ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

As soon as the entire Bush admin resigns for passing the patriot act.

I don't even see how that was a failure? Why would someone resign because the country is "forced" into a police action (which it isn't) because it did not perform a police action earlier? That's like saying you're angry at her for her not having sent your soldiers to theirs deaths sooner.

---

If more soldiers and civilians die from the negligent inaction- yes you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We could have stayed longer still, but for that at least one Indian cottoned on to the fact that they no longer had cause to fear us. The Japanese then highlighted this fact, and the Americans left us no choice whatsoever, but our empire was still based on fear of us. Once we lost our stomach for enforcing that fear, it was only a matter of time before the colonies started challenging us. It's not such a bad thing to lose that, but it's a matter of political fact. No-one fears the Americans, as everyone knows that they'll never have the political will or the desire to be a country feared by others. For the kind of nation-building envisaged by PVC, you need to have that basis of fear. For all the cotton candy nicey-nicey nation-building in Germany and Japan that the history books like to talk about, that was after you'd destroyed them as nations and left them with no identity but whatever you saw fit to impose.

---

First off, the allusion in your opening sentence was "cloth of gold" in quality. Kudos.

Of course we smashed Germany and Japan. The fact is we did not do so in Iraq. The only way to nation build with a goodly chance to success involves a level of suppression of the previous culture that is intolerable to modern sensibility. We have and continue to have this capability, we lack the will to be that imperialistic.

Lacking the will to do it properly, the USA should retire from the field.

Quite a bit of my thinking leads me to suggest that we:

Fold NATO; adopt isolationism in international affairs; offer separate defensive alliances to England (likely accepted) and France (likely rejected); end the special relationship with Israel; drop our military to a size no more than half of current levels and preferably smaller -- after all, they will only be deployed at home, in the New World with the request of local authorities, and in England; repeal about 75% of the Patriot Act; Adopt a national language (I would prefer English, but Spanish might be more acceptable); legalize drugs, prostitution, and gambling (regulate and tax -- prohibition fails); cut government functions by about half reverting those functions to the several states; increase NASA funding by an order of magnitude or so with objectives to match.

Ain't gonna happen -- but that's where I think we would trend best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I could pick your whole post apart... But it's to stupid to waste my time on.

In short (as it doesnt really deserve much time).

1. India as part of the British empire and on, is part of the politics. They are thus blamable when it comes to international politics.

2. Atomic weapons are atomic weapons. Heck, I have citizenship in two countries actively NOT going for nuclear weapons, this with Russia/formerly Soviet as neighbor.

3. If you don't think the IMF comes into play addressing India, you are not only ill schooled, you seem to fail at internet.

---

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

We're assuming an independent Scotland, then?

Anyway, while you're doing that the Balance of Power shifts to a catastrophic degree towards China in asia and Russia in Europe.

Without American backing Israel looks like a soft target and a new and bloody war breaks out between Israel and the non-genocidal Levantine States on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Without American leadership military co-operation in Europe unravels into smaller blocks, the UK likely withdraws from the EU as a result, Germany either becomes the axis on which everyone turns, or abdicates responsibility - lots of nasty ways for this to go, including opportunistic Russian Invasion.

China begins to threaten Japan openly - lacking American backing Japan aggressively re-militarise....

All HELL breaks loose.

I sympathise with your desire to downsize your military commitment, but isolationism just ends up dragging the US into the war late, rather than keeping you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We're assuming an independent Scotland, then?

Anyway, while you're doing that the Balance of Power shifts to a catastrophic degree towards China in asia and Russia in Europe.

Without American backing Israel looks like a soft target and a new and bloody war breaks out between Israel and the non-genocidal Levantine States on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Without American leadership military co-operation in Europe unravels into smaller blocks, the UK likely withdraws from the EU as a result, Germany either becomes the axis on which everyone turns, or abdicates responsibility - lots of nasty ways for this to go, including opportunistic Russian Invasion.

China begins to threaten Japan openly - lacking American backing Japan aggressively re-militarise....

All HELL breaks loose.

I sympathise with your desire to downsize your military commitment, but isolationism just ends up dragging the US into the war late, rather than keeping you out.

---

It is not the downsizing of the military commitment per se which is the issue. Yes, it is expensive but if it is used effectively than it justifies its cost. My objections are to the half-***ed way it gets done. Either commit with the intent to use the requisite force to win, or don't. ALL of our allies -- including the best of the lot which is you folks in the UK -- want to commit the military to various interventions without committing them to win. I'm staunchly in favor of a lot less in the way of interventions while using an Almighty-huge malfing hammer when we DO intervene. Absent that option, isolationism kills fewer yanks.

