy ISIS without at least American air power." 
 
 Read more about: Iraq, Lindsey Graham, Chris Wallace, ISIL ||||| White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on Sunday dismissed accusations that the Obama administration is waffling over whether the United States is indeed at war with Islamic State, saying the administration has been “very clear” about the military mission against the terror group. 
 
 “We’ve made it very clear from the start,” McDonough told “Fox News Sunday." “Just as we have been at war with Al Qaeda, in similar fashion we are at war with ISIL.” 
 
 McDonough's comments follow President Obama's remarks to Americans on Wednesday night, when he said that the U.S. will increase airstrikes on Islamic State positions in Iraq and that he has OK’d similar strikes in Syria, which has been followed by a seemingly mixed and evolving message from a series of top U.S. officials. 
 
 On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry described the U.S. military effort as “very significant” and a “major counter-terrorism operation,” but said, “war is the wrong terminology.” 
 
 The next day, the White House and Pentagon acknowledged that the U.S. “is at war” with the Islamic State, the terrorist group formerly known as ISIS. 
 
 “In the same way that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates … the United States is at war with ISIL,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. 
 
 Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby used almost identical language when pressed by reporters about whether the expanded military operation against the terrorist group is, in fact, a war. 
 
 Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told "Fox News Sunday": “You cannot create an army to destroy ISIL without an American component. … This is war.” 
 
 He and others have suggested that U.S. Special Forces, not battalions of ground troops, are needed. 
 
 Polls show Americans support airstrikes, but not a war like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
 
 McDonough also repeated Sunday that Obama’s plan does not include U.S. soldiers in a combat mission, but declined to say how many military people will ultimately be needed, amid speculation the number needs to be about 5,000. 
 
 McDonough said the U.S. now has about 1,400 military personnel in Iraq -- protecting Americans, Baghdad, the Baghdad airport and the city or Erbil. ||||| Specifically, senior Iraqi and Kurdish officials asked the United States as recently as this weekend to take action along the Iraqi-Syrian border to deprive ISIS of the safe havens it enjoys in that area. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 “The Iraqis have asked for assistance in the border regions, and that’s something we’re looking at,” one State Department official said. 
 
 The description of a calibrated military buildup by coalition forces, combined with a steady effort led by the United States Treasury Department to choke off ISIS’ ability to reap $1 million or more a day from oil sales, emerged as the administration has tried to define what Mr. Obama meant when he said the American goal was to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Sunni extremist group. 
 
 The president’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, provided the most current definition of White House thinking on Sunday during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Using an alternative acronym for the extremist group, he said that “success looks like an ISIL that no longer threatens our friends in the region, no longer threatens the United States, an ISIL that can’t accumulate followers or threaten Muslims in Syria, Iraq or otherwise.” 
 
 That definition falls short of the classic understanding of what it means to destroy an opposing force. But the administration is betting that it has tailored the goals to appeal to the coalition of oftentimes reluctant partners it is trying to assemble, many of whom are deeply suspicious of each other. 
 
 Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking from Paris, declined to say which states had offered to contribute air power, an announcement that White House officials said could await his return to testify in Congress early this week. State Department officials, who asked not to be identified under the agency’s protocol for briefing reporters, said Arab nations could participate in an air campaign against ISIS in other ways without dropping bombs, such as by flying arms to Iraqi or Kurdish forces, conducting reconnaissance flights or providing logistical support and refueling. 
 
 “I don’t want to leave you with the impression that these Arab members haven’t offered to do airstrikes, because several of them have,” one State Department official said. “The Iraqis would have to be a major participant in that decision,” the official added. “It has to be well structured and organized.” 
 
 The United Arab Emirates, which provided some air power in the 2011 attacks on Libya, seemed at the top of the list, with Qatar hosting an American military headquarters. American officials cautioned that all strikes would have to be approved by the newly assembled government in Iraq, as well as by American military planners. That could prove just one challenge to the offer by Arab nations to participate in airstrikes: While Iraq’s struggling military forces have experience operating with the United States, its Shiite-dominated government has never worked with the Sunni states of the Persian Gulf. 
 
 Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 The United States has identified ISIS targets in Iraq over the past several weeks. But officials said they were waiting, in part, to match the allied commitments with actual contributions: warplanes, support aircraft that can refuel or provide intelligence, more basing agreements to carry out strikes, and the insertion of trainers from other Western countries. 
 
