Rebels captures Mosul, Iraq’s 2nd largest city

[Horatio Parker]

It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

And that's a good thing.

Increased unwillingness to slaughter innocent civilians is sign of progress, not moral decay.

Anyway, in this situation we would more resemble the Nazi aggressors, not the Allied liberators.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

And that's a good thing.

Increased unwillingness to slaughter innocent civilians is sign of progress, not moral decay.

Anyway, in this situation we would more resemble the Nazi aggressors, not the Allied liberators.

Any US military support, mainly in the form of air support, for Iraq would need to be aimed at adding back cohesion to the Iraqi military forces who are folding under the pressure right now. Their military probably sees this as hopeless.

However, anything more air support would require an all out occupation. That isn't happening again.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The wars on the Native Americans, at this point not relevant to the current situation. And if you actuallylook at history, the North and South American natives made war on each other over territory and displacement. They lost to superiortechnology and greater numbers. No comparison to to Iraq today. Iraq now has nothing to do with the USA, it has to do with regional culture and history.

If our history wrt NAs can be attributed simply to numbers and technology, then how different was the holocaust or any other genocide. Woe to the vanquished, eh Steve?

What we care about, in the middle east, is oil and Israel. Don't think the Muslims don't know that.

It amazes me to hear, on the one hand, about superior western civilization while simultaneously bemoaning our unwillingness to carpet bomb the Iraqis. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Underseer]

It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

And that's a good thing.

Increased unwillingness to slaughter innocent civilians is sign of progress, not moral decay.

Anyway, in this situation we would more resemble the Nazi aggressors, not the Allied liberators.

Any US military support, mainly in the form of air support, for Iraq would need to be aimed at adding back cohesion to the Iraqi military forces who are folding under the pressure right now. Their military probably sees this as hopeless.

However, anything more air support would require an all out occupation. That isn't happening again.

When Bush The Wise was in office, he wanted to hold Iraq under permanent occupation, but because Obama is running away with his tail between his legs, the terrorists are taking over, just as his holiness Bush predicted. This is what we get for electing a socialist dictator: the terrorists win! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Horatio Parker]

It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

And that's a good thing.

Increased unwillingness to slaughter innocent civilians is sign of progress, not moral decay.

Anyway, in this situation we would more resemble the Nazi aggressors, not the Allied liberators.

Any US military support, mainly in the form of air support, for Iraq would need to be aimed at adding back cohesion to the Iraqi military forces who are folding under the pressure right now. Their military probably sees this as hopeless.

However, anything more air support would require an all out occupation. That isn't happening again.

Again? We didn't occupy the place first time around. We committed a fraction of the necessary numbers. The hubris of the neocons: one American is worth a thousand Iraqis. Or something.

What happened in Sunniland was not just a militia with remarkable moral power over the Iraqi army. It is a popular rebellion. The Iraqi military, which is Shiite, may not be so lame on their own turf.

Remember how Kabul fell in 2001. The Pashtun Taliban got the hell out of Tajik Dodge. The Iraq situation may be similar. Time will tell.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any US military support, mainly in the form of air support, for Iraq would need to be aimed at adding back cohesion to the Iraqi military forces who are folding under the pressure right now. Their military probably sees this as hopeless.

However, anything more air support would require an all out occupation. That isn't happening again.

Again? We didn't occupy the place first time around. We committed a fraction of the necessary numbers. The hubris of the neocons: one American is worth a thousand Iraqis. Or something.

You know what I meant.

What happened in Sunniland was not just a militia with remarkable moral power over the Iraqi army. It is a popular rebellion. The Iraqi military, which is Shiite, may not be so lame on their own turf.

Remember how Kabul fell in 2001. The Pashtun Taliban got the hell out of Tajik Dodge. The Iraq situation may be similar. Time will tell.

We'll see. The bad news is that the good news is if they stop advancing and just consolidate their gains into New Crazislamibad.

 

[J842P]

It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

And that's a good thing.

Increased unwillingness to slaughter innocent civilians is sign of progress, not moral decay.

Anyway, in this situation we would more resemble the Nazi aggressors, not the Allied liberators.

Any US military support, mainly in the form of air support, for Iraq would need to be aimed at adding back cohesion to the Iraqi military forces who are folding under the pressure right now. Their military probably sees this as hopeless.

However, anything more air support would require an all out occupation. That isn't happening again.