Dragged in to something bigger later? Quite possibly, but then we might take it seriously enough to resolve it as thoroughly as we did in WW2. Efforts to curtail victory always seem to backfire even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

1r -- Talk about your "collective responsibility" attacks. Play that game long enough and we are all responsible for every bad thing ever done by any human anywhere ever since we all migrated out of the Olduvai gorge -- how do you live with your shame for the atrocities at Numantia? India is responsible for England's politics prior to WW2 as it was a member of the Empire? You do understand that the satrapies don't get to set policy, correct? Is American Samoa responsible for the Iraq war? In a vague sense, as part of the entity that is the USA, then Yes. But it is not as though that territory had any real say in the matter, they have no meaningful vote in our governance.

2r -- Atomic weapons have a lot of stigma attached to them, but they will continue to be developed by most nations with the wherewithal to do so. Why? Because they work. Once deployed you have a way to hurt any aggressor out of proportion to anything you might do without some form of WMD. Moreover, among WMDs, they can be more effectively focused at a single target and deployed using fewer resources (once developed). More nations will join the nuclear "club" as time progresses as no other weapon system yet developed carries a greater deterrent value. Would the events in Ukraine have transpired as they have if the Ukrainians had retained a dozen or so warheads and the means to deploy them? If your nation(s) choose not to avail themselves of this, then bon chance.

3r -- I do not think the IMF irrelevant to India. I think the IMF irrelevant in assessing Britain's cultural "makeover" of India between 1860 and 1950. Perhaps my phrasing was not precise.

---

You answer my post like if it wasn't just a random (and somewhat offensive) drunken rant... What's up with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Bogus. What led to a new police action in Iraq is the hawks' inability to take "We should sit this one out" for an answer.

---

They also thought that they could sandwich Iran between two friendly-to-the-West successor states and thereby neutralize it. Strategically sound if the resources to actually do it had been made available -- but that would have required a 10+ year commitment of forces at suppression levels and was never politically viable.

So, Gelcube, did you ever meet one of the well-meaning idiots who blithely thought that Iraqis would greet you with flowers and cheers while they held spontaneous free elections the moment Sadam was toppled? Talk about your blindered thinking about the aftermath of a war that we fought at the wrong time and for a reason which turned out to be fallacious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Nobody thought that who was actually in the Army.

---

I have little doubt of that. I was wondering if one of the "suits" with those views took a tour of your post while you were deployed....and if they would have let one of the troops "discuss" things with them.

I did run into such types here in Canada. A service club I belonged to, with connections to the military, had individuals with that viewpoint. Iraq was going to be over almost as soon as it began; the people would flock to the occupiers with joy and gratitude not seen since the liberation of the lowlands in Europe. Among this group, the point was a matter of faith and unshakable; no argument could undermine this belief; as well, it was deeply resented that Canada had decided to sit out (largely) the war in Iraq.

So, what are all of you "non-hawks" suggesting our policy should be? Same think as the suggestion is Syria: "sit this one out"?

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We should support the three-state partition, give money to the Kurds, promise money to the Baghdad government pending political reform, and at the very most hit ISIS leadership with drone strikes. At the very most. I'd be cool with nothing at all, though.

Your stance on the 2nd Amendment should help your understanding here, Dawg. We gave these people every opportunity to set up a western-style democracy, and now if they want it they actually have to fight for it. There's nothing more we can do. If there's a time and a place for our military support it is well after the people have demonstrated a willingness to fight for it, not before.

---

Shouldn't you have thought about that, like, before entering?

Just comes off as a little bit late to think about that now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We should support the three-state partition, give money to the Kurds, promise money to the Baghdad government pending political reform, and at the very most hit ISIS leadership with drone strikes.

---

Fine, that is better than some.

If the NRA ever orchestrated mass killings or forced women to wear a burqua, I would advocate wiping them off the face of the map with all force necessary.

There is legitimacy in this history lesson; "maybe the past should have been done differently". If this is an attempt to steer discussion towards a more cautious and skeptical decision making process, then it is a good thing. If it is little more than an "I told you so", then you should start living in the present and be ashamed of yourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

There is legitimacy in this history lesson; "maybe the past should have been done differently". If this is an attempt to steer discussion towards a more cautious and skeptical decision making process, then it is a good thing. If it is little more than an "I told you so", then you should start living in the present and be ashamed of yourselves.

---

Can't it be a little bit of both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't think you can separate the two. People who aren't chided for their mistakes just repeat them. See the long-incumbent congressmen clamoring for more intervention for example. :shrug:

---

We need to know what Lemur's representative is saying on this subject.

I supported the war irrespective of WMD's in 2003 (I think that I was 19). The overarching theory was that it would overthrow a dictator and lead to a collapse of other proximate/related dictatorships (we would use it as an example and radiating center of destabilization). I was not naive enough to believe that it would be a cakewalk, and in reviewing the US casualty rate and time in occupation could have been viewed as a success in relation to many other modern invasions (up until now). I was hoping for a resolution in between Japan/Germany on the one end and Vietnam on the other. A Korea of sorts at the very least? This result would be a disaster that added insult to injury.

