War Strategy

[Zam-Zam]

Team Obama had a little gaffe the other day. Our Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter publicly accused our ally, Iraq, of lacking a will to fight for their own homeland. There's a pretty good chance he's right about that, but that's probably not the best thing to say when the President is trying to convince Iraq that we're with them all the way, and that our strategy is sound.

Oops.

Enter Democratic Congressperson Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts.

He essentially doubled down on Carter's assertion by declaring it was absolutely correct. Again, that's probably right.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/243071-dem-lawmaker-carter-absolutely-right-about-iraqi-forces

So all of this begs the question, what are we to do about it.

Our strategy currently is that of providing air support and weapons to the Iraqi Army and letting them fight ISIS. That's the same Iraqi Army our Secretary of Defense just basically labeled cowards. So far, this policy has been an unmitigated disaster in Iraq (see 'Ramadi'). The same strategy is also failing in Syria (see 'Palmyra'). If there is any legitimate military reason to think that will change, I have yet to hear it articulated.

For their part, the Iraqi Army is now talking tough and vows to retake Ramadi, and maybe they will. For now though, the city remains in the hands of homicidal maniacs who are beheading the locals, and if you believe Ashton Carter, that's happening because the Iraqis ran away.

So do we continue doing what we are doing?

Thoughts?

 

[as seen on tv]

in hindsight -

attempting to create "a unified, non sectarian" Iraqi army composed of Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunni's (ISIS sympathizers) seems to have backfired. (full disclosure - i did not flag this as a risk at the time, either)

Sunni soldiers - especially their commanding officers - appear to be the faction behind "turn your weapons over to ISIS, then either run away or join them"

The sunni's are also helpfully pointing out which of their fellow soldiers are shi'ite members, and which houses in the neighborhood contain shi'ite families, so that atrocities may be visited on them.

john "ready to serve" kerry may have had it right after all (several years ago) when he theorized that "partition" might have been the best outcome for iraq.

an analogy - would the world have wanted to wage war to keep India+Pakistan united, after being granted independence by Britain? At what cost? The sectarian violence between muslims and hindus was continuous and horrific. Mahatma Gandhi was even killed by a muslim assassin.

If you really can't get along with your neighbors, sometimes the best course of action is to move to a better neighborhood, rather than send in ever larger numbers of police to try and keep the peace?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Team Obama had a little gaffe the other day. Our Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter publicly accused our ally, Iraq, of lacking a will to fight for their own homeland. There's a pretty good chance he's right about that, but that's probably not the best thing to say when the President is trying to convince Iraq that we're with them all the way, and that our strategy is sound.

Oops.

Enter Democratic Congressperson Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts.

He essentially doubled down on Carter's assertion by declaring it was absolutely correct. Again, that's probably right.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/243071-dem-lawmaker-carter-absolutely-right-about-iraqi-forces

So all of this begs the question, what are we to do about it.

Our strategy currently is that of providing air support and weapons to the Iraqi Army and letting them fight ISIS. That's the same Iraqi Army our Secretary of Defense just basically labeled cowards. So far, this policy has been an unmitigated disaster in Iraq (see 'Ramadi'). The same strategy is also failing in Syria (see 'Palmyra'). If there is any legitimate military reason to think that will change, I have yet to hear it articulated.

For their part, the Iraqi Army is now talking tough and vows to retake Ramadi, and maybe they will. For now though, the city remains in the hands of homicidal maniacs who are beheading the locals, and if you believe Ashton Carter, that's happening because the Iraqis ran away.

So do we continue doing what we are doing?

Thoughts?

It's basically an effort to shame Iraqis into manning up - not running away when they enjoy great numerical superiority.

Will it work? Who knows. But we have made it clear that our GI's will no longer do the sacrificing - the Iraqis must fight for their own territory.

 

[Drumcollie]

It's basically an effort to shame Iraqis into manning up - not running away when they enjoy great numerical superiority.

