text: ___ 
   
   Good evening. Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we're taking and why. 
   
   First, I said in June — as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq — that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it. In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Irbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces. 
   
   To stop the advance on Irbil, I've directed our military to take targeted strikes against ISIL terrorist convoys should they move toward the city. We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Irbil and our embassy in Baghdad. We're also providing urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against ISIL. 
   
   Second, at the request of the Iraqi government — we've begun operations to help save Iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain. As ISIL has marched across Iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Iraqis. And these terrorists have been especially barbaric towards religious minorities, including Christian and Yazidis, a small and ancient religious sect. Countless Iraqis have been displaced. And chilling reports describe ISIL militants rounding up families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving Yazidi women. 
   
   In recent days, Yazidi women, men and children from the area of Sinjar have fled for their lives. And thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — are now hiding high up on the mountain, with little but the clothes on their backs. They're without food, they're without water. People are starving. And children are dying of thirst. Meanwhile, ISIL forces below have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yazidi people, which would constitute genocide. So these innocent families are faced with a horrible choice: descend the mountain and be slaughtered, or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger. 
   
   I've said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there's a crisis in the world. So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now. When we face a situation like we do on that mountain — with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help — in this case, a request from the Iraqi government — and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That's what we're doing on that mountain. 
   
   I've, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there. Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive. Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, "There is no one coming to help." Well, today, America is coming to help. We're also consulting with other countries — and the United Nations — who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis. 
   
   I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that's what we've done. As commander in chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there's no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces. 
   
   However, we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to Iraq. So even as we carry out these two missions, we will continue to pursue a broader strategy that empowers Iraqis to confront this crisis. Iraqi leaders need to come together and forge a new government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis, and that can fight back against the threats like ISIL. Iraqis have named a new president, a new speaker of Parliament, and are seeking consensus on a new prime minister. This is the progress that needs to continue in order to reverse the momentum of the terrorists who prey on Iraq's divisions. 
   
   Once Iraq has a new government, the United States will work with it and other countries in the region to provide increased support to deal with this humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenge. None of Iraq's neighbors have an interest in this terrible suffering or instability. 
   
   And so we'll continue to work with our friends and allies to help refugees get the shelter and food and water they so desperately need, and to help Iraqis push back against ISIL. The several hundred American advisers that I ordered to Iraq will continue to assess what more we can do to help train, advise and support Iraqi forces going forward. And just as I consulted Congress on the decisions I made today, we will continue to do so going forward. 
   
   My fellow Americans, the world is confronted by many challenges. And while America has never been able to right every wrong, America has made the world a more secure and prosperous place. And our leadership is necessary to underwrite the global security and prosperity that our children and our grandchildren will depend upon. We do so by adhering to a set of core principles. We do whatever is necessary to protect our people. We support our allies when they're in danger. We lead coalitions of countries to uphold international norms. And we strive to stay true to the fundamental values — the desire to live with basic freedom and dignity — that is common to human beings wherever they are. That's why people all over the world look to the United States of America to lead. And that's why we do it. 
   
   So let me close by assuring you that there is no decision that I take more seriously than the use of military force. Over the last several years, we have brought the vast majority of our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. And I've been careful to resist calls to turn time and again to our military, because America has other tools in our arsenal than our military. We can also lead with the power of our diplomacy, our economy, and our ideals. 
   
   But when the lives of American citizens are at risk, we will take action. That's my responsibility as commander in chief. And when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. That is our responsibility as Americans. That's a hallmark of American leadership. That's who we are. 
   
   So tonight, we give thanks to our men and women in uniform — especially our brave pilots and crews over Iraq who are protecting our fellow Americans and saving the lives of so many men, women and children that they will never meet. They represent American leadership at its best. As a nation, we should be proud of them, and of our country's enduring commitment to uphold our own security and the dignity of our fellow human beings. 
   
   God bless our armed forces, and God bless the United States of America. ||||| In a statement made Thursday night, President Obama said he has authorized military strikes on Islamic State militants if they continue their advancement on the city of Irbil, where military personnel and the U.S. consulate are located. (AP) 
   
   President Obama said Thursday night that he has authorized two new, major actions by the U.S. military in Iraq: airstrikes against militants with the Islamic State if U.S. interests or personnel are threatened, and humanitarian assistance for thousands of civilians who have fled the Islamist advance in northwest Iraq and are now trapped on a mountain. 
   
   Even those two specific missions are more complicated than that, however. 
   
   First, the U.S. humanitarian mission on Mount Sinjar began Thursday with airdrops by military aircraft, but it could require targeted airstrikes in order to “break the siege” at the base of the mountain and allow authorities to provide more assistance to the civilians, Obama said. They would be conducted in coordination with the Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish security forces known as pesh merga. 
   
   Second, the advance of the Islamic State near Irbil appears to be a line in the sand for the Obama administration. The United States has both diplomats and military advisers in the city, which is the capital of the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The United States also has a consulate in Irbil, creating enough interests that the United States wants to protect the city from harm. 
   
   “To stop the advance on Irbil, I’ve directed our military to take targeted strikes against [Islamic State] terrorist convoys should they move toward the city,” Obama said. “We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Irbil and our embassy in Baghdad.” 
   