Perhaps air support would be sufficient. Just seeing friendly Apache helicopters in the sky must do wonders for moral. Moral is everything in a battle. What we just saw happen in the northern Iraq was a classic rout. There are many examples in the history of warfare of a superior force, at least on paper, being routed by an inferior force. See the Battle of Pharsalus, Caesar versus Pompey, despite Caesar being outnumbered 2 to 1 and out-supplied, not to mention his troops were at the brink of exhaustion and Pompey had the high ground, as soon as Pompey's cavelry routed it was all over.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswarsto1000/p/pharsalus.htm

Local, unorganized retreats can cause a catastrophic ripple effect. Perhaps if the Iraqi army had gunships, warplanes and helicopters flying in the opposite direction they would have held their ground.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You know what I meant.

Yes, but it needed enhancing: the Iraq adventure was a clusterfuck top to bottom. Let's not don rose colored glasses pretending we solved anything. -That's rhetorical, not aimed at you btw.

We'll see. The bad news is that the good news is if they stop advancing and just consolidate their gains into New Crazislamibad.

They're not much of anything. 800 men. What is that, a battalion? The militias, Shiite and Kurdish alone can deal with them.

 

[boneyard bill]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

Yes. It is ironic that the people we are helping in Syria are overthrowing the people we are helping in Iraq. My question regarding ISIL's support was actually somewhat rhetorical. Of course their funding is coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, if not directly, then indirectly through Syria. I know the US was supplying non-lethal aid to the Syrian rebels and assumed that we were covertly supplying arms as well. I didn't know that we were now admitting that we were supplying lethal aid. So that aid is probably now being used in Iraq.

American foreign policy makes no sense and the only explanation that I can give for it is a non-conspiracy theory. Our foreign policy is simply being directed by disparate special interests that are not always on the same page. After all, a conspiracy of bankers or Bilderbergers or Jesuits or Masons or whatever would at least have a coherent policy. Conspirators don't fall all over each other. After all, what's the point of conspiring if not to get your act together.

 

[J842P]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

Yes. It is ironic that the people we are helping in Syria are overthrowing the people we are helping in Iraq. My question regarding ISIL's support was actually somewhat rhetorical. Of course their funding is coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, if not directly, then indirectly through Syria. I know the US was supplying non-lethal aid to the Syrian rebels and assumed that we were covertly supplying arms as well. I didn't know that we were now admitting that we were supplying lethal aid. So that aid is probably now being used in Iraq.

American foreign policy makes no sense and the only explanation that I can give for it is a non-conspiracy theory. Our foreign policy is simply being directed by disparate special interests that are not always on the same page. After all, a conspiracy of bankers or Bilderbergers or Jesuits or Masons or whatever would at least have a coherent policy. Conspirators don't fall all over each other. After all, what's the point of conspiring if not to get your act together.

You are equating between Syrian rebels and ISIS (also known as ISIL). As far as I know, we have not purposefully given aid to ISIS, and indeed, have given direct aid to groups that are fighting ISIS in Syria (FSA and SNC).

No doubt some weapons the US has provided have made their way into ISIS, but I imagine that behind the curtain of "human rights" and "democracy" the reason we've been helping FSA rebels is because we knew the problem ISIS was going to be, especially in Iraq.

 

[boneyard bill]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this. My guess would be Saudi Arabia since they are Sunni and the rebels are Sunni, and the Iraqi government is sympathetic to Iran. But what that would mean is that Saudi Arabia is working against US policy in the Mid-East.

On the other hand, I guess that's to be expected. US policy everywhere in the world is so incoherent that one shouldn't expect that our allies are necessarily going to defer to all of our schemes all of the time.

From the reports ISIS gets a lot of funding from conservative Saudis. It is the Iran-Saudi proxy war in Syria. The Saudis have been arming Syrians. It is rarely emphasized in the media and never by our govt, the Saudis have long funded extremists. 9/11 traced back to the Saudis. including anti-west religious schools in the USA.

Anyone who gains influence in the US foreign policy establishment never gets called out by the media. It doesn't matter whether your from the military industrial complex, the Wall Street establishment, or a foreign power. US policy is always treated as if it is purely a matter of a bunch of all-seeing Harvard savants patriotically promoting America's grand strategic interests with no base motives at all.

 

[boneyard bill]

Some think it could be catastrophic,
Black Flags Over Mosul

Let’s face it: If the ISIS starts taking out pipelines and oil installations around Mosul, it’s Game-Over USA. Oil futures will spike, markets will crash, and the global economy will slump back into a severe recession. Obama has a very small window to reverse the current dynamic or there’s going to be hell to pay.

I suspect that this is a bit of an exaggeration. Iraqi oil has not been fully available until recently anyway, and the largest oil fields are in the South. This isn't to say that we won't have a global recession. We are heading in that direction anyway, but I suspect that the oil from Mosul will only play a small part in that.

