I'm against sending in troops for this. Other than that, I'm really sick of reading about Iraq. I'm betting even if this flares up further like a 15 yr old's pimple, it won't be the biggest defining issue in 2016. I'm not surprised we're behind the curve on ISIS, but it's something everyone in the region will have to figure out and adjust accordingly. You're pretending like you know more than you do. We're posting in the armpit of a basketball forum. Not that glorious a front, Chief.
I will start: 1) Tell Maliki that we will pull his a$$ out of the fire, but it is conditional on political reforms taking place. Tell him that he must accept regional autonomy for a Sunni enclave, just as the Kurds enjoy. Tell him that we will guarantee their security militarily, and we will keep the cash and military assistance flowing to his regime in return. He can keep his position, but they need to truly develop a federalist system with three effectively autonomous regions that would be under national authority for the purposes of military defense, taxation, and (oil) revenue sharing. This in effect would buy off Maliki and the Shiites in return for peace. 2) Iran will make their own play. They will probably offer Maliki a better deal as far as he is concerned. So give the Iranians a call and tell them the A) the deal we proffered with them last year (the one they interpreted as giving them a right to enrich uranium) is off unless they play ball, and B) this time we will approve the sanctions that Congress passed. And C) we sill not oppose Assad if they continue. It's all about leverage, boys... 3) ***IF*** the above two issues are addressed (though any deals would likely be very messy and look different in the end state from what I proposed)... Be willing to put 3-5K troops back on the ground in Iraq. We have plenty of room for them in the embassy complex. Move a CVBG into the area, strike ISIS targets within Syria and Iraq.ISIS targets are mostly fleeting, which makes them hard to hit from the air, but if there is at least some capability overhead with a few people on the ground, that could make the difference. This wouldn't be that costly and wouldn't be that risky (relatively speaking), but it wouldn't be free, either. ISIS is vulnerable now. They are exposed and likely overextended. If they are given time they won't be. We can hit them now, or we can hit them later. We can it them while they're a ragtag bunch of guys with no air defenses shuffling pieces around, or we can wait until they develop the infrastructure for a full-blown war and try to fight them then. If the locals can't stamp this out then we are going to fight them at some point. When? So... That's the best plan I can come up with. It's probably fatally flawed in some way, but given what I know it's the best I can come up with given our current situation.. I'd like to hear yours.
I know what I know, and I know that there's a lot I don't know. And your description of this forum is apt. I know what it is, which is why I take it just serious enough to call lots of people here libtards, but also post many substantive links. It is what it is, and I am very aware that no one is changing their minds because of anything posted here. I've actually said that many times. We are all wading knee-deep in piss and **** in this forum. Accept it for what it is.
I still remember Treeman being so sure that there were wmd's and that they were buried in the Syrian desert. Now he virtually alone believes that there were lots of wmd we found in Iraq. Hey I still remember that the guys he is such a trusting fan boy of thought that all the Iraqis would greet us with flowers and fruits and that the war would cost about ten percent or less of what it actually cost. It would lead to peace in the Middle East. His same guys he trustsnow say a couple of thousands, (some even say a couple of hundred ) troops in Iraq would have caused it all to be peachy keen.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Estimated number of ISIS fighters in Iraq: 6,000 - 8,000.Estimated number of Latin Kings in Chicago: 20,000-35,000.<a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#truestory">#truestory</a></p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/477800032016424961" data-datetime="2014-06-14T13:09:39+00:00">June 14, 2014</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It looks like the Shiites are beginning to stand up. I think ISIS greatly overplayed their hand by threatening to attack Shiite Holy sites. I highly doubt Baghdad falls to ISIS but things are going to be worse as it descends back into civil war between Sunni and Shiites with Kurds cementing Kurdistan. My own feeling is this country will be partitioned at some point and probably should've been before. http://news.msn.com/world/young-iraqis-volunteer-to-fight-surging-militants Young Iraqis volunteer to fight surging militants BAGHDAD (AP) — Hundreds of young Iraqi men gripped by religious and nationalistic fervor streamed into volunteer centers Saturday across Baghdad, answering a call by the country's top Shiite cleric to join the fight against Sunni militants advancing in the north. Dozens climbed into the back of army trucks, chanting Shiite slogans and hoisting assault rifles, pledging to join the nation's beleaguered security forces to battle the Sunni group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has