Leave aside that technological and economic evolution may be more responsible for the regime collapses, I personally believe in war to solve problems and that mankind is made for it, but I am not dumb enough to believe that it can't cause more terrible problems. Our rebuilding efforts have been insufficient compared with our military capability. We need to work on this in future invasions/police actions. We shouldn't doubt though, that some events require military action, even if there are some crazy people like me who believe that this is the case more often than probably appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well one can only hope you've since adjusted your views a bit. I was ambivalent on the war, mostly because I was like 14 or 15 when it started. :shrug:

I think the fact that we did not go to war in Syria is a step in the right direction. It was a lot of peoples' thought (even mine, to be honest) to support the FSA early on as they were secular in nature--but its clear that if you give any of these middle-eastern groups anything at all its almost certainly going to be a bad idea. I think US policy since the 1970's could be interpreted as the world's most thorough test of that fact, quite frankly. We've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that giving money and weapons to extremists is a really bad idea. And yet people aren't even getting that.

---

I disagree. While in hindsight I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq, I would have still supported the invasion of Afghanistan and would have most certainly supported a relatively large scale involvement in Syria, given the USE of weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of outcome absent involvement being overwhelmingly unfavorable (evidence present in Northwestern Iraq & Syria).

I've learned lessons, but not the same ones as you it seems. Arming the most rationale actors with the biggest upside is more in our interest than allowing the least rational to run rampant and be armed by our enemies and fairweather friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What do you even know about these countries. You're projecting your middle-class American view of the world onto foreign policy, which is another thing we've objectively proven to be a bad idea. We need to be far more tactful and moderate in our international relations. We would never have needed to invade Afghanistan in the first place had we not used the early Taliban as a tool against the Russians during the Cold War, which is something else we've objectively proven to be a bad idea--ya, we won the Cold War and got left with the role of World Police while our former enemies still run Russia and are having a lot more fun with it than they used to!

Chickenhawks are insufferable, don't be one. Vote them out! :rtwno:

---

By that standard, what do I know about my own country. If I don't know about these countries, I can't imagine who does.

NATO and the EU took the moderate approach with Russia and ceded the Black Sea. Dumb and they will regret it. We all understand people everywhere better than we think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Did the Sunni/Shia split occur to you before the invasion? It is one of the most prominent features of Iraq, going back to Saddam's time and before. Yet it was not part of the political equation when they let Bush use military force. It wasn't even on anybody's radar. We aren't qualified to play World Police, because nobody is. And while we were so busy screwing around abroad, we got screwed at home. That Patriot Act isn't going anywhere any time soon, and the NSA probably isn't either. They are facts of life that aren't as easily swept away as a failed invasion to a place we no longer have to go back to. I'd say most Americans don't know enough about America, ffs.

---

Nonsense. Shia arabs were killed under Saddam along with Sunni Kurds. Iraq fought a war over these things with Iran. Baathist politics in Syria and Iraq were well explored and the subordinate Shiite population was one of the major lures to an American invasion due to their natural mistrust of their government. Just because you weren't aware of it when you were 14 doesn't mean our national security advisors were oblivious. Or me, for that matter. Say that I was wrong, but don't make the mistake of thinking I don't know the area better than most. My FSO exam score would beat a number of mid to high level State Department employees.

How was it wrong? Arab Sunni's were our major problem aside from some short lived resistance, according to my recollection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

---

If you're working from orbit, use a KEW. Cheaper and less after-effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

...About the only thing that worked was the Surge, and that was really an all-out assault on the terrorist networks around Baghdad that secured a temporary lull in the fighting for us to do a little politics and withdraw....

---

And for the only time during the occupation gave us the ratio of garrison to insurgent necessary to actually suppress an insurgency. Neat gadgets and satellites do not substitute well for people on a comparatively low-tech mission. Just as our HUMINT going into Iraq was....less than ideal [other terms have and will be applied].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Because it didn't work out that way. The Shia never worked with us in a way that was conducive to government building. The de-Baathification was something a lot of highly qualified people thought was a great freaking idea, and that also really didn't work out at all. About the only thing that worked was the Surge, and that was really an all-out assault on the terrorist networks around Baghdad that secured a temporary lull in the fighting for us to do a little politics and withdraw. :shrug:

My point is that are you willing to bet American lives and plenty of non-American lives on your academic understanding of a people? You shouldn't be. Nobody should be. Its arrogant, and we should go back to being more isolationist--at least militarily.

---

I think that the breakdown is something like 65% Shi'a Arab, 15% Sunni Arab. Working with Shi'ites was greatly successful, although it opened Iraq up to excessive Iranian influence. It is arguable that a similarly weak-kneed "war is never the answer" mentality caused them to believe that this threat was not existential. It allowed people who realize that war is a very powerful answer to gain an upper hand.

