Hate because reading is hard.
Iraq and ISIS Discussion
- Thread starter Kraut783
- Start date
Hate because reading is hard.
knot fer Mureenz
Looks like Daesh has another group pledge allegiance and this time it's in an old conflict area; Sinai. I have a feeling this is going to get real messy for the MFO.
Insurgents using ISIS 'brand' to attract recruits in Sinai: Canadian observer
Insurgents using ISIS 'brand' to attract recruits in Sinai: Canadian observer
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Because just killing IS and then worrying about the other problems is too much for Turkey...so they try to peck a fight with Iraq, wtf: Turkey hits Kurdish areas in Iraq's Sinjar, northeast Syria
ETA: The BOARS WILL DEFEAT ISIS-https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/wild-boars-overrun-islamic-state-position-kill-3-militants/100876844/
ETA: The BOARS WILL DEFEAT ISIS-https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/wild-boars-overrun-islamic-state-position-kill-3-militants/100876844/
Last edited:
Something that didn't get a lot of press that I recall. I only knew of it because I saw it on the cover of Stripes. I have to wonder how far this will go, numbers wise.
Trump gives Pentagon authority to set troop levels - CNNPolitics.com
Trump gives Pentagon authority to set troop levels - CNNPolitics.com
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Topkick
Verified Military
I never wanted to get out but this thing called age caught up with me.:wall:
Not so. Troop levels during Vietnam had to be approved by the President. In this case Trump has given Mattis that authority.
I'd like to think Mattis has a much greater appreciation of the tactical requirements necessary in the theater than Westmoreland and the Vietnam-era Pentagon ever did. The former is a combatant commander directly familiar with the region; the latter, senior officers who'd cut their teeth on the battlefields of Europe vrs a conventional enemy.
Last edited:
Topkick
Verified Military
Indeed...and in fact, Commanders in Vietnam were constantly fighting with Washington DC to get more troops.
Also, this news is significant because Rumsfeld insisted on a bare minimum of troops in Iraq, which complicated the fight against the insurgency. Hopefully now commanders in uniform, those who have served, can call the shots.
Glad I did the Sinai mission before the ISIS craziness started.
Moving the decision making authority from the WH to SecDef (especially this SecDef) is a good thing.
I think how much we want to commit to a theater in terms of national security - troops, money, reputation, alliances, diplomacy - are inherently strategic decisions that belong to the President. Most President's execute those decisions/factors through a national security apparatus centered on the national security council. Delegating decisions to the DoD does not shift those non-defense responsibilities, authority, or vision to the SECDEF. The President will still be on the responsibility line for all those things when they don't go his way - when he signals an escalation of effort in Afghanistan to Russia, Pakistan, and Iran (who then increase their own support to the Taliban) through the employment of new weaponry like the MOAB. The military commander may have made the decision without the President, the NSC, or even the DoD in the decision process - but the consequences and implications to policy will still rest with the President - as a recent example.
The silver lining is that if it turns out to go terribly wrong, we have deteriorating security situations, international commitments, and the collapse of diplomatic and military alliances I'm sure the President will assure the American public 'no one could have foreseen it was a mistake - no one knew how hard this stuff was.' I'm pretty sure the 93% of his voters who still think he's doing everything right will continue to think that so what does he really have to lose?
Topkick
Verified Military
This is why I still can not see any major decisions being made without the approval of the President. This is probably just an effort to portray that he will listen to military leaders more than previous administrations.
Ref. the "pigs kill ISIS fighters" story, I'm calling bullshit.
I know it was in a credible source, but the story is utter garbage. Look, I spent a lot of time in backwoods Georgia and I know wild boars are aggressive, territorial, and can in rare cases kill people. Just usually not groups of people. And definitely not groups of people armed with AK-47s.
We're to believe that a group of ISIS fighters numbering at least 8 (and probably considerably more) were setting up for an attack (which, by definition, means they were armed), and not only didn't hear a group of wild pigs coming, but the pigs were so ninja-like that they got the drop on a large group of armed men and KILLED THREE OF THEM AND WOUNDED FIVE OTHERS? It reminds me of the Pesh propaganda: "Our female fighters have killed dozens--no HUNDREDS--of ISIS fighters!!!! OMG!!!" Wow, if that's the case then maybe you should just let your women do all the fighting, and the war would be over in weeks.
Same thing with the pigs. How did this (anti-ISIS) sheikh even know the thing with the pigs happened? Did the pigs come back to the village like "Bro, you're never going to guess what we did to a group of ISIS fucks that was setting up to take down your village!"
I'd find it more realistic if the sheikh said "We killed three ISIS fighters and fed them to the wild pigs." Or "We captured a bunch of wounded ISIS dudes and we let the pigs finish them off." That would at least have been credible. This story isn't.
I know it was in a credible source, but the story is utter garbage. Look, I spent a lot of time in backwoods Georgia and I know wild boars are aggressive, territorial, and can in rare cases kill people. Just usually not groups of people. And definitely not groups of people armed with AK-47s.
We're to believe that a group of ISIS fighters numbering at least 8 (and probably considerably more) were setting up for an attack (which, by definition, means they were armed), and not only didn't hear a group of wild pigs coming, but the pigs were so ninja-like that they got the drop on a large group of armed men and KILLED THREE OF THEM AND WOUNDED FIVE OTHERS? It reminds me of the Pesh propaganda: "Our female fighters have killed dozens--no HUNDREDS--of ISIS fighters!!!! OMG!!!" Wow, if that's the case then maybe you should just let your women do all the fighting, and the war would be over in weeks.
Same thing with the pigs. How did this (anti-ISIS) sheikh even know the thing with the pigs happened? Did the pigs come back to the village like "Bro, you're never going to guess what we did to a group of ISIS fucks that was setting up to take down your village!"
I'd find it more realistic if the sheikh said "We killed three ISIS fighters and fed them to the wild pigs." Or "We captured a bunch of wounded ISIS dudes and we let the pigs finish them off." That would at least have been credible. This story isn't.
Westmoreland and his peers were still thinking WW2/Korea vs adapting to the evolution of the current war in Vietnam. We had the same problem in OIF1/2 during the invasion/ first two years. Applying Desert Storm/Bosnia thinking and tactics to a different war.
I think Mattis is absolutely the right man for the job here. He is a legitimate scholar warrior, who understands where we have been, where we are and where we want to go. I think that global foresight has not changed much, then it was communism and regional control, now Islamic extremism and global trade control.
But anyway, I agree Mattis has a much better foresight for what needs to happen.
Disagree
I think Shinseki knew what he was talking about when he gave post hostilities troop requirements, and no one wanted to hear those figures/costs.
Topkick
Verified Military
I agree. As I stated before, Rumsfeld absolutely did not want to hear about additional troops needed for anything other than the invasion itself.
Similar threads