 Tellingly, there are no plans, as of now, to increase the number of American attack planes in the region. The aircraft carrier Carl Vinson is scheduled to relieve the carrier George H. W. Bush in the Persian Gulf next month; if the Pentagon changed its plans and kept two carriers in the gulf, it could double carrier-based firepower over Iraq and Syria. But for now, there is no plan to do so, officials said. Nor are there any plans to increase American ground-based strike aircraft at facilities around the region, in hopes that Persian Gulf and European allies would make up the difference. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Another striking feature of the American plan, officials said, was the deliberate exclusion of coordination with two other players with an interest — and some ability — to take on ISIS: the government of Iran and the forces of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who Mr. Obama declared three years ago was a brutal dictator who had to leave office. 
 
 Mr. Kerry has ruled out cooperative efforts with Iranian officials, who a senior administration official said last week are “looking for whatever leverage they can get” in the conflict in hopes of using it to lift pressure on their nuclear program. Iranian-backed militias were on the ground in the Iraqi town of Amerli recently and provided the muscle that Iraqi forces could not in ending a siege by ISIS. 
 
 While the administration insisted it would not work alongside Mr. Assad’s forces, the two sides were clearly working toward the same goal — leading to fears that the United States could essentially become Mr. Assad’s air force, at least temporarily, if it begins attacking ISIS emplacements in Syria. 
 
 As described by American officials, the battle strategy calls for assembling a force first in Iraq, where the Iraqi army would be guided by 12-man teams of American “advisers” that are expected to begin operating within days, and for new arms and other assistance for the Kurdish forces. Only later would the effort expand to Syria, and the administration is pressing for a congressional vote this week on a $500 million arms package for “moderate” members of the Syrian opposition, now aimed at ISIS rather than the Assad government. 
 
 Officials acknowledged that the so-called moderate rebel forces were fractured and far weaker than ISIS. Even so, administration officials struggled to explain whether the United States was at war with ISIS, as both the White House and the Pentagon spokesman said it was last week, or whether it was engaged in a more traditional counterterrorism action. That was how Mr. Kerry characterized the strategy in an effort to make it easier for Sunni states to explain to their own populations why they would be contributing forces against Sunni extremists. 
 
 “Originally this is not a war,” Mr. Kerry said on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” trying to separate it from the military action in 2003 that he had opposed as a senator. “This is not combat troops on the ground. It’s not hundreds of thousands of people.” He went on to compare it to “war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates,” and said that “in the same context” the United States was “at war with ISIL.” ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Paul Wood met refugees who have fled to the Kurdish countryside 
 
 Islamist militants in Iraq have seized two new towns, widening their control after threatening to move on Baghdad. 
 
 The Sunni-led Islamists advanced into Diyala province in the east - near Iran and close to the capital - having seized Mosul and Tikrit to the north. 
 
 The UN says hundreds have been killed - with militants carrying out summary executions of civilians in Mosul, including 17 civilians in one street. 
 
 The US says it is looking at "all options", including military action. 
 
 Led by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), the insurgents have threatened to push to the capital, Baghdad and regions further south dominated by Iraq's Shia Muslim majority, whom they regard as "infidels". 
 
 At the scene, Feras Killani, BBC News, Baghdad 
 
 Fear is the thing that you feel the most as you walk through Baghdad's streets, as the militants come closer. People here are buying supplies and staying in front of their television sets. They remember what happened during the civil war of 2006-2008 and are very scared this will happen again. 
 
 Many Iraqis no longer trust their national army after soldiers retreated from the ISIS advance. Some have even called for people to instead join militias to defend cities and holy sites. 
 
 It's certainly not the same Baghdad it has been in the last few years. 
 
 Is this the end of Iraq? 
 
 Iraq crisis: Voices from Mosul under ISIS control 
 
 Viewpoint: ISIS goals and possible future gains 
 
 Iraq conflict: US air power no remedy 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption US President Barack Obama: "I don't rule out anything" 
 
 Neighbouring Shia-majority Iran has pledged to support Iraq. President Hassan Rouhani called Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and promised that Iran "will not allow the supporters of terrorists to disrupt security and stability of Iraq through exporting terrorism to Iraq". 
 
 According to the Wall Street Journal - which cited unnamed sources - Iran has already deployed two battalions of the elite al-Quds forces of its Revolutionary Guard to help the Iraqi government. 
 
 US President Barack Obama said he did not "rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in Iraq, or Syria for that matter". 
 
 White House spokesman Jay Carney subsequently added that President Obama was referring to not ruling out air strikes. "We are not contemplating ground troops," he said. 
 
 Fears of ISIS sparking a wider Sunni uprising have increased with reports that former Baath Party members loyal to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein have joined forces with the jihadists. 
 
 The US will be reluctant to get drawn back into Iraq, or give backing to one side in what appears to have some of the dimensions of civil war, says the BBC's Jim Muir in Irbil - an area in the autonomous Kurdish-controlled north. 
 
