ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

*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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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.

[Kagemusha]

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Crandar]

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.

[Viking]

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.