The article actually contradicts itself in arguing that this is a disaster for Washington and then claiming that the goals of the ISIS are the same as Washington's. I don't recall that a "soft partition" of Iraq was ever Washington's first priority. It was more like a fall-back position.

A partition of Iraq with a weak central government seems like the likely solution, but is it possible without Iranian support? And would the Iranians support such a solution as long as the Syrian conflict is on-going?

 

[boneyard bill]

It is utter American hubris for ou rpoliticians to think we are so powerful we can change any of it by force of our will. The last 10 years shows our overwhelming militarypower does ot work, unless we are willing to fully unleash it withoutrestraint. As in WWII. In the breakout from Normandy Eisenhowerresorted to carpet bombing the French countryside incurring civiliancausalities.


Have a draft and fully mobilize forwar. Occupy and pacify Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan as in postWWII. Anything less is wasted effort as we see in Iraq..


In these times we do ot have the stomach and will for it.

And that's a good thing.

Increased unwillingness to slaughter innocent civilians is sign of progress, not moral decay.

Anyway, in this situation we would more resemble the Nazi aggressors, not the Allied liberators.

Any US military support, mainly in the form of air support, for Iraq would need to be aimed at adding back cohesion to the Iraqi military forces who are folding under the pressure right now. Their military probably sees this as hopeless.

However, anything more air support would require an all out occupation. That isn't happening again.

When Bush The Wise was in office, he wanted to hold Iraq under permanent occupation, but because Obama is running away with his tail between his legs, the terrorists are taking over, just as his holiness Bush predicted. This is what we get for electing a socialist dictator: the terrorists win! [/conservolibertarian]

I don't know where you're getting your information. Bush negotiated a gradual withdrawal of American forces with the Iraqi government that would have US troops out on that last day of 2011. That marked the end of the SOFA (status of forces) agreement. We weren't going to leave troops in Iraq that could be tried in Iraqi courts. Obama promised to withdraw all American forces in 16 months. In fact, he withdrew American forces on the last day of 2011, exactly according to the timetable that Bush had negotiated.

When did Bush ever advocate a permanent occupation? That is completely in conflict with his promise to bring democracy to Iraq because once you recognize the elected democratic government you have to play by their rules, and if you don't want your troops tired in their courts under their law, and they insist otherwise, you have to pull your troops out.

 

[boneyard bill]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

Yes. It is ironic that the people we are helping in Syria are overthrowing the people we are helping in Iraq. My question regarding ISIL's support was actually somewhat rhetorical. Of course their funding is coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, if not directly, then indirectly through Syria. I know the US was supplying non-lethal aid to the Syrian rebels and assumed that we were covertly supplying arms as well. I didn't know that we were now admitting that we were supplying lethal aid. So that aid is probably now being used in Iraq.

American foreign policy makes no sense and the only explanation that I can give for it is a non-conspiracy theory. Our foreign policy is simply being directed by disparate special interests that are not always on the same page. After all, a conspiracy of bankers or Bilderbergers or Jesuits or Masons or whatever would at least have a coherent policy. Conspirators don't fall all over each other. After all, what's the point of conspiring if not to get your act together.

You are equating between Syrian rebels and ISIS (also known as ISIL). As far as I know, we have not purposefully given aid to ISIS, and indeed, have given direct aid to groups that are fighting ISIS in Syria (FSA and SNC).

No doubt some weapons the US has provided have made their way into ISIS, but I imagine that behind the curtain of "human rights" and "democracy" the reason we've been helping FSA rebels is because we knew the problem ISIS was going to be, especially in Iraq.

It sounds to me like we've been had again. When GW Bush came to office he was being pushed by a number of forces to invade Iraq. One of those groups was the Iraqi Liberation Front headed by a secular Iraqi Shiite exile named Ahmad Chalabi who claimed to have a lot of support among Iraqi Shiites. When we invaded we sent Chalabi in with a small army of his own of about 1,000 men. We expected to set him up as interim prime minister. But it turned out that he had virtually no support inside Iraq. Later, we discovered that Ahmad Chalabi was actually a secret Iranian agent! So the Iranians suckered us into dispatching their worst enemy, Saddam Hussein and putting their closest allies into power in Iraq.

Now we've been supporting rebels in Syria most of whom are not Syrian at all but various outside groups funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and now these groups and their associates are not turning on Iraq. The Saudis are out to defeat the Shiites, and we are helping them even when those Shiites are the same people we helped to put in power. Sounds to me like the Saudis have simply suckered us into the Syrian conflict to help them seize control of the Sunni-dominated regions of Iraq as well as to overthrow Assad and put Sunnis in power in Syria.

All of this is because it is influence, not wisdom or expertise, that guides American foreign policy. The problem isn't that the US has employed too much Realpolitik, but that we have employed far too little of it.

 

[laughing dog]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

In other words, you have no actual evidence that these rebels have been armed by the USA.

 

[J842P]

Also, one shouldn't equivocate between Saudi's (citizens of Saudi Arabia) and the House of Saud. The US has allied itself with the House of Saud, the royal family which rules over Saudi Arabia (SA). There is a very tenuous alliance between the House of Saud and the clerical factions in SA. The more hard-line clerics, who influenced people like Osama bin Laden, oppose any monarchy in the Holy Land, and would only accept a Caliphate for SA, especially considering that Mecca and Medina are located there.

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this. My guess would be Saudi Arabia since they are Sunni and the rebels are Sunni, and the Iraqi government is sympathetic to Iran. But what that would mean is that Saudi Arabia is working against US policy in the Mid-East.

On the other hand, I guess that's to be expected. US policy everywhere in the world is so incoherent that one shouldn't expect that our allies are necessarily going to defer to all of our schemes all of the time.

From the reports ISIS gets a lot of funding from conservative Saudis. It is the Iran-Saudi proxy war in Syria. The Saudis have been arming Syrians. It is rarely emphasized in the media and never by our govt, the Saudis have long funded extremists. 9/11 traced back to the Saudis. including anti-west religious schools in the USA.

Anyone who gains influence in the US foreign policy establishment never gets called out by the media. It doesn't matter whether your from the military industrial complex, the Wall Street establishment, or a foreign power. US policy is always treated as if it is purely a matter of a bunch of all-seeing Harvard savants patriotically promoting America's grand strategic interests with no base motives at all.

I agree that the US media is disgracefully inadequate vis-à-vis its role as the 'fourth estate.' They essentially parrot whatever talking point the current administration puts out. However, there are very intelligent people who understand the situation in the Middle East very well that work for our foreign policy agencies. The problem is that US leaders fail to heed their advice. The neocons of the Bush 2's admin were particularly bad at ignoring the opinions of these people. I'm still on the fence with the Obama admin, but I'm leaning towards incompetence.

The fundamental problem is that we do not understand our enemy. Robert McNamara, before he died, said the following:

If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.

This was a lesson he should have learned from Llewellyn Thompson during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unfortunately he did not learn it until after the Vietnam War. Even more dishearteningly, it seems this lesson hasn't sunk in for the current generation of rulers.

 

[tupac chopra]

The article actually contradicts itself in arguing that this is a disaster for Washington and then claiming that the goals of the ISIS are the same as Washington's.

There is no contradiction. He argues that if ISIS decides to destroy oil infrastructure it will be a disaster.
Then he comments on another report, which he quotes, and says if that report is right he doesn't think they'll march on Bagdad.
No one knows what the intentions of these people really are, so it's not a contradiction for a journalist to look at two possibilities

 

[tupac chopra]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

In other words, you have no actual evidence that these rebels have been armed by the USA.

You can find plenty of evidence that the US is arming Islaimic miltants in Syria, right next to Iraq. You can put the pieces together or keep your head in the sand.
Do you know what ISIS stands for?

 

[tupac chopra]

What I have to ask is, "Where is ISIL getting their weapons from? And who is supplying them with food, fuel, and transport?" Rebellions do not finance themselves. Someone is behind this..

As I mentioed above. The US has been arming "rebels" in Syria. many of these Syrian "rebels" would be aligned (or the same) as those who have taken Mosul.
The US has admitted they are helping Syrian opposition, which includes Muslim radicals, with "lethal and non lethal" assistance.
Rice: US offers 'lethal and non-lethal' aid to Syrian opposition

Syria borders Iraq. Mosul is quite near the Syrian border.

the people running America are boneheads. But if you criticise them or what they do it means you are unpatriotic

They were trying to support the nationalized opposition, the people that would take over for Assad, not the terrorists. Once the radical fringes were getting involved, the US involvement seemed to increase because they didn't want what is happening now to occur.

Proof USA is Training and Arming Terrorists in Syria

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Someone needs to ask the Chenebanger, Rumpot and Shrub if these militants likely have the WMDs they were looking for. If so we should bomb immediately. Rah Rah Rah Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mission accomplished, boys!

I should add that I often wonder if any of these buffoons will ever come clean rather like MacNamara did about Nam.