Jump to content


Photo

Meanwhile Back In Iraq...


  • Please log in to reply
2407 replies to this topic

#41 m1a1mg

m1a1mg

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charleston, SC

Posted 12 June 2014 - 2303 PM

I have it on the highest authority that al qaeda is decimated and on the run.

Well, the mission was accomplished in 2003, they so they should be.

 

1030-021.jpg


  • 0

#42 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0026 AM

Hardly decimated, likely on retreat.

Oh, ISIL or ISIS, whatever you prefer, is not part of Al Quaida.

A difference without distinction, they are a splinter group, and more ruthless.  So let's not pretend they should be of no concern.


  • 0

#43 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0029 AM

 

Well, the mission was accomplished in 2003, they so they should be.

 

 

 

And the US Military marched out of Iraq in 2010 a victorious army that, with a concerted effort in 2009 and 2010, left Iraq safe, secure, and stable.

 

The money quote from The Veep.

 

 

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

Edited by DKTanker, 13 June 2014 - 0040 AM.

  • 0

#44 BLAH

BLAH

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:AFVs

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0051 AM

ISIS has a ton of motivation and morale.  Wheras the Iraqi army has little unless the fight is in their neighborhood.  The problem is, by the time the fight gets to your neighborhood, it's not going to resemble your neighborhood anyway.  No matter if you win.

 

Such is the way of sectarian violence.


  • 0

#45 Skorzeny

Skorzeny

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0404 AM

Where am I going wrong in thinking that isis have overplayed their hand, and will be reduced to the level of other groups "short" time?
They have run up against the kurds, and iraqi defences, with help, should hold in Shia areas. Prevent them from moving Around freely with airpower, SF etc. And then start to reduce the pockets Where they choose to stand. They are quite low on personell, this looks to me like they just overreached.
The iranians will probably jump at the chance to overtly engage isis as this will also help their "Syrian front"
  • 0

#46 Skorzeny

Skorzeny

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0444 AM

Totally defeating them is probably difficult, but they should be able to reduce the problem. All the press they have gotten have at least guaranteed american drones. Keeping them from rolling up 800 guys in pickups, or freely moving from Syria to iraq should do a lot.
I think Iran will be more than willing to commit to this fight, and the turks are also less than pleased.
How will this affect the supply situation in Syria?
Saudi sponsored TOWs hitting iraqi abrams would not be ideal for anyone
  • 0

#47 ink

ink

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,358 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Yugoslavia
  • Interests:Military stuff, political stuff, history stuff, beer.

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0451 AM


I think they will probably stop them, but defeating the problem is another matter. About the only ones who seem willing to take them on in a fight are the Kurds, and they probably are going to want something for the favour.

 

 

Honestly, I think the Kurds are just happy to use this as an opportunity to take Kirkuk. They probably aren't too interested in starting a real war with ISIS.


  • 0

#48 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0459 AM

http://www.whitehous...ity-and-counter

 

Since taking office, President Obama has worked to restore a positive vision of American leadership in the world—leadership defined, not by the threats and dangers that we will oppose, but by the security, opportunity and dignity that America advances in partnership with people around the world.  This has enhanced our national security in many areas against many threats.  

 

Its not clear to me how recent events maintain this positive vision of American leadership.

 

Meanwhile, President Obama has placed the United States on the right side of history, pledging our support for the political and economic reforms and universal human rights that people in the region are demanding.  

 

Orly?

 

When we fail to abide by our values, we play right into the hands of al-Qa’ida, which falsely tries to portray us as a people of hypocrisy and decadence.  Conversely, when we uphold these values it sends a message to the people around the world that it is America—not al-Qa’ida—that represents opportunity, dignity, and justice.  In other words, living our values helps keep us safe.

 

And anybody who disagrees will be subject to an IRS audit.

 

Our strategy is also shaped by a deeper understanding of al-Qa’ida’s goals, strategy, and tactics. I’m not talking about al-Qa’ida’s grandiose vision of global domination through a violent Islamic caliphate.  That vision is absurd, and we are not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen.  We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they are. 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but AQ types capturing Baghdad would be a pretty significant milestone in establishing a pseudo-caliphate, given regional history.

