Iraq and ISIS Discussion

It's one thing to be engaged and another to be fully committed. The latter doesn't happen without the right support -- not for something on this scale. More could be done (and I don't mean repeating mistakes that were made elsewhere in the past decade).
 
It's one thing to be engaged and another to be fully committed. The latter doesn't happen without the right support -- not for something on this scale. More could be done (and I don't mean repeating mistakes that were made elsewhere in the past decade).
No way in hell will the public allow us to be fully committed again.
The Iraqi's and opposition parties did such an excellent job that few people, right or left wing, would support Iraq ver 3.0
 
Like I said.. Politics has nothing to do with the stuff that is going on right now against ISIS. There is no COIN because this isn't an insurgency. We don't need politicians to wage war.. remember Kosovo.. we still have people there.


Yep, I'm not arguing with you about ISIS, just a general comment about politicians, not about any specific conflict.

I agree with your statement that we don't need politicians to wage war, but war is politics, isn't it? (Clausewitz)... And don't we still have people in most or all of our former zones of conflict? And even when they leave it up to the military professionals, there's always uncertainty about outcome. Changing public opinion. And money. Always money at the core of any venture and where there's money, there's politics.

I think political interference increases or decreases proportionately to the rate of failure or success.
 
Last edited:
No way in hell will the public allow us to be fully committed again.
The Iraqi's and opposition parties did such an excellent job that few people, right or left wing, would support Iraq ver 3.0
Do we have to be "fully" committed? I think there are a few options left on the table that, if used correctly, would pay huge dividends toward fighting ISIS without actually sending over everybody. If the people making decisions really wanted to make a difference, it wouldn't be hard. Execution is key (no pun intended) and we aren't doing it. Look at every non-conventional asset the DOD has at its disposal and tell me we can't defeat ISIS with a minimal footprint? As my grandad would say," YOU GOTTA GET THRIFTY, SON!"
 
Do we have to be "fully" committed? I think there are a few options left on the table that, if used correctly, would pay huge dividends toward fighting ISIS without actually sending over everybody.

I think that's what the intent is now with the 3000 or so troops on the ground.
 
The downfall of ISIS. Taking their cigarettes away:

"There is an escalation in the operations against the Hisbah [ISIS religious police] because they are arresting people and insulting their dignity for reasons like smoking," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP news agency.
The IS police force has confiscated and burned tobacco products and punished those caught smoking."


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30721021
 
I think that's what the intent is now with the 3000 or so troops on the ground.
But my point I guess was that yes we have troops there, but I don't think there being correctly used. The strategy we're using is semi-decent, but It is being carried out in a way that shoots itself in the foot.
 
When seeing stuff like this, it's very disheartening.

Iran-Backed Militias Are Getting U.S. Weapons

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-08/iranbacked-militias-are-getting-us-weapons-in-iraq
U.S. weapons intended for Iraq’s beleaguered military are winding up in the possession of the country’s Shiite militias, according to U.S. lawmakers and senior officials in the Barack Obama administration. These sources say that the Baghdad government, which was granted $1.2 billion in training and equipment aid in the omnibus spending bill passed last month, is turning hardware over to Shiite militias that are heavily influenced by Iran and have been guilty of gross human-rights violations.
 
When seeing stuff like this, it's very disheartening.

Iran-Backed Militias Are Getting U.S. Weapons

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-08/iranbacked-militias-are-getting-us-weapons-in-iraq

Half the stuff we give must end up in the wrong hands. It's probably factored in as spillage by the bean counters. I'll bet there are AKs in Afghanistan that shot at Americans in Vietnam. And OMG the Iranians have in- flight refueling probes on their American RH-53Ds...

It never ends...:rolleyes:
 
Which leads one to ask, why are we backing the Iraqi government at all?
Support the Kurds, let them declare that portion of Iraq independent, then let the Iraqi's deal with ISIL on their own.
As long as AAH and ISIL are killing each other, we should just eat popcorn and watch.

I think it would be a sound strategy to give the Kurds a southern limit of advance, which includes Kirkuk and Mosul, and assist them in doing so. Then allow the Arabs to duke it out and kill each other in the south.

If one side ever prevails, the winner will definitely be in a weakened state...
 
As long as AAH and ISIL are killing each other, we should just eat popcorn and watch.

I think it would be a sound strategy to give the Kurds a southern limit of advance, which includes Kirkuk and Mosul, and assist them in doing so. Then allow the Arabs to duke it out and kill each other in the south.

If one side ever prevails, the winner will definitely be in a weakened state...

Tell the Kurds to leave Turkey alone and we will support an independent Kurdistan (we don't care if you fuck with Iran)

Reminds me of Colombia

Disagree, better looking women in Colombia.
 
Tell the Kurds to leave Turkey alone and we will support an independent Kurdistan...
So you are a policy maker? Ok, I will deliver the message.

I think the bigger reason the state dept. et al. doesn't want to see an independent Kurdistan is because that means a fractured Iraq. A lot of hot air has been expelled from a lot of mouths paying lip service to the success and unity between the Arabs and Kurds in Iraq.
 
So you are a policy maker? Ok, I will deliver the message.

I think the bigger reason the state dept. et al. doesn't want to see an independent Kurdistan is because that means a fractured Iraq. A lot of hot air has been expelled from a lot of mouths paying lip service to the success and unity between the Arabs and Kurds in Iraq.
I wish I was a policy maker.

I agree that unity hasn't been a success, which is why I think the threat of an Kurdistan would shake the Iraqi's and Iranians up a bit.ap.

Then you only have to deal with Iraqi vs Iraqi crap.

IIRC then Sen Bidenessentially said break Iraq up. I don't agree totally with that sentiment, but we need to see if pulling the Kurds out may be a wake up call for the other tribes.
 
I wish I was a policy maker.

Then you only have to deal with Iraqi vs Iraqi crap.

IIRC then Sen Bidenessentially said break Iraq up. I don't agree totally with that sentiment, but we need to see if pulling the Kurds out may be a wake up call for the other tribes.
Iraq vs. Iran, or should we say Iraq AND Iran.

Another issue would be that some Kurds see their historic homeland as extended much farther south than what modern history credits them with. After all, Tikirt was the birthplace of Salah al Din, who was a Kurd.
 
Back
Top