Will it work? Who knows. But we have made it clear that our GI's will no longer do the sacrificing - the Iraqis must fight for their own territory.

yeah we get it...Your democratic policy of insulting people has been known for years...

Funny thing is...had we not pulled out too soon..we would be having this conversation. We killed their will to fight...Obama opened the door for ISIS action

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

yeah we get it...Your democratic policy of insulting people has been known for years...

Funny thing is...had we not pulled out too soon..we would be having this conversation. We killed their will to fight...Obama opened the door for ISIS action

Nah, the Iraqis didn't fight in Poppy Bush's Iraq war, and they didn't fight in GWB's Iraq war either. They have allegiance to their sects and tribes - not to Iraq as a nation. Once GWB conquered Iraq and broke it apart, the damage was done.

Your Obama hating talking points must be rejected.

;-)

 

[American Patriot]

These people have been waging war against one another for literally thousands of years. I have always believed our presence there or lack of will probably do little to change this. I personally was never in favor of our armed forces engaging the enemy there or anywhere in the mid east for that matter. Just like Iran, let them build their nukes, they are going to anyway, when they attempt to use them is when you obliterate them from the planet. Like North Korea or any other rogue nation that espouses to become a nuclear threat they need to understand that if they get out of hand they will be dealt with, with the severity they cannot comprehend. Too many of our military have sacrificed their lives for political wars that had no real benefit to our country in lands far away that have meaningless consequences on American way of life. These people in these nations are literally being supported by US foreign aid and oil sales, just cut off their money, do not buy their oil freeze their assets here in the US and treat them with absolute disdain, impose very stiff sanctions and limit their trade capabilities. They will literally starve, what good is a nuke if you have nothing to eat and no life sustaining supplies to buy to keep yourself alive? I am so very tired of our politicians falsely believing that we can fix everyone's problems and prevent barbarians from running amok. Let those people defend themselves, they will when they finally realize that the good old USA is not going to step in and save their asses. Just like ISIS, I say bring it, then we will nuke your ass wherever you are, every single day until all of you are dead, we will kill everyone of you and not risk one American life. There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand and a Marine Corps General said it best when he said, I come in peace, I did not bring artillery with me, but if you ([Unwelcome language removed]) with us, we will kill all of you. Those people there understand two things, fear and power, that is why Saddam was so successful for so many years. You put the fear of god in their asses and you don't need the power, they get out of line you use the power. Works real good. Most of those people are illiterate and have very low IQs but they do understand a hell fire missile or a JDAM laser guided 2000 lb. bomb landing on their head. Sorry folks, but that is how it works over there. They are by no means warriors and I never saw a brave or courageous one. They are goat headers and sheep farmers who pretty much do what ever the latest faction in power tells them to do. They do not understand patriotism and few if any have allegiance to anything except their next meal or roll in the hay. Americans just do not get it about these folks. I would not sacrifice one American for the whole damned region over there. I would tell that whole bunch over there, hey, go ahead and kill each other all you want, but if you attack us or kill Americans we will kill all of you, got it. Over and out. Exit stage left.

 

[middleview]

in hindsight -

attempting to create "a unified, non sectarian" Iraqi army composed of Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunni's (ISIS sympathizers) seems to have backfired. (full disclosure - i did not flag this as a risk at the time, either)

Sunni soldiers - especially their commanding officers - appear to be the faction behind "turn your weapons over to ISIS, then either run away or join them"

The sunni's are also helpfully pointing out which of their fellow soldiers are shi'ite members, and which houses in the neighborhood contain shi'ite families, so that atrocities may be visited on them.

john "ready to serve" kerry may have had it right after all (several years ago) when he theorized that "partition" might have been the best outcome for iraq.

an analogy - would the world have wanted to wage war to keep India+Pakistan united, after being granted independence by Britain? At what cost? The sectarian violence between muslims and hindus was continuous and horrific. Mahatma Gandhi was even killed by a muslim assassin.

If you really can't get along with your neighbors, sometimes the best course of action is to move to a better neighborhood, rather than send in ever larger numbers of police to try and keep the peace?

Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu, not a Muslim.

 

[EatTheRich]

Team Obama had a little gaffe the other day. Our Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter publicly accused our ally, Iraq, of lacking a will to fight for their own homeland. There's a pretty good chance he's right about that, but that's probably not the best thing to say when the President is trying to convince Iraq that we're with them all the way, and that our strategy is sound.

Oops.

Enter Democratic Congressperson Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts.

He essentially doubled down on Carter's assertion by declaring it was absolutely correct. Again, that's probably right.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/243071-dem-lawmaker-carter-absolutely-right-about-iraqi-forces

So all of this begs the question, what are we to do about it.

Our strategy currently is that of providing air support and weapons to the Iraqi Army and letting them fight ISIS. That's the same Iraqi Army our Secretary of Defense just basically labeled cowards. So far, this policy has been an unmitigated disaster in Iraq (see 'Ramadi'). The same strategy is also failing in Syria (see 'Palmyra'). If there is any legitimate military reason to think that will change, I have yet to hear it articulated.

For their part, the Iraqi Army is now talking tough and vows to retake Ramadi, and maybe they will. For now though, the city remains in the hands of homicidal maniacs who are beheading the locals, and if you believe Ashton Carter, that's happening because the Iraqis ran away.

So do we continue doing what we are doing?

Thoughts?

I think Obama's long-term goal is to achieve a diplomatic reset with Russia (and probably with Assad's Syria) that enlists Russia as a wholehearted partner in the fight against ISIS. And that would definitely be a game-changer. The biggest obstacle for him is anti-Russian and anti-Syrian popular opinion in the U.S.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I think Obama's long-term goal is to achieve a diplomatic reset with Russia (and probably with Assad's Syria) that enlists Russia as a wholehearted partner in the fight against ISIS. And that would definitely be a game-changer. The biggest obstacle for him is anti-Russian and anti-Syrian popular opinion in the U.S.

Russia has plans of her own.

 

[EatTheRich]

in hindsight -

attempting to create "a unified, non sectarian" Iraqi army composed of Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunni's (ISIS sympathizers) seems to have backfired. (full disclosure - i did not flag this as a risk at the time, either)

Sunni soldiers - especially their commanding officers - appear to be the faction behind "turn your weapons over to ISIS, then either run away or join them"

The sunni's are also helpfully pointing out which of their fellow soldiers are shi'ite members, and which houses in the neighborhood contain shi'ite families, so that atrocities may be visited on them.

john "ready to serve" kerry may have had it right after all (several years ago) when he theorized that "partition" might have been the best outcome for iraq.

an analogy - would the world have wanted to wage war to keep India+Pakistan united, after being granted independence by Britain? At what cost? The sectarian violence between muslims and hindus was continuous and horrific. Mahatma Gandhi was even killed by a muslim assassin.

If you really can't get along with your neighbors, sometimes the best course of action is to move to a better neighborhood, rather than send in ever larger numbers of police to try and keep the peace?

Sunnis get demonized (except for those few months a year when we have always been at war with Shi'ites), but people turn to sectarian politics for lack of a viable secularist alternative. In particular, Iraq suffers from the vacillation and Stalinization of its labor parties. Still, I think the country's best hope lies in efforts to strengthen its Worker-Communist Party and extend its involvement in class-struggle politics.

I distrust the imperial arrogance of Kerry's cavalier approach to partition, but I certainly support an independent Kurdistan that includes parts of Iraq as well as Turkey and other nations.

 

[EatTheRich]

Russia has plans of her own.

Putin likes to pretend Russia's still a superpower ... one reason Russians are getting increasingly sick of him and his twisted fantasies.

 

[zzigzzag]

Russia has plans of her own.

Which are......?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Putin likes to pretend Russia's still a superpower ... one reason Russians are getting increasingly sick of him and his twisted fantasies.