Either way, I operate off of a basic understanding that anyone arguing over foreign policy in the Middle-East has a functional understanding of Middle-Eastern issues and history until proven otherwise by more than incorrect opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What are you implying? That the Iraqi people, who had an 8-year war of attrition with Iran, a ghastly one-sided war of annihilation with us in 1991, another ghastly one-sided invasion in 2003, and an 8-year Occupation where hundreds died every day from sectarian violence, from Sunnis AND Shias, don't understand war?

I'd argue Americans don't understand war. If they did, they wouldn't waste the Army's time! I hate giving Obama props, but his speechy point about the Army being the best hammer and not every problem being a nail is quite apt.

---

Yes, I also like this metaphor generally.

I would not argue that Americans understand war. I doubt that most soldiers understand war. I may not know combat, but I have a decent grasp of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

What are you implying? That the Iraqi people, who had an 8-year war of attrition with Iran, a ghastly one-sided war of annihilation with us in 1991, another ghastly one-sided invasion in 2003, and an 8-year Occupation where hundreds died every day from sectarian violence, from Sunnis AND Shias, don't understand war?

I'd argue Americans don't understand war. If they did, they wouldn't waste the Army's time! I hate giving Obama props, but his speechy point about the Army being the best hammer and not every problem being a nail is quite apt.

---

He hit the nail on the head on that one... :drummer:

:creep:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

But you'll never have a better grasp of war than the generals who were let go right before the invasion for opposing it. What good is an Army, if nobody uses it right? What good are Joint Chiefs, when they're not cut out of advising and left only as implementors of bad policy?

---

No question there. Silencing of intelligent and helpful objection may help push an agenda though, but nearly guarantees a sh*tstorm afterward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I would not argue that Americans understand war. I doubt that most soldiers understand war. I may not know combat, but I have a decent grasp of war.

---

https://i.imgur.com/0DjYDEB.jpg

The point is that most soldiers, today and historically, know/knew combat, or some amount of the logistics involved in war. They know some of the effects of war on individuals in the field firsthand. They don't understand why they are at war or what the objectives are or the geographic/demographic/economic/diplomatic/etc. Most understand some elements of war better than the majority, but war is bigger than anecdotal experience, no matter how traumatising and/or heroic it may have been.

This is not a particularly controversial opinion, is it?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

The point is that most soldiers, today and historically, know combat, or some amount of logistics involved in war. They know the affects of war on individuals in the field firsthand. They don't understand why they are at war or what the objectives are or the geography/demographics/economics/diplomacy/etc. Most understand some elements of war better than the majority, but war is bigger than anecdotal experience, no matter how traumatising and/or heroic it may have been.

This is not a particularly controversial opinion, is it?.

---

My opinion is that it is 100% hubris to claim any more knowledge about a region than a soldier who had to survive in that region for years and dealt with the locals to minimize the amount of disgruntled people planting IED's on the roads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

My opinion is that it is 100% hubris to claim any more knowledge about a region than a soldier who had to survive in that region for years and dealt with the locals to minimize the amount of disgruntled people planting IED's on the roads.

---

Maybe. I would be curious to hear what current or former service members think about the level of engagement of the average soldier during their service.

Hey, look at this cool video I've found.
http://Using Technology to Map Confl...be/9X6GqEAph2E can anybody find more like it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Maybe.

---

From what you have posted, you are around 30 years old now. It's time to stop looking out the window, thinking that you can take bigger dumps on the lawn than the dog.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how following the hawkish calls to intervene in Syria could have helped what's now going on in Iraq. The calls were to intervene in Syria against Assad. While the current lot in Iraq have links to groups in Syria, they're linked to those who are fighting against Assad. If we'd intervened as the hawks wanted us to, we'd only have weakened the main opponent of the Islamists, giving much more scope to expand in Syria as well as in Iraq. Right now, by declining to act against Assad, we've at least left a strong man in place who's opposed to those we're now being alarmed about. If we were to have intervened in Syria, we'd only have helped things currently in Iraq if we'd intervened on the side of Assad, then teamed up with the now pacified Syria and Iran for a 3 way crack down on Islamists in Iraq. But that's not what the hawks were advocating though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Even with the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure how following the hawkish calls to intervene in Syria could have helped what's now going on in Iraq. The calls were to intervene in Syria against Assad. While the current lot in Iraq have links to groups in Syria, they're linked to those who are fighting against Assad. If we'd intervened as the hawks wanted us to, we'd only have weakened the main opponent of the Islamists, giving much more scope to expand in Syria as well as in Iraq. Right now, by declining to act against Assad, we've at least left a strong man in place who's opposed to those we're now being alarmed about. If we were to have intervened in Syria, we'd only have helped things currently in Iraq if we'd intervened on the side of Assad, then teamed up with the now pacified Syria and Iran for a 3 way crack down on Islamists in Iraq. But that's not what the hawks were advocating though.

---

My calls were not simply to intervene against Assad. Neither were the calls of those who were doing the real pushing. It was to use our involvement to shape events on the ground - those are different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

From what you have posted, you are around 30 years old now. It's time to stop looking out the window, thinking that you can take bigger dumps on the lawn than the dog.