launched a lightning advance across the country. "By God's will, we will be victorious." said one volunteer, Ali Saleh Aziz. "We will not be stopped by the ISIL or any other terrorists." The massive response to the call by the Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued via his representative Friday, comes as sectarian tensions are threatening to push the country back toward civil war in the worst crisis since U.S. forces withdrew at the end of 2011. Fighters from the al-Qaida splinter group, drawing support from former Saddam Hussein-era figures and other disaffected Sunnis, have made dramatic gains in the Sunni heartland north of Baghdad after overrunning Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul on Tuesday. Soldiers and policemen have melted away in the face of the lightning advance, and thousands have fled to the self-rule Kurdish region in northern Iraq. On Saturday, insurgents seized the small town of Adeim in Diyala province after Iraqi security forces pulled out, said the head of the municipal council, Mohammed Dhifan. Adeim is about 100 kilometers (60 miles) north of Baghdad. There was no official confirmation of the loss of the town. Jawad al-Bolani, a lawmaker and former Cabinet minister close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said a military offensive was underway Saturday to drive the insurgents from Tikrit, Saddam's hometown north of Baghdad, although fighting in the area could not be confirmed. AP Television News footage showed Kurdish fighters, known as peshmerga, driving out militants who had taken over an army outpost some 24 kilometers (15 miles) west of the oil city of Kirkuk. The position had earlier been abandoned by Iraqi army troops. Long coveted by the Kurds who have a self-rule region in northern Iraq, Kirkuk fell under the control of the peshmerga this week after Iraqi army forces left. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Saturday his Shiite nation is ready to help Iraq if asked, adding that it has "no option but to confront terrorism." Addressing a news conference, he suggested the Sunni militants in northern Iraq are linked to Iraqi politicians who lost in parliamentary elections held in April. "We will study if there is a demand for help from Iraq. Until today, no specific request for help has been demanded. But we are ready to help within international law," he said. "Entry of our forces (into Iraq) to carry out operations has not been raised so far. It's unlikely that such conditions will emerge." Iran has built close political and economic ties with Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam's Sunni-led regime and many influential Iraqi Shiites, including al-Maliki, have spent years in exile in the Islamic Republic. The fast-moving rebellion has emerged as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability since even before the Americans left. Long-simmering Sunni-Shiite tensions boiled over after the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam in 2003, leading to vicious fighting between the two Muslim sects. But the bloodshed ebbed in 2008 after a so-called U.S. surge, a revolt by moderate Sunnis against al-Qaida in Iraq and a Shiite militia cease-fire. The latest bout of fighting, stoked by the civil war in neighboring Syria, has pushed the nation even closer to a precipice that could partition it into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish zones. Shiite cleric and political leader Ammar al-Hakim was shown on television networks donning a camouflaged military fatigue as he spoke to volunteers from his party, although he still wore his clerical black turban that designates him as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. State-run television also aired a constant flow of nationalist songs, clips of soldiers marching or singing, flying aircraft, brief interviews with troops vowing to crush the militants and archival clips of the nation's top Shiite clerics. Extensive clips of al-Maliki's visit on Friday to the city of Samarra, home to a much revered Shiite shrine that was bombed in 2006, also were broadcast. The footage seemed clearly aimed at rehabilitating his reputation in the eyes of Shiites, with a dour-faced al-Maliki seen praying at the Shiite shrine — an apparent reminder of his commitment to his faith and the protection of its followers. He also declared that Samarra would be the assembly point for the march farther north to drive out the militants, another decision with a religious slant to win over Shiites. In an address to military commanders in Samarra, he warned that army deserters could face the death penalty if they don't report back to their units. But he insisted the crisis had a silver lining. "This is our chance to clean and purge the army from these elements that only want to make gains from being in the army and the police," he said. "They thought that this is the beginning of the end but, in fact, we say that this is the beginning of their end and defeat." Also Saturday, the Iraqi government's counterterrorism department said the son of Saddam's vice president, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was killed in an air raid by the Iraqi air force in Tikrit. It said Ahmed al-Douri was killed with some 50 other Saddam loyalists and ISIL fighters on Friday. The report could not be immediately verified.