Increasingly, it seems, our foreign policy is becoming dependent on hoping other countries will do what we want them to do. We hope Russia will come to our aid against ISIS, we hope the Iraqi Army won't run away, etc. It's a bit like hoping your neighbors will put up a fence so your dog won't run away.

 

[Sickofleft]

Team Obama had a little gaffe the other day. Our Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter publicly accused our ally, Iraq, of lacking a will to fight for their own homeland. There's a pretty good chance he's right about that, but that's probably not the best thing to say when the President is trying to convince Iraq that we're with them all the way, and that our strategy is sound.

Oops.

Enter Democratic Congressperson Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts.

He essentially doubled down on Carter's assertion by declaring it was absolutely correct. Again, that's probably right.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/243071-dem-lawmaker-carter-absolutely-right-about-iraqi-forces

So all of this begs the question, what are we to do about it.

Our strategy currently is that of providing air support and weapons to the Iraqi Army and letting them fight ISIS. That's the same Iraqi Army our Secretary of Defense just basically labeled cowards. So far, this policy has been an unmitigated disaster in Iraq (see 'Ramadi'). The same strategy is also failing in Syria (see 'Palmyra'). If there is any legitimate military reason to think that will change, I have yet to hear it articulated.

For their part, the Iraqi Army is now talking tough and vows to retake Ramadi, and maybe they will. For now though, the city remains in the hands of homicidal maniacs who are beheading the locals, and if you believe Ashton Carter, that's happening because the Iraqis ran away.

So do we continue doing what we are doing?

Thoughts?

There is no strategy. The President is doing just enough, just like Bill Clinton before him, to be able to point to something and say we are doing that. With little or no effect.

For Clinton it was firing cruise missles, killing some mountain goats, for Obama is "bombing"....the White House is like Pavlov's dog....ask them "What are we doing about ISIS"....."Bombing".......

BUT Strategy.....this Administration has no Strategy and no policy.

 

[EatTheRich]

Increasingly, it seems, our foreign policy is becoming dependent on hoping other countries will do what we want them to do. We hope Russia will come to our aid against ISIS, we hope the Iraqi Army won't run away, etc. It's a bit like hoping your neighbors will put up a fence so your dog won't run away.

Typical of a power in decline. Rome did the same thing with the Goths, Vandals, Huns, etc.

 

[EatTheRich]

There is no strategy. The President is doing just enough, just like Bill Clinton before him, to be able to point to something and say we are doing that. With little or no effect.

For Clinton it was firing cruise missles, killing some mountain goats, for Obama is "bombing"....the White House is like Pavlov's dog....ask them "What are we doing about ISIS"....."Bombing".......

BUT Strategy.....this Administration has no Strategy and no policy.

The administration does have a strategy, it's just not a very admirable one. Its principal components are keeping the civil war going in Syria, keeping Sunnis and Shi'ites locked in mutual massacres, and keeping the Kurds from posing a threat to Turkey. In the latter of these it is a faithful continuation of the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy. Its principal aim is to keep any political players in the region from posing a threat to American companies' access to oil supplies.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Typical of a power in decline. Rome did the same thing with the Goths, Vandals, Huns, etc.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Our Elected Bufoonery has led us into decline, but can't bring themselves to say it out loud.

 

[zzigzzag]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Our Elected Bufoonery has led us into decline, but can't bring themselves to say it out loud.

Don't think ETR blamed the current administration for "leading" us into America's "decline". Let's see if he makes a good straw man.

You are the only fool "bringing himself to say that out loud".

 

[EatTheRich]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Our Elected Bufoonery has led us into decline, but can't bring themselves to say it out loud.

Don't think ETR blamed the current administration for "leading" us into America's "decline". Let's see if he makes a good straw man.

You are the only fool "bringing himself to say that out loud".

Thanks for trying to keep them honest, zzigzzag. Actually, while I think there have certainly been missteps by various administrations, including the present one, over the years, I'd really attribute most of the decline to the death spiral of international capitalism and its reverberations, including in particular its defeat in the Vietnam War.