---

I take way bigger dumps than the dog. I rock dumps all over the lawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

My calls were not simply to intervene against Assad. Neither were the calls of those who were doing the real pushing. It was to use our involvement to shape events on the ground - those are different things.

---

What does "(using) our involvement to shape events on the ground" mean in practice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

This is something where the data is out there, for people who really want to know--for posterity's sake--what it was like to be a soldier in the war in Iraq. I've even posted at length in some other threads on some of the details, simply because I want Americans to understand what we did there*. Keeping in mind, of course, that I can only speak for 2008-2009 personally. Lots of Soldiers stayed on big FOBs, but those soldiers tended to be support troops anyway. My company was not one of those; we were dug into a section of an Iraqi Army outpost plop in the middle of northwest Bagdhad. You couldn't wake up and take a piss in the middle of the night without running into some Iraqi troops, they even ate with us.

Every single day we did patrols and engaged with the locals--sometimes it was guarding a market place, sometimes it was setting up checkpoints on the road, sometimes it was raiding somebody's house (but always with a warrant from an Iraqi judge--we even had special evidence collection procedures that fit their judicial system, which is not at all like an episode of Law and Order!), sometimes we were in trucks and sometimes we were on foot. We almost always operated as a platoon of around 20 people, leaving a very light footprint among the massive collection of US forces that were deployed there at the time (something like 200,000 troops). I was the gunner on the LT's truck, and it was my job specifically to brief the interpreters and get them roused and ready for missions (middle-eastern people have a very different approach towards being on-time!). I had terps who were old Saddam fans, I had terps who were crusty opportunists, I had terps who were young men around my age (I was 20) who just wanted to kick ass. I enjoyed all of their company, as different as they all were they echoed the same sentiments: They couldn't understand what we were up to, and they expected us to be far more forceful in establishing a new state. By 2009 most Iraqis were ready for us to leave, but also apprehensive of the future, and I wish the best for all of them now because things look bad. :shrug:

*And that's something I can't over-state. More than anything, most veterans you'll meet--especially young ones--are overwhelmed with a desire to make people understand. It probably sounds wierd, but I absolutely loathe when someone tells me "Thank you for your service" or something similar. Not because I'm not proud of my service--quite the opposite, I'm bursting with pride--but something about the off-hand way people say it just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I chose to join in a time of war, and I didn't get to vote on the war since I was a minor, and over-all I've considered my role to be minimal. But the people who voted to send us there are the people who really need to have a thorough understanding of the why's, the what's, and the how's. "Thanks for your service" feels like a rubber stamp on a form that nobody bothered to read. Its clicking the box at the end of the EULA without reading the contents. I am totally confident we will have more wars like Iraq and Afghanistan in the future, because of how fast Iraq was swept under the rug.

---

I don't really know what to say but that was an awesome post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't really know what to say but that was an awesome post.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What does "(using) our involvement to shape events on the ground" mean in practice?

---

Using Assad to target ISIL and al-qaeda affiliates while we arm the former FSA units and Kurds so that they can undermine Assad where his forces are most vulnerable. Intel gathering, precision strikes with aircraft, as well as surgical assaults using various special forces.

We need too encourage relatively Just and effective governance in as many defensible areas as possible, even though it will be difficult. We can do it, but it takes lives, money and energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Using Assad to target ISIL and al-qaeda affiliates while we arm the former FSA units and Kurds so that they can undermine Assad where his forces are most vulnerable. Intel gathering, precision strikes with aircraft, as well as surgical assaults using various special forces.

We need too encourage relatively Just and effective governance in as many defensible areas as possible, even though it will be difficult. We can do it, but it takes lives, money and energy.

---

And once you would be done with Assad. What then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

And once you would be done with Assad. What then?

---

Once Assad is gone, just and effective governance would automatically show up of course, just as it did after we got rid of Saddam in Iraq. One wonders why people never learn, even from very recent history in a very nearby place.

You would have to up your competition with the more radical factions and double down on building State and economic structure. Rinse and repeat

Unless a significant, pro-Maliki, foreign intervention occurs, Baghdad's fate will be decided by the control of the rivers' (Euphrates and Tigris, of course) dams.

ISIS has already been controlling them for several days and they can easily either flood the capital or cut out completely the water supply, forcing the inhabitants to surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

And once you would be done with Assad. What then?

---

Syria is likely to become a messed up place, no matter how the war in Syria ends. Still, I'd much rather have the FSA come out on top than Assad or islamists.

A country that needs a dictatorship in order to stay united is no country. There will just be an endless path of bloodshed through uprisings and civil wars. By breaking the circle of dictators, the circle of bloodshed might be ended, too. I hope the circle in Iraq will be broken now, just like I hope the country itself will break: it should split.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We need to know what Lemur's representative is saying on this subject.

---

Haven't heard anything, so I did some Googling. Paul Ryan hasn't made a big speech about Iraq and ISIS that I can find.

