US helicopters return to combat in Iraq

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by bruno, Oct 9, 2014.

  1. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
  2. Rocko

    Rocko Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    110
    I absolutely despise the "No boots on the ground" statement he constantly flaunts. How can you honestly say that when you have no idea how the conflict is going to unfold? To me this is nothing but a politically motivated statement that limits (At least if he sticks to his word) our overall effectiveness.

    Seems it would have been much better to say we don't intend to put boots on the ground but should things not go as planned we will keep it as an option... At least the enemy would have to "consider" it a possibility... The way it stands now they can clear that off their "To be concerned" list.
     
  3. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    As much as I like to stay out of political discussions, I have a feeling that any change in course or policy is being tabled by all sides until after the Midterm Elections. Politicians avoid anything that may hurt their chances at the polls. After the election I can imagine the debate heating back up.
     
  4. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212
    What is the mission? A Slipery Slope?

    I guess the Apaches have to fight. There have been gains by ISIS near Bagdad airport. That is the base the US Apaches operate out of. Two Iraqi Apaches were shot down this week. I would feel bad for any of our pilots shot down in ISIS territory. I also read that ISIS has just sent 10,000 militants to Anbar. Baghdad will fall in the next few months. Iraq's buddy Iran could send troops. Wouldn't that be great. We would need a couple of divivsions to stem the tide. Turkey's prime minister wants no part of it based on his own suppression of the Kurds. Time is running out. These thugs will probably do something here in a soft place to push us to fight. They are completely mad. God loves nuts which is why he made so many of them. Our country would indeed react to that.

    I dont think it is a political decision to deploy. I think the president is wondering what is going to be the fight. So do we sweep ISIS from Iraq and continue to Damascus? Overthrow Assad? That would not be popular with Iran and probably our Iraqi allies. Or do we reinstate Assad's power over all of Syria? That would be very unpopular with our Arab Allies and probably the majority of Syrians. Or do we stop at Iraq's border with Syria, a modern equivalent of the 1960's Vietnam 17th Paralell. War with borders, rules and protocols. The bad guys able to return to a safe place after their missions. Us older folks remember a similiar thread in our childhood. I heard Obama is approving airstrikes personally, very Johnson like of him. I have a son ready and willing to fight. I just want to know what is the mission.
     
  5. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    I would want to know that the country, and in particular this President, is behind the mission 110%. I'm not so sure about this President. I agree with you that ISIS is an enemy in whose hands you do not want to be.

    Regarding your thoughts on what Obama is struggling with, if he is in fact struggling, it seems to me you could start by sweeping them out of Iraq and make your final decisions about Syria later. The whole place will look different by then anyway. As a result I don't think your theory is correct. I think he just doesn't have the cojones. I don't care what decision he comes to but this 'a little bit pregnant' approach isn't working.
     
  6. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212
    I understand what you are saying. The president's big mistake was ignoring the "good" Syrian Rebels a few years ago. That is his mark in history. We could have helped them when they were on the outskirts of Damascus. They needed weapons. He sent MREs instead. Assad struck back and ISIS filled the vaccum. And here we are today.

    I would still like to know how far are we going. When we go. Which we will when they hit us on US Soil.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2014
  7. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    +1. :thumb:
     
  8. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    A counter point from a U.S Army War College professor

    http://warontherocks.com/2014/09/isil-is-contained-and-that-should-be-good-enough/

    My two cents, ISIS and etc, have to be dealt concurrently.

    What happens when our enemies have sanctuary to fall back on, the conflict becomes a war of attrition and committment.
     
  9. cb7893

    cb7893 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    379
    From the Article:

    But ISIL has at best some 30,000 fighters mostly equipped with small arms including rifles and a few artillery pieces, although it has been able to add to this arsenal thanks to the vehicles and armaments seized from fleeing U.S. equipped Iraqi forces. They are opposed by a U.S.-equipped and trained Iraqi active frontline military estimated at 271,500 and equipped with main battle tanks, heavy artillery, and armored personnel carriers. Moreover, U.S., Russian, and Iranian fighter aircraft conducting supportive strikes are supporting these Iraqi forces.

    If ever there was a proper time to ask WTF, this is it. What else can we do other than send our ground forces to shore up the Iraqi gov't and start this thing all over again? With all Obama's dithering and admission that "we have no strategy", I think that is the question that he is asking out loud.

    In no way, am I supporting Obama's decisions or giving him a free pass. He is paid to deal with these issues as he is paid to deal with Ebola or congressional Republicans. However, I understand his frustration, which manifested itself in Biden's explosion of derision for our "allies" in the region.

    I think his decision not to arm the "moderate" Syrian opposition was informed by that frustration born of the experience of the past 30+ years. We armed the Afghan Mujaheddin via the Pakistani ISI 35 years ago and what are we left with? Bin Laden practically hosted by the Paks and a trained, Islamic lumpenproletariat making war from Turkey to Xinjiang. Everywhere one turns, "allies" are compromising with, paying off or outright supporting them. When it's go time, our allies scatter like quail, unless the fire is about to burn them. Even then they often run or make a deal. The Turks buy oil from ISIS, pay ransoms and close off their territory to refueling jets striking ISIS. The closest thing we have to a real ally in the region is the Kurds, with whom we cannot deal without checking first with the Turks and our friends in Baghdad.

    Look at our own experiences in Iraq. Remember Fallujah? I won't recount all the history. After our tragic losses, we supported and armed the Sunni awakening to fight the foreign jihadists. That is, we paid off the tribal elders in Anbar province to fight AQ in Iraq instead of us. The hardest of the hard core remnants of AQ in Iraq created ISIS, who are now allied with those same Sunni tribes and sitting at the gates of Baghdad. The list goes on and on. Remember Ahmed Chalabi? Remember his source, "Curveball"? He literally walked into Baghdad with our troops in 2003 with the blessings of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, only to later pass US codes to the Iranians.
    The common thread is that none of these "allies" wants us there other than for specific purposes which suit their own commercial, sectarian or political goals, or more important, undermine their enemies. They have zero buy in to modernity.

    The constant refrain is that we left a vacuum in Iraq, we are about to leave one in Afghanistan and we need to prevent one in Syria. Filling a vacuum is not a strategy. The fact is these are tempests in the larger sucking vortex that extends from Peshawar to the Mediterranean. Maybe, as the article unwittingly suggests, the strategy is endless war and hope for the best. There is no one cheering louder for our "leadership" in that war than the Chinese, Russians and the Iranians. No one knows better than they the perils of empires overextending themselves.

    Also from the article:

    Finally, despite Obama’s sincere desire to divest the country from expensive and “dumb” wars in the Middle East, his decision to launch another preventive war in this region already racked by civil war and rife with sectarian tensions virtually ensures a continuation of America’s forever war. To paraphrase Gen. David Petraeus, can anyone tell us how this ends?
     
  10. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212
    Great Post above!!!
     
  11. Frankie

    Frankie Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    2
    With nukes.
     
  12. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    610
    People often talk about not having a strategy for this or that, but most of those same people don't know what a strategy actually is. It's not just a word.
     

Share This Page