• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Obama Sending Troops Back to Iraq

 
 
 
Horatio Parker said:
NobleSavage said:
Ok, only 450 and only to train the good guys, but how long till that turns into 4,500? For 450 guys could he just send some secret special forces units? Is this just a political move?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ma-ashton-carter-iraq-islamic-state/71007408/
Click to expand...

Throwing a bone to the militarists. Should take some heat off the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...
The biggest piece to the soln is to get the Shi'a leadership to stop treating the Sunni's like crap. This may at least help get that message across, with 450 troops strangling the Iraqi leadership and telling them, "Stop treating the Sunni's like crap!".
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Horatio Parker said:
Throwing a bone to the militarists. Should take some heat off the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...
The biggest piece to the soln is to get the Shi'a leadership to stop treating the Sunni's like crap. This may at least help get that message across, with 450 troops strangling the Iraqi leadership and telling them, "Stop treating the Sunni's like crap!".
Click to expand...

Why are we even discussing this? Democracy is incompatible with theocracy. Oh, wait
 
The one thing Obama did right, taking the troops out, and he's reversing himself. He didn't want to take them out, he fought against taking them out, he did everything in his power to leave them there, but ultimately his hand was forced and he pulled the troops out.

Even though he fought against it, ultimately he did the right thing. And then he took credit for doing the right thing, and got credit for doing the right thing.

Now he's getting ready to reverse on one of the few things he did right. And nobody but us few rare libertarians are going to call him on it.
 
The US still has thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq. Once the US establishes bases somewhere it never leaves.
Remember 9/11?

This isn't a military re-occupation, it's just a small "surge."
Of course, we tried the same thing in Vietnam. "Vietnamization" -- training native troops to fight a US backed war -- didn't work there, and judging from the Iraqi army's recent performance, I'd be surprised if it worked in Iraq.
 
seyorni said:
The US still has thousands of troops and contractors in Iraq. Once the US establishes bases somewhere it never leaves.
Remember 9/11?

This isn't a military re-occupation, it's just a small "surge."
Of course, we tried the same thing in Vietnam. "Vietnamization" -- training native troops to fight a US backed war -- didn't work there, and judging from the Iraqi army's recent performance, I'd be surprised if it worked in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Iraq had a good ground army but the US decided to disband them and create a new one from scratch. Sun Tzu mentioned that ideally you capture an army intact, then it can maintain order in the territories you captured. If not fully intact just replace the leaders and you could still maintain orders. Many leaders of the old army are now rebel commanders.

Coming from a family of army persons it was easy to predict the aftermath of the Iraq war

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...strated-former-Iraqi-dictator-s-generals.html

Saddam Hussein's revenge from beyond the grave: How ISIS's land grab across the Middle East is being orchestrated by former Iraqi dictator's generals
ISIS leadership is dominated by former members of Hussein's Iraqi Army
Many joined the terror group in the insurgency after the fall of the dictator
U.S. had barred the men taking government jobs or drawing their pensions
Generals' military experience has been key to the terrorists' spread in Iraq
Their connections with oil smugglers also help ISIS raise £2 billion a year [/I]
 
fromderinside said:
NobleSavage said:
Ok, only 450 and only to train the good guys, but how long till that turns into 4,500? For 450 guys could he just send some secret special forces units? Is this just a political move?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ma-ashton-carter-iraq-islamic-state/71007408/
Click to expand...

Prophet! Now we're considering more military bases there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/w...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Click to expand...

Then just like in Vietnam, the rebels can sell drugs to the troops and use the money to buy arms.
 
Until the Iraqi people act as if they wish to evolve into a single country instead of a loose federation of theocracies, it is pointless to help them militarily. We have already seen what training and arming the Iraqi military leads to simply arming ISIS. Add in the obvious fact it is clear we have no real clue about that region, and this is a bonehead move.
 
dismal said:
Horatio Parker said:
Throwing a bone to the militarists. Should take some heat off the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty damn cynical reason to send troops into a war zone.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's about what I said in September 2002 when Bush threatened to use senate democrat resistance to an immediate vote on invading Iraq to paint them as traitors.