While I don't desire Mr. Obama's schlong I do trust his judgement to make reasonable considered decisions from the available options presented to him by the Joint Chiefs and State Department. In blaming Bush I'm only stating that Mr. Obama was dealt a losing hand that he can only play out by minimizing our losses. There is nothing he can do or should have done that would yield a positive end to our involvement. The US cannot afford to continue spending billions of dollars managing a religious civil war among the Islamic peoples and we do not have the collective will to do so. In fact, Mr. Obama was elected with a mandate from the voters to disengage in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know it looks ugly, I know Mr. Treeman feels like his efforts and friends were wasted and in vain, but short of total victory and the complete annihilation of the opposing culture this is what the end was always going to look like. History moves on. I'm from the Viet Nam generation so I've seen it before. As for what I would have Mr. Obama do now, #1 direct a fraction of our billions of military spending on humanitarian aid. We need to be the world's healer as much as policeman #2 use our technological advantages to provide as small and precise strikes as possible to prevent greater violence (yes airstrikes and drones) #3 provide ubiquitous information to the population that rallies them, not divides them; bomb the nations with millions of alternatively powered radios and televisions, then blanket the airwaves messages of peace and unity, sort of the anti-FAUX to counter the anachronistic messages of jihad from the representatives of God. #4 go full Manhatten Project to develop alternative energies so the geopolitical value of these lands no longer demands we and other world powers fuel their rage and divisions with endless supplies of money. But the arc of countries from Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Syria, Somalia to Nigeria are going to burn on a scale we cannot address. It's the way of the world.
Peace and unity? How blatantly arrogant of you, to presuppose that the peoples of the Middle East don't want "peace and unity" until you give some hippie speech to convince them "to elect good men".
Your plan is tarded. Obama said no boots on the ground, precision airstrikes come with boots ont he ground. With boots on the ground you get dead boots on the ground. Like last Monday when 5 soldiers were killed in Zabul Province.
I'm surprised that treeman would not be more inclined to see the Sunnnis and Shi'ites in open, direct, and constant warfare. Better off stoking the fires of hatred in a centuries old religious schism to keep the battle "over there" killing each other, rather than over here killing anyone else. Is this not what the real goal has always been? Keep the turmoil churning?
There needs to be a voice articulating a vision other than jihad. I've never been there and don't know the perception of the common man, but I do know that the only recognized authority is the Islamic clergy and they are split between the competing ideologies. You can't be working toward anything with visualizing the goal. It would be long term and passive like Radio Free Europe but it keeps a dream alive. I don't really have any faith in it myself, but I don't have any faith the Sunni Shia conflict will be resolved in this century either. I don't have much any faith in the US resolving our deteriorating schism either, partly because the people I talk with insist on hyperbole like hippie talk and r****d.
You want to call in F18's and B2's to drop JDAMs on dudes in pickup trucks? Good luck with that. You need helos.
Bandwagoner is correct. Air strikes would require some boots on the ground. There is absolutely no way the Air Force is going to drop jack with an Iraqi calling it in. The Air Force won't even let Army FISTers (as I was trained) call in CAS anymore - only Air Force JTACs can call for CAS now. And SF, of course. He is also correct that those sorts of strikes would not lend themselves very much to striking the types of targets ISIS would present. ISIS doesn't have lots of fixed infrastructure targets to hit, they have technicals, HMMWVs (now), infantry, etc. You don't throw JDAMs at those - helos or A-10s would be far more appropriate. F/A-18s could still run missions, but they wouldn't be as effective. Best bet would probably be to run some A-10s out of Ali Al Salem in Kuwait.
Agreed. However, it won't keep McCain and the usual suspects on this board from getting hysterical and having fun scheming about cool weapon systems and wanting to put some boots on the ground. They will even return to trying to justify it by their professed great love for the Iraqi people who we have slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands needlessly-- perhaps even a million since we should count the deadly sanctions that killed so many infants and kids between our two assaults on Iraq and its people. Also don't forget that Sadam was in full withdrawal from Kuwait when Bush I needlessly attacked in the first Gulf War. As their hero Dubya tried to say: "Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice;shame on me. Fortunately the American people seem like they may not be fooled again at this time.
It truly is stunning how revisionist the true believers are. McCain sounds like treeman. Wonder what the criminal Bush thinks? McCain: We Won Iraq, Obama Lost It
Heh you aren't going to have many people take you seriously when you are saying things like "the criminal Bush".....however, if your goal is to have people laugh at you then keep it up.
Well a guy who knows more about terrorism and Iraq than Treeman or you will ever dream of knowing says: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/richard-clarke-george-bush-war-crimes_n_5410619.html