   
   
   In this image released by The White House, President Obama meets with the National Security Council in the Situation Room of the White House on Thursday in Washington. (AP Photo/The White House, Pete Souza) 
   
   Here’s what we know now about the specifics of these missions: 
   
   Humanitarian air drops 
   
   The U.S. military launched one C-17 and two C-130 cargo planes near Mount Sinjar on Thursday, dropping 8,000 prepackaged meals and 5,300 gallons of water, senior U.S. officials said. The aircraft were accompanied by two F/A-18 fighter jets, which came out of an undisclosed air base in the Middle East. The Pentagon did not indicate which units or branch of service operated any of the aircraft. 
   
   Pentagon officials said in a statement that the three cargo planes released a total of 72 bundles of supplies. They flew over the drop area for less than 15 minutes, and left the area before Obama announced the actions in his 9:30 p.m. address. 
   
   Senior U.S. officials left open the possibility that the United States could conduct more airdrops in coming days if it’s needed. That appears possible, considering human rights workers have estimated that up to 40,000 civilians may be trapped on the mountain, unable to return their homes for fear of being killed by militants. 
   
   “We feel that this is a unique and urgent humanitarian challenge,” one senior officials said Thursday night. 
   
   
   
   This image made from video taken on Sunday shows Iraqis people from the Yazidi community arriving in Irbil in northern Iraq after Islamic militants attacked the towns of Sinjar and Zunmar. Around 40,000 people crossed the bridge of Shela in Fishkhabur into the northern Kurdish region of Iraq after being given an ultimatum by Islamic militants to either convert to Islam, pay a security tax, leave their homes, or die. (AP Photo via AP video) 
   
   Preparing for airstrikes 
   
   The advance of militants across northern Iraq has been watched closely this week, but a new wave of attacks threatened Irbil in a way it had not been before, U.S. officials said. That led the president to authorize airstrikes if necessary. 
   
   U.S. officials also said that with the increased threat now facing Irbil, the United States has either surveillance drones or manned aircraft flying over the area almost constantly, keeping tabs on militant movements. 
   
   Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a statement Thursday night that U.S. military advisers in Iraq will continue to assess ways to help train and assist Iraqi forces, and will provide undisclosed “increased support” once Iraq has formed a new government. Most of the troops there are U.S. Army Special Forces. 
   
   Outgoing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikihas faced fierce criticism for appointing friends to key positions, allowing corruption and cutting Iraq’s Sunni population out of the political process, fueling the insurgency. A new prime minister could be selected in coming days, U.S. officials signaled Thursday night. 
   
   UPDATED, Friday, Aug. 8, 9 a.m.: U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have begun after militants launched artillery rounds at Kurdish troops defending Irbil. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, posted this tweet: ||||| WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama stepped in front of the cameras on Thursday to utter words he hoped he would never say as commander in chief. 
   
   "I've therefore authorized targeted airstrikes if necessary to help forces in Iraq," Mr. Obama said in a statement from the White House. "Today America is coming to help." 
   
   The... ||||| Photo by Karim Sahib/AFP/Getty Images 
   
   This post has been updated with the latest developments in Iraq. 
   
   President Obama has authorized U.S. airstrikes against the Sunni militant group ISIS in northern Iraq. If you’re just catching up on the story now, here’s a quick FAQ. 
   
   Advertisement 
   
   
   
   What’s been going on with ISIS for the last few weeks? 
   
   While the world’s attention has been mainly focused on the war in Gaza, the deteriorating situation in eastern Ukraine, and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, ISIS’s campaign of terror in both Syria and Iraq has continued. In Syria, fighting between ISIS and Bashar al-Assad’s forces has led to some of the bloodiest days of the conflict so far. 
   
   Joshua Keating Joshua Keating is a staff writer at Slate focusing on international affairs and author of the forthcoming book, Invisible Countries. 
   
   In Iraq, things seemed to have reached a stalemate, with ISIS’s rapid advance through the country stopped short of Baghdad and the predominantly Shiite areas of southern Iraq. All the same, more than 1,700 Iraqis were killed in July, making it one of the deadliest months since the height of the Iraq war. 
   
   Then, earlier this week, ISIS captured three towns in northern Iraq from Kurdish forces and now appears to have taken control of the country’s largest dam. It marks the first defeat of the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, and there are reports that the Kurdish capital, Erbil, is now threatened. 
   
   Advertisement 
   
   
   
   Members of the small Yazidi ethnic group in northern Iraq have perhaps fared the worst. Having been driven from their towns, between 10,000 and 40,000 predominantly Yazidi civilians are now stranded on a barren mountain with few supplies. They are facing an extraordinarily grim choice, between death by dehydration if they stay where they are or being slaughtered by ISIS if they flee. 
   
   Who are the Yazidis? 
   
   There are about 600,000 Yazidis worldwide, mostly in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. Though often considered an offshoot of the Kurds, they consider themselves a distinct ethnic group. They follow a unique religion that blends elements of Sufi Islam and Zoroastrianism. Like Shiites, Christians, and a number of other groups in Iraq, ISIS considers them apostates and has killed at least 500 Yazidis thus far. 
   