He did make a more general Obama-is-weak-and-a-dictator speech on June 11th, which kind of addressed Iraq:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Wednesday slammed President Obama’s foreign policy, calling it “weak and indecisive” and damaging to U.S. credibility abroad.

“What I’ve seen is, in far too many cases, the president doesn’t back up his words with actions,” said Ryan in a wide-ranging speech at the Center for a New American Security’s annual conference in Washington.

“It’s not that he says one thing and does another. It’s that he doesn’t do enough,”said the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee.

“The instinct is to go for the bare minimum – just enough to show concern, but not enough to get results,” he continued. “And after five years, I think it’s worn down our credibility.”

As you can see, not a lot of substance. You can rest assured, however, that when my representative takes a position, it will be craven and counter-factual. That's how he rolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The de-Baathification was something a lot of highly qualified people thought was a great freaking idea, and that also really didn't work out at all.

---

I award you +1 internets for Epic Understatement.

The Kurd PM seems like a clever fellow. Of course, he also agrees with me. ~;)

Meanwhile, Iraq formally asks the US for air support. And the war, it...uh, goes on.

https://i.imgur.com/l1j93N4.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Meanwhile, Iraq formally asks the US for air support. And the war, it...uh, goes on.

---

Do you want airstrikes? Because that's how you get airstrikes.

Ask and ye shall receive. Also, I believe that the record will show that I was against De-Baathificatiin when it was brought up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Ask and ye shall receive. Also, I believe that the record will show that I was against De-Baathificatiin when it was brought up.

---

What they did back then was to basically fire the entire civil service of the nation.

If that's not a guaranteed screw-up, nothing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What they did back then was to basically fire the entire civil service of the nation.

If that's not a guaranteed screw-up, nothing is.

---

I'm not sure what they were thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I'm not sure what they were thinking.

---

That is not hard to understand. "They are part of the evil regime, they need to all be removed"
It just starts to fall apart when they didn't actually implement an action plan on the part after, which left everything in shambles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

That is not hard to understand. "They are part of the evil regime, they need to all be removed"
It just starts to fall apart when they didn't actually implement an action plan on the part after, which left everything in shambles.

---

It's part of the hankering after the Greatest Generation and the Good War. Which all the victorious Allies (British, Americans, Russians) fall prey to, but the Americans are particularly affected by the combo of having the power to play out their WW2 fantasies whilst not having the stomach to repeat the atrocities. Intervene to save the world from the evil dictator, de-nazify, build a nation for freedom and democracy, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What they did back then was to basically fire the entire civil service of the nation.

If that's not a guaranteed screw-up, nothing is.

---

It is. "On a daily basis, rule is primarily instituted by the government's bureaucracy." Max Weber

I remember how people liked to draw analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany becoming a democracy after WW2.
In fact, the elites of 1950s and 1960s Western Germany were to a large percentage Nazis.

“I remember how people liked to draw analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany becoming a democracy after WW2.
In fact, the elites of 1950s and 1960s Western Germany were to a large percentage Nazis.” Partially true, but the Allies didn’t fire all of them, even the SS, with their weapons. And the Allies had a plan for Germany. They even had one for France, but it failed.
And the Anti-Nazi Germans were genuine one, having paid the price in Dachau and others place like this. And even the Nazi knew they had lost the war, and 1944 attack on Hitler showed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

In the USA we draw a stark distinction between the military and the civil service. It is hard for a lot of Americans to wrap their heads around nations where there is virtually no difference between the two... and there's a lot of nations like that--Ba'athist Iraq, North Korea, China (not so much as it used to be), lots of smaller dictatorships in the mid-east and elsewhere. Culture-blindness is our biggest problem, internationally.

---

AFAICS China's ruling class is comprised of engineers, whereas classical western democracies have a ruling class comprising of lawyers. Which results in China's government prizing solutions at the expense of rights, whereas western democracies prize rights at the expense of solutions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Ya that's not the point. If you're in the People's Liberation Army of 1990, you're as lilkely to be a fire fighter as anything else. To a large degree that still holds true--the chinese military is heavily involved in infrastructure and civil service.

---

Quite correct. Any number of Chinese organizations were "wholly owned" subsidiaries of the PLA. The soldiers were "active duty" as machinists etc. and the places were run with -- quite literally -- military discipline.

So, the solution would have to create artificial jobs in order to relaunch the activity in Iraq (in building new infrastructures). Yeah, but this would have benefit to the Iraqis, not to the US firms. It would have cost less as well. Employing former soldiers, keeping them out of unemployment in providing services, isn't it against the "free" market economy that is the Holly idea of the time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

We tried to rebuild the civil service (that is to say, the police and the army) from scratch, on a generic model pretty much exactly like the one that was in place before. The Iraqis just didn't want it.