On second thought, or, as afterthought, you choose, Obama's move seems pretty patriotic whilst Bush's use of fear is still unforgivable.
 
dismal said:
Horatio Parker said:
Throwing a bone to the militarists. Should take some heat off the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty damn cynical reason to send troops into a war zone.
Click to expand...

Sure, the red blooded patriots in Congress calling for US ground troops to fight ISIS would never for a moment think of portraying Dems as weak on national security. While the Dems, mindful that polling research shows them to be perceived as weak on NS, think of nothing else.
 
Horatio Parker said:
dismal said:
That's a pretty damn cynical reason to send troops into a war zone.
Click to expand...

Sure, the red blooded patriots in Congress calling for US ground troops to fight ISIS would never for a moment think of portraying Dems as weak on national security. While the Dems, mindful that polling research shows them to be perceived as weak on NS, think of nothing else.
Click to expand...

Maybe democrats should just go for it. Tell america that Bush wasn't at the helm on 9/11 was playing I love daddy games on march 15, 2003, signed an agreement that included a non starter for Shia in 2008 that required our troops to leave in 2011 because it was a non-starter, fell asleep again as the financial raced to implosion in 2008, and now those people are trying to get back into power because there are problems they created that that now claim they know how to handle. too much. OK break it into points. Hammer each one for a week. When at end of list, repeat.

Too rational? Yeah.
 
Rational, long, involved and in the past. HRC or any Dem candidate can now say they are committed to fighting ISIS, and the GOPers are reduced to sniping. It removes the potential for "should we commit ground troops" issue to become central.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It has been suggested that these new troops do not have recruits waiting for training, standing in line so they can get some genuine American war know how. Now we are hearing about "lilly pad" bases the U.S. wants to build. As long as there is a way for the American weapons manufacturers to get their weapons into a good fight, they really don't care who kills who with their stuff...just sell it and see to it it gets USED UP. There are real and terrible problems in Iraq. It appears whatever the U.S. does in the area, it always comes around to an evaluation...yes we were feeding the beast. Our military industrial manufacturers know how to ride the beast. We just refuse to stop our macho big brother act anywhere in the world.:hobbyhorse:
 
NobleSavage said:
Ok, only 450 and only to train the good guys, but how long till that turns into 4,500? For 450 guys could he just send some secret special forces units? Is this just a political move?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ma-ashton-carter-iraq-islamic-state/71007408/
Click to expand...

LOL...uhm we already have 3,10 there per your article, so we will be at 3,550 with the new 'trainers'.

Well the CIA is already spending about a billion a year to train more moderate terrorists in westerns side of this cesspool, so he is already doing the 'secret' shit (see linky below). And amazingly, the mass media noticed an operational Syrian rebel headquarters in Turkey, in the summer after the Syrian rebellion spontaneously began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f45a9e-1114-11e5-adec-e82f8395c032_story.html

But yeah, this these latest addition seems like another CYA move, as we know just how well the past iterations of Iraqi Army training worked out even with tens of billions spent. But I'm sure we have learned how to do it better since Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria et.al....
 
The starting lineup should be Cheney in his wheelchair with a submachine gun, W with his 8/6/2001 briefing on Al Qeda and jet planes, and the Bush twins as cheerleaders. And all of the 2016 GOP primary stars, as they announce.
 
Horatio Parker said:
NobleSavage said:
Ok, only 450 and only to train the good guys, but how long till that turns into 4,500? For 450 guys could he just send some secret special forces units? Is this just a political move?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ma-ashton-carter-iraq-islamic-state/71007408/
Click to expand...

Throwing a bone to the militarists. Should take some heat off the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...

"But the Republicans like war" is not a good excuse. I continued to oppose war on January 20th, 2009, unlike a lot of my former partners in opposing war who changed their mind on that day.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Horatio Parker said:
Throwing a bone to the militarists. Should take some heat off the Dem candidates.
Click to expand...

"But the Republicans like war" is not a good excuse. I continued to oppose war on January 20th, 2009, unlike a lot of my former partners in opposing war who changed their mind on that day.
Click to expand...

Among Repugs, you're in the minority. Three quarters want ground forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom