The editorial boards of "The Washington Post", "The New York Times", "The Guardian", and "The Wall Street Journal" penned editorials that were supportive of the intervention. Two editorials by "The Washington Post" argued that Iraqi's disintegration would threaten national, regional and global security and described efforts by the Obama administration to create a more inclusive Iraq government as presenting the best hope for the country in its fight against ISIS. Two editorials written in August by "The New York Times" also supported the intervention, praising Obama's sagacity in delivering the necessary humanitarian assistance to the Christians, Yazidis and other minorities on Mount Sinjar while eschewing the redeployment of American ground troops, and describing the subsequent deployment of American military airstrikes and other forms of assistance as, although insufficient, a necessary component of a more comprehensive strategy to defeating ISIS. An editorial by "The Guardian" written in June opined that ISIS's June 2014 Iraqi offensive invited foreign intervention that included the United States and that Obama's conditionalization of aid on Iraqis working together was in the best interest of all of Iraq's regions. Similarly, an editorial in "The Wall Street Journal" written in August wrote of the strategic interest the United States had in defeating ISIL and positively assessed the efficacy of American airstrikes in "reducing the jihadists' room for maneuver and giving new confidence to the Kurdish forces." While condemning ISIS's savagery and acknowledging the threat to American national interests in the Middle East that the group posed, an editorial by the editorial board of the "Los Angeles Times" argued that congressional authorization should override Obama's legal authority as the ultimate legal basis for the usage of military force in Iraq.