---

Given that that amounts to a social revolution (given the tribal/familial structure) of social position and technical knowledge/ability, again it is hard to imagine that the resulting disorder was not foreseen.
The transformation required a generational commitment to security and support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Well, everybody assumed (by everybody I mean Bush, Cheney, and Co.) that it would be a like a Field of Dreams scenario. If you build it (or throw money at it) they will come (or stop killing you). :shrug:

---

Absolutely. Not saying that this wasn't negligent on the part of our leadership -- it was -- but it was assumed that the vast majority of Iraqis sought freedom as much as the Kurds -- who had lobbying commercials running -- and that the natural yearning for freedom would take care of the rest. Sadly, those who kept saying that it would fall into a shambles and we needed to be ready for that were ignored or actively told to shut up.

The whole adventure was based on fabrication: WMD's, baby-killers, AlQ linkages.
The media bubble made it difficult (even here in Canada) to get factual data; if there was any victory out of the whole mess, it has to be assigned to the developers and implementers of the disinformation campaign that sold the policy.
Interesting, is the apparent trend for people to "double-down" on the propaganda when faced with facts

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...tical-unreason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I'm not sure what they were thinking.

---

That Bush was Harry Truman and it was the End of World War II, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

It is. "On a daily basis, rule is primarily instituted by the government's bureaucracy." Max Weber

I remember how people liked to draw analogies between Iraq and Nazi Germany becoming a democracy after WW2.
In fact, the elites of 1950s and 1960s Western Germany were to a large percentage Nazis.

---

One of the most surprising things I learned in the past few years (from reading the Spiegel, in this case) was that even in the later days of Adenauer's government it was common practice among politicians and civil servants to call someone they despised a "judenhilfer".

The Soviets were far more thorough with their de-nazification efforts. But then again, political purges were a compulsive habit of theirs. And the ones they did put into power weren't particulary nice people, either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042302

Russia sells Iraq jets because the US won't.

Well done guys

*Headdesk*

I'd like to know what model. If you compare the bbc article with this one, you'd think the BBC is a bit late: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/ir...r-planes-iraq/

That's from the 23rd and says the planes already arrived. The picture is a MiG-21 though, not even a Sukhoi while the BBC has the Su-27, which would be a pretty decent plane for them to get.

According to the video they released they already seem to use russian helicopters (Mi-24/35s). This article states they will get some of the latest russian gunships as well, but shows some Hueys in the picture: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...military.html#

:dizzy2:

Getting russian equipment may have other reasons as well though, in case they still have some people in the army who are familiar with it, they can get to use it faster now that they're in a hurry. Their country used russian equipment for a long time and US equipment as complicated as airplanes and helicopters would require the crews to adapt to it most likely. Both the pilots as well as the mechanics and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'd like to know what model. If you compare the bbc article with this one, you'd think the BBC is a bit late: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/ir...r-planes-iraq/

That's from the 23rd and says the planes already arrived. The picture is a MiG-21 though, not even a Sukhoi while the BBC has the Su-27, which would be a pretty decent plane for them to get.

According to the video they released they already seem to use russian helicopters (Mi-24/35s). This article states they will get some of the latest russian gunships as well, but shows some Hueys in the picture: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...military.html#

:dizzy2:

Getting russian equipment may have other reasons as well though, in case they still have some people in the army who are familiar with it, they can get to use it faster now that they're in a hurry. Their country used russian equipment for a long time and US equipment as complicated as airplanes and helicopters would require the crews to adapt to it most likely. Both the pilots as well as the mechanics and so on.

---

We sold them a lot of stuff, too.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No wonder their military fell apart so quickly :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They're getting 2nd hand crap at emergency rates. Considering what happened to all the humvees and armored vehicles we left them, its probably a good thing we never gave them planes. :shrug:

---

I recall the controversy a few years ago about you not wanting to sell them heavy armour, artillery and aircraft - three things the US et al used to maintain their fortified bases. Equipping the Iraqi army as light infantry with a few old APC's and Hummer's isn't a replacement for the US army with it's heavy gear, and it's satellites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I recall the controversy a few years ago about you not wanting to sell them heavy armour, artillery and aircraft - three things the US et al used to maintain their fortified bases. Equipping the Iraqi army as light infantry with a few old APC's and Hummer's isn't a replacement for the US army with it's heavy gear, and it's satellites.

---

It's (sic) satellites, complete with possessive apostrophe, is correct. It's what the US wants Iraq to be, and probably the main reason for the initial war. And neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any desire to be that. I'm not sure why you're so upset that Russia i giving Iraq heavy weapons. It's not like they're going to be using them on anyone that we don't want them to.

Oh, I stand corrected then.

I guess you gave all the good toys to the wrong guys - the Afghans are reputedly made of sterner stuff than the Mesopotamians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I saw a great Army Times article the other day on what sorts of airplanes we're gonna be giving the Afghans Army before we leave, but I can't find it for some reason--I'll keep digging around. The kicker was that the planes they're gonna get still have propellers! :rtwyes:

---

A-rabs work best with camels. Sopwith camels.

