Because IS is beating back the Kurds, the one group in Iraq that we thought had a realistic chance of stopping them, and are steadily encroaching on Baghdad itself?
We: 1. provide all the humanitarian aid we can 2. use air power to prevent genocide where we can 3. beef up our uh, "allies" to contain the spread 4. support a pluralistic government in Iraq, like we are, Pretty much exactly like Mr. Obama is doing.
We created the last one, too, by propping up Saddam Hussein when Iraq and Iran were at war. We should learn from our expensive mistake and do nothing but support our allies in the region (Kurds, Turks). If the UN wants to do something, we should support that action, but we should under no circumstances engage in another war of choice in Iraq.
That's not a real justification. The Middle East has been a civil war for 1000 years, Saddam was a tyrant that tortured and killed indiscriminately, Iran and Saudi back different religious factions and support warring proxies throughout the region, the elected Iraq government made choices that divided the populace, the religions there promote martyrdom for their tribes and sects. Mesopotamia has been a violent series of wars for 5000 years really, the US gave a lot of blood and gold to try an impose a modern societal order for the people there but it turns out it was never going to work.
So ... the Kurds and the Iraqis should do something, or Iran and Israel since they're the main non-sunni powers in the region. Other than benefiting from natural resources, there's no compelling reason why this concerns the US. So? Is our mommy going to come and spank us? Didn't the US also establish "safe" zones, set up a new democratic government, oversee an election, train and arm an Iraqi force, and then get asked to leave? Burden of responsibility is on the Iraqi government now.
I notice no where in there is there anything about actually stopping or even rolling back ISIS. So we effectively do nothing and allow them to gobble up whatever they want? The government in Iraq is finished. The Kurds are for all intents and purposes already independent, and formal independence will come at some point. There is zero incentive for the Sunnis to ever return to the fold. I said before that Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall, and there ain't ***** at this point that's going to put him back together again. You do understand that ISIS is going to commit genocide everywhere they go, right? It's what they do. Convert to their form of Islam or die - there is no negotiation, no middle ground. And their aims are global, not just regional. They have every intention of creating a global caliphate and exporting terror to the West at some point. Defense doesn't win wars, and we are most definitely at war with ISIS. Pretending we aren't at war with these types of people is exactly what got us 9/11 in the first place. At what point do you decide to be more... proactive? Should we wait until they actually attack us at home again?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>US official: Team of US Marines, special forces landed on Iraq's Mt. Sinjar to assess potential civilian evacuation route - <a href="https://twitter.com/MarthaRaddatz">@MarthaRaddatz</a></p>— ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/statuses/499645369597579264">August 13, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
More: US troops land on Iraq's Mt Sinjar to plan for Yazidi evacuation US marines and special forces to assess options for rescue of refugees stranded on mountain by militant group Isis A team of US marines and special forces landed on Mount Sinjar in Iraq on Wednesday to assess options for a potential rescue of Yazidi civilians threatened by Islamic extremists and worn down by lack of food. The personnel flew in on V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft that can land vertically, joining a small number of American special forces who, the Guardian has been told, had been on the mountain for some days. That team had been assessing the military and humanitarian situation and guiding US air strikes against Islamic State (Isis) fighters encircling the mountain. A handful of British SAS soldiers were also in the area to “gather intelligence”, a British official said. The developments were the first confirmation that international forces were on Mount Sinjar. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/us-ground-troops-direct-role-evacuate-yazidis-iraq I suppose the SF were probably wearing sandals when they were calling in strikes...
Just to be clear, I support strikes against ISIS and I support using ground troops to secure a corridor to get those people to safety. I am just pointing out that you can't believe a word you hear coming out of any administration official's mouth at this point. But there's nothing really new their, either.
Not that it matters, because none of them will ever see combat per King Obama's orders, but... US has nearly 1,000 troops in Iraq There are now almost 1,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday. Another 129 troops were sent to Iraq this week. Including 100 or so troops who are assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, a total of about 964 troops are now in the country. Pentagon officials say the soldiers are not “combat troops,” but they are armed and can take self-defense measures. The latest troops includes 80 Marines who are assessing how the U.S. might help thousands of Yazidis stranded on Mt. Sinjar in northern Iraq. The Yazidis are members of a religious minority in Iraq who have been chased from their villages by fighters with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an extremist Sunni Muslim group. About 200 U.S. troops are in Erbil, the Kurdish regional capital in Iraq. The rest of the U.S. troops are in and around Baghdad. Four V-22 Osprey are stationed at a secured airfield in Erbil, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said Wednesday. Some U.S. rotary-wing aircraft are also stationed in the city. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215050-us-has-nearly-1000-troops-in-iraq I would have to hazard a guess that they are all wearing their running shoes while on duty.
But since we created the sorry government in Baghdad based on a pipe dream, we cannot just cut and run from it. Once you're in, you're in. Letting Baghdad fall is not acceptable. What do you expect the UN to do besides react at a snail's pace?
Consensus: BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR IRAQ AIR STRIKES Most Americans, regardless of politicial affiliation, approve of President Obama's recent decision to launch airstrikes against Islamist militants in Iraq As the US air campaign in Iraq enters its fifth day the American bombing campaign looks set to continue for months, as President Obama warns of a "long-term project". The airstrikes, which are aimed at halting the ISIS advance on Erbil and protecting religious minorities trapped in the area, have slowed but not stopped militants, according to the Pentagon. The decision to launch airstrikes was taken after the defeat of Kurdish forces that had, so far, managed to better weather the ISIS onslaught than the Iraqi army. The ensuing retreat of Kurdish troops prompted a refugee crisis, as up to 150,000 Yezidis sought refuge on an isolated mountain without food or water in northern Iraq. The latest research from YouGov shows that 58% of the American public support the President's decision to launch airstrikes, while only 24% oppose it. Unusually, support for the decision among Republicans (65%) is as high as it is among Democrats (66%). Independents are somewhat more critical of the decision, though 50% still support it compared to 30% who oppose the decision to bomb Islamist militants in Iraq. Full Story with Pretty Graphs here: http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/08/12/wide-support-airstrikes-iraq/ Note that Americans are not too keen on the idea of putting boots on the ground. I suppose they don;t understand how most airstrikes find their targets, but... Most of them are probably thinking in terms of large scale ground warfare or close urban combat type operations. It'll t be interesting to see how those numbers change when A) the jihadists strike the US mainland and B) we start losing people in combat operations that definitely aren't taking place according to the administration. But overall there is an opportunity here for Bambi to take a strong approach and hit ISIS hard. I hope he takes it. A limited approach won't even get a band-aid to stay on.
Even when you consider the fact that "other than benefiting from natural resources" thing is not a small thing, there's the slight fact that ISIS has made it explicitly clear that their ultimate goal is at bare minimum the entire conquest of the Middle East. So you either stomp them down now when they're still weak or you do it later when they're not.
LOL, sometimes clicking on red lines pays off... A wingnut like me could have written almost these exact words. See? Consensus! The UN is completely useless where the Middle East is concerned. They will pass a dozen resolutions in the General Assembly condemning Israel's Gaza action before they will pass a single resolution that does anything concrete about ISIL's genocide. It is perhaps the most useless organization on the planet at this point, and for years it has actively enables Islamist movements by allowing such pinnacles of human rights like Iran and the Sudan to hold "important" positions on its HR committees. It's a sick joke, and anyone who thinks it's the organization to turn to in a time like this... simply doesn't want anything to actually be done about the situation. The world has not seen a threat like ISIS before. The UN is not equipped to deal with it.
So. Anyone thought about that problem I asked about the Mosul Dam yet? I say we go in there and take it back. With boots. On the ground. Since, you know, airstrikes in the area could blow the thing open and flood Mosul, Baghdad, and at least a dozen other important towns and cities in between... Sounds like a job for the USMC with an assist from SOF. What says the herd, now that we've got consensus? :grin: If there is disagreement, please explain to me why leaving this dam under ISIS's control is a good idea and NOT a threat worthy of total panic.
Another problem (one we probably actually do have consensus upon) is evacuating the refugees from Sinjar. Let's talk about that. Start by looking at a map. Sinjar mountain is in the far northwestern corner of Iraq, near the Syrian border. Relative to Irbil, where relief units would likely have to stage from, one would have to cross roughly 130 miles through ISIS-controlled territory to reach them from Irbil on the ground, depending upon where upon the large mountain / plateau they staged the rescue from. There is also an old coalition base on the mountain that might be usable for an evac (likely something our people were assessing while they were there). If you want to do a ground evac to Irbil, you have to go through Mosul and Tal Afar - both controlled by ISIS. It may make more sense to evac though Syria into Turkey. Whichever way you go, you will have to pass through ISIS-controlled territory. The alternative is to evac by air. I do not think an aerial evac of 20K-30K has ever been attempted before, anywhere in history. Especially considering the dire situation - many of these people are probably going to die of thirst and exposure within days - I am not sure that is feasible. Of course, it does somewhat depend upon where everyone is on the mountain; those on the northwestern side might be better off going by land through Syria to Turkey, while those on the eastern/southern end might have to go by air. I do not know how many people are where so it's impossible to speculate. Another possibility might be to come in from Turkey on the ground, and exit the same way. We cannot possibly get enough assets there quickly enough to do this, but we could offer a large amount of support to the Turks if they would be willing. Might be a possibility... It sounds to me like there will be a multipronged effort coming from several directions and avenues (air and ground) involving us, the Kurd Pesh, and possibly the Turks (if they agree), and there may be several exit routes. And at every point, there is a significant possibility that we will be engaged by ISIS in combat, which means lots of combat support elements. This is going to be a fascinating op to watch. The urgency and time constraints make planning and resource allocation questions unique. There will be books written about this. I wonder what will follow?
And just to add... I don't see how any large columns move through Mosul. Just not happening. Which means it has to come via air and/or Turkey and Syria. ISIS will understand this and position their assets accordingly.
Something else to ponder... Maliki launched his little coup effort a couple of days ago, but we threw our support behind the PM designate Abadi. Interestingly (and likely decisively) Iran also supports Abadi. Iran supporting another candidate probably means that Maliki is on borrowed time, as Iran is the real power player in Iraqi politics at this point (which is why the Sunnis are really revolting). So let's assume that Maliki's power play fizzles out - I think it will at some point without Iran in his corner. Let's say Abadi makes concessions and appoints some prominent Kurds and Sunnis to relevant positions in an effort to keep the govt afloat and draw Sunnis back into the process. Let's see a show of hands of those who think it will be enough to entice them back into the process and trust an Iranian-backed PM, and turn on ISIS? Pinning our hopes and our strategy on Baghdad's reconciliation efforts is a pipe dream IMHO.