 

Once again, Central Intelligence (or at least the top echelons who are allowed to visit the WH) are caught flat-footed. I wish the CIA would publish odds on racehorses and football games, so I could bet the other way and retire early.


  • 0

#49 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0502 AM

Totally defeating them is probably difficult, but they should be able to reduce the problem. All the press they have gotten have at least guaranteed american drones. Keeping them from rolling up 800 guys in pickups, or freely moving from Syria to iraq should do a lot.


In an ideal world, Obama's gambit of B-2s to forward basing in Europe would have been in response to Iraqi developments. A few carpet-bombings of the bad guys may have softened them up to the point where the Iraqi army felt confident they could clean up the remainder.
  • 0

#50 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0524 AM

As I understand it, the national security advisor is now usually a political appointee. I think that changed from someone who had come up the line in the CIA and intelligence to being appointees in the Carter administration, and its interesting to note the amount of intelligence failures that have occurred since then.  For all its flaws the CIA prior to that point was pretty good at spotting trends. I don't suppose its entirely a coincidence.


Whether DNI is a political appointee or a "maverick" is possibly a distinction without a difference. Neither the Senate & House Intel committees nor the WH would accept a DNI who wasn't "in the Amen pew" on foreign policy matters relative to the prevailing DC mythology.

Which is why I think the CIA top brass was caught pants-down on the Soviet collapse. The consensus view in DC must have been that socialism was pretty effective and efficient, thus Russian claims of economic stats were believable, thus the Soviet empire was hale and hearty into the 1980s. Anyone in the CIA who posited that the Soviet economy was shite would have been laughed out of the conference room, career-limiting move, up until the Wall got knocked over (thanks to David Hasselhoff, PBTG).
  • 0

#51 WRW

WRW

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UAE
  • Interests:OOB, Military Technology, Terrorism, Counter Insurgency, C4I

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0525 AM

has anyone checked to see if a Movie/clip has been put on You Tube that has provoked this . Also are all Mossad people accounted for


  • 0

#52 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0526 AM

has anyone checked to see if a Movie/clip has been put on You Tube that has provoked this . Also are all Mossad people accounted for


Check the melons!
  • 0

#53 Yama

Yama

    The only honest Scorpion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yogo Shiro

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0549 AM

Honestly, I think the Kurds are just happy to use this as an opportunity to take Kirkuk. They probably aren't too interested in starting a real war with ISIS.

 
Sky suggests they have taken Kirkuk at the request of the Government, rather than doing it off their own bat to start nation building. OTOH, they would say that wouldn't they. :)


I'm already waiting for a referendum about the political status of Kirkuk region...and the results are in! 89% favour annexation of Kirkuk by Kurdistan...well that was a surprise...
  • 0

#54 mnm

mnm

    Plague doctor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,739 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where the sun doth shine!
  • Interests:Totally uninteresting.

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0711 AM

Youtube really ought to come with smell too :)


  • 0

#55 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0711 AM

.

 

I seem to remember the USA promising Turkey that the Iraq/Afghanistan operations would NOT end in separate Kurdish areas.

 

Still "Job Done".

 

Seriously I can see Iran itching to get involved (but they are too busy with Syria) and Russia will be mightily P***-Off after all that help they gave the US over Iraq they are likely to have more failed islamic states south of their borders.

 

I can only imagine that the French and Chinese are at all happy with how things are going.

 

.

 

.


  • 0

#56 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0716 AM

I'm torn between which of those two would possibly be more popcorn-worthy. Of course I tend to say that "if in doubt, chose both".

 

Iraq crisis: ISIS militants push towards Baghdad - live


Senior Tehran official says leadership discussing cooperation with United States in face of insurgent threat in region, as militants battle Iraqi security forces 50 miles from Baghdad - follow latest developments

 

[...]

 

10.17

 

In the midst of the chaos, the prospect has been raised of an unlikely alliance between Iran and the US as both seek to counter a common enemy.

 

A senior Iranian official has told Reuters that the leadership of the Shia state is discussing possible cooperation with Washington in providing support to Iraq government in its battle with al-Qaeda-inspired militants.