There are some COIN aircraft that use propellers. They are fuel efficient, slow and can usually sport a very decent loadout of rocket launchers, machine guns and small bombs. Certainly good enough to engage some dudes on the ground. Not to forget that a 200km/h propeller machine may actually be better suited for such tasks than a jet that can go Mach 2.

The Bronco was such a plane and used by the US well into the 90ies.
Argentina has the Pucara, the article also has a nice picture with the loadout options.
And the USA are even developing a new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Aircraft_A-67_Dragon

Probably not enough to stop huge tank formations with air cover, but for hunting Taliban in the mountains they should be fine.

Gunships are actually quite scary...

And as Husar say, better suited for the task in Afghanistan than any state-of-the-art jets.

Also, jets are only effective with a huge back-up, with advanced logistics and so on... Something Afghanistan lacks anyway.

Yeah, the gunships are probably the most ruthlessly effective weapons. Unfortunately in the event that the Taliban manage to get hold of one and learn to fly an Apache, say, without crashing it...

Also why any 2A arguments in the USA about revolutions against tyranny are so ridiculous and probably why any attempt to act on those arguments would yield a swift, fiery destruction of their proponents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

They're not getting gunships, they're getting propeller-driven planes that look straight outta WW2.

---

Yes, and those propeller driven planes is exactly what Afghanistan need.

It's the perfect deterrent to low-tech ground assaults.

It has logistic issues that can cope with, well, Afghanistan...


Those propeller-driven gunships are about ten thousand procents more effective than a F-22 Raptor in the theatre it acts in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh, I see the problem. In US military lingo, a Gunship is specifically something like an Apache or a Hind. You're right, that's exactly why they're getting these propeller-driven planes. They're strong enough for counter insurgency ops, but not so strong or complicated that they'll mess it up too bad. They'll still mess it up, though.

---

Bolded part, well DOH... That's a given.

Search google images about "gunships" and you'll understand where I went wrong... In English English I believe a gunship is an aeroplane with a **** load of guns pointing outwards :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh, I see the problem. In US military lingo, a Gunship is specifically something like an Apache or a Hind. You're right, that's exactly why they're getting these propeller-driven planes. They're strong enough for counter insurgency ops, but not so strong or complicated that they'll mess it up too bad. They'll still mess it up, though.

---

UK version of gunship...

^ Looks vulnerable to MG fire.

The Iraqi army attempted to retake Tikrit, but was pushed back. The longer militants hold these areas, the more they will be able to push for negotiations. If they actually are interested in that kind of thing, that is.

All things that are not armored with significant amounts of armor are vulnerable to MG fire.

MG fire is more difficult to put on target based on the target's speed. Some aircraft are actually faster than MG bullets, making targeting a real challenge.

So yes, propeller-driven craft are more vulnerable to MG etc. fire than are fast flying jets and the like.

But you should also remember just how difficult it is to shoot ANY moving target, much less one going 400+kph.

Ground based MG rounds expended versus kills is quite a high number. Remember that these numbers are likely optimistic given reportage at the time.

In effect, yes you lose a bird every now and then, but ground based MG and small arms fire is not a serious deterrent to most aircraft and by themselves are not capable of stopping a multiple aircraft attack.

Not to forget that aiming at an airplane is relatively hard when the rockets of said airplane are exploding all around you.
Jets are usually not any/much more armored, just faster, which also makes it harder for the pilots to identify and then aim at the targets on the ground. If they have Stingers or Strelas/Iglas however, the Super Tucano may actually get into some trouble unless the structure around the engine doesn't get hot enough for an IR lock compared to a jet engine.

As for the gunship thing, the AC-130 is somewhat unique (both in having the gunship tag and its role and layout as a plane) and the google result surprises me a bit since I'm also used to a gunship being a (heavily) armed attack helicopter.

A modern jet fighter can attack from above the cloud deck and high altitudes with supreme precision - they can easily stay out effective reach of ground-based MG fire.

I was assuming that MG(s) onboard the A-29 was its main weapon; but I see now that they can carry missiles too, in which case they can be less vulnerable, depending on the distances they can launch them from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

All things that are not armored with significant amounts of armor are vulnerable to MG fire.

MG fire is more difficult to put on target based on the target's speed. Some aircraft are actually faster than MG bullets, making targeting a real challenge.

So yes, propeller-driven craft are more vulnerable to MG etc. fire than are fast flying jets and the like.

But you should also remember just how difficult it is to shoot ANY moving target, much less one going 400+kph.

Ground based MG rounds expended versus kills is quite a high number. Remember that these numbers are likely optimistic given reportage at the time.

In effect, yes you lose a bird every now and then, but ground based MG and small arms fire is not a serious deterrent to most aircraft and by themselves are not capable of stopping a multiple aircraft attack.

---

Surely if you're not worried about air superiority, the German Ju 87 is as good as it gets.