   Why is the U.S. intervening only now? 
   
   Advertisement 
   
   
   
   While the U.S. sent 300 military advisers to Iraq last month, the Obama administration has been wary of direct military intervention on behalf of the Iraqi government, making such aid contingent upon the formation of a more inclusive government that gives greater political representation to Sunnis and Kurds, and preferably one without Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in charge. 
   
   But Maliki has shown no willingness to form such a government, and in the meantime the lay of the land in Iraq has worsened. The situation facing the Yazidis has been called a potential genocide, with President Obama himself using the G-word Thursday night. The taking of the Mosul Dam could portend catastrophic consequences. And Kurdistan’s Peshmerga forces, thus far considered the only fighting force in Iraq capable of rolling back ISIS, have now been dealt a string of major defeats. Meanwhile, ISIS fighters are reportedly getting dangerously close to Baghdad. 
   
   In short, things got much worse, much more quickly than anticipated. 
   
   What will a U.S. intervention entail? 
   
   Advertisement 
   
   
   
   So far, the U.S. says it has bombed ISIS artillery positions outside of Erbil that were threatening Kurdish defenses. 
   
   There doesn’t seem to be much reason to doubt the president, though, when he says that “American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq." This administration has shown little enthusiasm for intervention in either Iraq or Syria and will likely try to keep this mission as limited as possible. 
   
   Of course, all interventions are subject to mission creep, and a limited campaign of airstrikes to “prevent a potential act of genocide,” as the president put it, could easily turn into a longer air campaign on behalf of the Iraqi government against ISIS, a somewhat awkward proposition given Iran’s role as Baghdad’s primary patron. 
   
   While it’s seems unlikely that a significant number of American boots will be back on Iraqi soil anytime soon, one of the Obama administration’s signature achievements—ending the long U.S. military engagement in Iraq—looks a lot more tenuous than it did a few months ago. 
   
   Advertisement 
   
   
   
   How does this end? 
   
   While essentially every government in the Middle East is united in its opposition to ISIS, nobody seems able to stop it. (In addition to its gains in Iraq, the group recently made its first major foray into Lebanon.) So far, it has worked to the group’s advantage that many of the governments it is fighting—Syria, Iraq, the United States, Iran, Kurdistan—are also at odds with each other. Whenever the group faces a setback on one front, it seems to melt back into the wilderness and launch a new campaign somewhere else. 
   
   Ironically, ISIS’s campaign against the Kurds may end up helping unify the Iraqi state. Until last week, it looked like the destabilization caused by ISIS’s rampage through the country would aid the cause of Kurdistan, which has been pushing for full independence from Iraq for years and had been feuding with Maliki’s government over oil revenues. Now, Maliki is ordering his air force to help the Kurds. Iraq’s various factions, as well as Baghdad’s odd-couple patrons, Iran and the United States, may be forced to work together to confront the most serious threat the country has faced since the worst days of the Iraq war.
target: – President Obama gave the green light last night for the US military to launch airstrikes in Iraq, but why now? Some explanations: Twofold mission: The US has already dropped food and supplies to Iraqis trapped on Mount Sinjar by extremist fighters from the Islamic State, or ISIS, and it may drop more. As for the airstrikes, targeted ones may be necessary near the mountain to "break the siege" there, says Obama, and allow more help to arrive and avert a "genocide." The bigger reason for the possible airstrikes, however, seems to be to halt the advance of the extremist fighters in the north. 'Line in the sand': Though the US did not intervene as the Islamic State swept across much of Iraq in recent weeks, the city of Irbil in northern Iraq "appears to be a line in the sand," writes Dan Lamothe in the Washington Post. It's the Kurdish capital, and the US has diplomats and military advisers stationed there among the American allies. (The Islamic State also reportedly controls the country's largest dam, in the northern city of Mosul.) How far? "The question arises: How far is Mr. Obama willing to go?" writes Peter Baker in the New York Times. Obama said "there is 'no American military solution' to the Iraqi insurgency, pointing again to the need for a new politically inclusive government in Baghdad. What he might do if that fails he did not say. And while aides stressed this is a narrow mission, they acknowledged scenarios in which it could expand." Reversal: "The return to military engagement in Iraq is a reversal for Mr. Obama, whose early opposition to the war that toppled Saddam Hussein, and his promise to end it, fueled his long-shot campaign for the White House," write Carol E. Lee and Felicia Schwartz at the Wall Street Journal. "It also puts a spotlight on what has become a familiar feature of the Obama presidency, in which the leader of the most powerful military in the world has become defined by his reluctance to use it." Unity after all? "Ironically, ISIS's campaign against the Kurds may end up helping unify the Iraqi state," writes Joshua Keating at Slate. The Kurds have long been at odds with Nouri al-Maliki's government, but now he's ordering his air force to help them. "Iraq’s various factions, as well as Baghdad’s odd-couple patrons, Iran and the United States, may be forced to work together to confront the most serious threat the country has faced since the worst days of the Iraq war." Full text: Read the president's statement here.