 Analysis: Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor 
 
 If ISIS can hold Mosul and consolidate its presence there, it will have taken a giant step towards its goal of creating an Islamist emirate that straddles Iraq and Syria. 
 
 It would be the most significant act by a jihadist group since al-Qaeda attacked the US on 11 September 2001. It could also lead to other changes to the borders Britain and France imposed on the Middle East a century ago, starting with the break-up of Iraq on sectarian lines. 
 
 The success of ISIS can only make the turmoil in the Middle East worse. ISIS is an ultra-extremist Sunni Muslim group. Its success will deepen the sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias that is already the most dangerous fault line in the Middle East. 
 
 Iran, which is a majority Shia Muslim country, shares a border with Iraq. It has a direct line to Iraq's Shia Muslim Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, and close links with some Iraqi Shia militias. The Iranians could direct their proxies, and even their own special forces units, at ISIS. 
 
 That might end up further inflaming the anger of Iraqi Sunnis, who have already helped the advance of ISIS through Iraq. 
 
 US air strikes, if they happen, might do the same thing. Once again in the Middle East, the Americans have limited options. Their invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 helped create and strengthen jihadist groups. 
 
 Sharpening Sunni-Shia schism bodes ill for Middle East 
 
 It is becoming clear that the insurgents are not foreign fighters as Mr Maliki alleges, our correspondent says. 
 
 Many strands of Sunni society alienated by Mr Maliki's rule appear to have joined them, he says. 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Iraq state TV airs footage said to be airstrikes on the ISIS-held city of Mosul 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Iraq's former PM Ayad Allawi says the country could be facing a break-up as a result of the insurgency led by Islamist militants 
 
 Image copyright Reuters Image caption The advance of the militants has been swift - with the Iraqi army abandoning posts 
 
 Image copyright Reuters Image caption However, with threats of a move on Baghdad, volunteers heeded a government call to join the resistance 
 
 Image copyright AP Image caption The flow of refugees from Mosul has slowed down to a trickle 
 
 UN human rights spokesman Rupert Colville said on Friday that his office had verified reports that included the killing of 17 civilians working for the police and 12 Iraqi soldiers. 
 
 Among the atrocities, he listed four women who had killed themselves after being raped. 
 
 He said there had been government "excesses", too, and cited the shelling of civilian areas on 6 and 8 June. 
 
 "There are claims that up to 30 civilians may have been killed," Mr Colville said. 
 
 The United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, says local authorities estimate that up to 300,000 people fled Mosul in the past few days - joining the more than 500,000 displaced by the conflict in Anbar province earlier. 
 
 However, the number of those arriving has slowed down and some already there have begun to return. 
 
 In the north of the country, Kurdish forces have claimed control of the oil city of Kirkuk, saying government forces have fled. 
 
 The Kurds - seen as a bulwark against the Sunni Muslim insurgents - have also been locked for years in a dispute with Baghdad over Kirkuk, seeking to incorporate it into their own autonomous area. 
 
 ISIS in Iraq 
 
 Image copyright AP Image caption An Islamist fighter near a burning Iraqi army Humvee in Tikrit
– With the United States today dropping a fourth round of airstrikes on Iraq's Islamic State militants, the pope expressing outrage over the humanitarian situation, and Iraq claiming that militants had slaughtered some 500 Yadizis, naturally our elected lawmakers felt compelled to offer up their two cents on the situation there. Highlights, as per Politico: Sen. Dick Durbin: "The bottom line is this: There is so much we can do to help the Iraqis help themselves. Because only Iraq can save Iraq. When it comes to Kurds, they have been the grownups in this neighborhood." And further: "I can tell you this: Escalating it is not in the cards." Rep. Peter King: The Islamic State is "more powerful now than al-Qaeda was on 9/11." It's "a direct threat to the United States of America, and what Dick Durbin just said and what President Obama has said, is really a shameful abdication of American leadership." Sen. Lindsey Graham: "If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL, whatever you guys want to call it, they are coming here. This is just not about Baghdad. This is just not about Syria. And if we do get attacked, then (Obama) will have committed a blunder for the ages." Sen. Ben Cardin: "I don't think we can take out ISIS from a military point of view from the use of our airstrikes. That's not going to solve the problem. The fundamental problem is whether the Iraqis believe they have a representative government so that Sunnis feel comfortable with the government in Baghdad. There is not a US military solution to this issue. We're not going to use our military to take care of what the Iraqis should be taking care of." Former National Security Adviser James Jones: "The Kurds are our best friends in the region, and we can't let Kurdistan fall," he said, adding that it's "ludicrous" that the Kurdistan Regional Government is classified as a terrorist group.