ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[drone]

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

[Kadagar_AV]

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...

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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!

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...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].

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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...

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?.

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?