 

The Islamic Republic is reportedly planning to send its neighbour advisers and arms, although probably not troops, to help Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki push back fighters from ISIS, the breakaway Sunni al-Qaeda group.

 

"We can work with Americans to end the insurgency in the Middle East," the official said, referring to the crisis in Iraq.

 

"We are very influential in Iraq, Syria and many other countries."

 

ISIS is one of the key players in the battle to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally, and its regional rise has rattled Tehran.

 

"The danger of extremist Sunni terrorist in Iraq and the region is increasing ... There have been several high-ranking security meetings since yesterday in Tehran," the official said.

 

"We are on alert and we also follow the developments in Iraq very closely."

 

[...]

 

http://www.telegraph...ghdad-live.html

 

China says willing to help Iraq in any way it can

d0c3eb8ca18907492a4b337b5cec5193.jpeg
23 minutes ago
 

BEIJING (Reuters) - China said on Friday that it was watching security developments in Iraq closely after Islamist fighters captured two more towns in a sweep south, and offered the government in Baghdad whatever help it can give.

 

China is the top foreign player in Iraq's oilfields, which are the largest in the Middle East open to foreign investment, and has a natural interest in the country's stability.

 

"China is paying close attention to the recent security situation in Iraq and we support the Iraqi government's efforts to maintain domestic security and stability. We hope that Iraq can return to stability, safety and normality as early as possible," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.

 

"For a long time, China has been giving Iraq a large amount of all sorts of aid and is willing to give whatever help it is able to," she told a daily news briefing without elaborating.

 

China had asked Iraq's government to ensure the safety of Chinese people in the country, Hua said, though she did not say if any there had been any effect on China's oil interests in the country.

 

State-run China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China's biggest oil and gas producer, has three projects in Iraq, in the south and southeast of the country.

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-114744608.html


Edited by BansheeOne, 13 June 2014 - 0716 AM.

  • 0

#57 Yalmuk

Yalmuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0733 AM

 

Totally defeating them is probably difficult, but they should be able to reduce the problem. All the press they have gotten have at least guaranteed american drones. Keeping them from rolling up 800 guys in pickups, or freely moving from Syria to iraq should do a lot.


In an ideal world, Obama's gambit of B-2s to forward basing in Europe would have been in response to Iraqi developments. A few carpet-bombings of the bad guys may have softened them up to the point where the Iraqi army felt confident they could clean up the remainder.

 

 

Yes, carpet bombing Iraqi Sunni cities is going to make them love invading Shia forces. It's not only ISIS fighting against Iraqi government. 


  • 0

#58 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,601 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0736 AM

It will be so ironic if Iran gets embroiled into massive Iraqi insurgency... :D


  • 0

#59 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0757 AM

 

If you dont want the Taliban problem to  remeerge in Afghanistan, yes I think it does. Im asking about whether post conflict funding is actually working, not interested in Partisan swipes FYI.

 

 

So did they get the funding or not?

 

 

First, at this point I believe the idea is to lay the ground work for the reemergence of the Taliban.  It's the only way to explain the otherwise inexplicable release of five senior officials of the Taliban regime.  So it really isn't about what I want.  

 

Second, you and many others spare no time reminding us that our critique of US foreign policy etc. is partisan in nature, consider my response as a preemptive strike.

 

Third, keep in mind that rare, almost unheard of, are there ever "cuts" to any US budget.  When you hear or read "cut" think not getting as much of the rise in spending as hoped.

 

Fourth, don't know and don't care.


Edited by DKTanker, 13 June 2014 - 0757 AM.

  • 0

#60 m1a1mg

m1a1mg

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charleston, SC

Posted 13 June 2014 - 0806 AM

 

 

Well, the mission was accomplished in 2003, they so they should be.

 

 

 

And the US Military marched out of Iraq in 2010 a victorious army that, with a concerted effort in 2009 and 2010, left Iraq safe, secure, and stable.

 

The money quote from The Veep.

 

 

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

 

True in 2010. Not today. The Veep is a moron. That's a given. But in 2010, things were functioning. 

 

There are numerous reasons why Iraq has gone down this road. But there are a helluva lot more reasons created from 2003 to 2009, than from 2009 onward. 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users