Jump to content


Photo

Meanwhile Back In Iraq...


  • Please log in to reply
2410 replies to this topic

#81 m1a1mg

m1a1mg

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 1658 PM

We should just stand back and watch. We won't.
  • 0

#82 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 1826 PM

 

Just had a thought.  I wonder how the ME would have turned out now if Bush had never invaded?

 

1. Would Iraq be in the same shitstorm Syria is now?  I mean look at Egypt, Lybia, Tunisa, would Iraq be in the same boat?

 

2. Would the Arab spring even have occured in the first place without the US invasion?  I mean it had obviously been simmering, but perhaps it was one of the factors to contributed.

I have thought about it and it scares the shit out of me, we would have ran working hard on Nukes, Saddam rapidly rebuilding his military and to counter Iran and West, focusing on WMD's first. Pakistan would help Iraq with the Nuke program. At some point Iran and Iraq would likely have a go at each other with at least tactical nukes and other WMD being used again.

 

 

Loud and clear hell no...back in the 70s Pakistan raided the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad on suspicions that Saddam was supplying weapons to Balochi separatists. The suspicions were correct:

 

http://en.wikipedia....assy_(Pakistan)

 

Iraq and Pakistan have had a very chilly relationship with Saddam in power. Even during the 80s Pakistan was heavily supporting Iran in its war against Iraq. With the exception of AQ Khan*, Pakistan wouldn't be supporting the Iraqis in their nuclear ambitions. 

 

With Saddam in power, it would be hard to see Iran advancing on its nuclear ambitions. If anything we would've supported Saddam to take a strike against the Iranian facilities. Only reason we haven't been able too is because we were too bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and now we're too broke for another war and the Iranians are too far advanced in their nuke program for military strikes to have a positive effect. 

 

 

*AQ Khan's network sold weapons or nuke parts to anybody, including India, but there hasn't been a single country which was able to buy enough equipment from AQ Khan which resulted in a nuclear bomb as the end product.  The countries he did sell too needed to do much hard work on their own (North Korea) while others (Libya and Iran) haven't been able to achieve a workable nuke. His own role in Pakistan's nuke program has been greatly exaggerated and honestly his work wasn't really needed for Pakistan to have the bomb. 


  • 0

#83 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 1844 PM

These guys definitely have their own style...reminds me of Mongols.


Mongols were religiously tolerant...
  • 0

#84 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,784 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 2149 PM

This is an interesting test for us USAians. So many of us rued the day that "Congress" killed support for So Vietnam in 1975, enabling the fall of whatever; the truth of course was that the Nixon regime had sought a "decent interval"™ such that the South could be left to its fate. So, the Q of this day might be, do we just write off the expenses in billions [trillions] and blood and watch another client capital go under? Or do we designate Iraq as the new S Korea?

 

My personal opinion is that we write off the Afghans but send in the XVIII Abn Corps to settle the issue in Iraq. Easy to say for me, of course, as I will not be called up. This would also be a great economic stimulus package....

 

Come to think of it, why is it always the south falling to the attacks of the north, mmmm?


  • 0

#85 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,418 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 2211 PM

Aint gonna happen. No way Obama is going to let himself be remembered for sending troops back into Iraq. His ego is just to big for that. 


  • 0

#86 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,262 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 2350 PM

If Iraq is designated like South Korea, then it would set up the expectation that Iraq should pull through and do ok. But that would be a false impression because the demographic and cultural situation of South Korea and Iraq are very different. The South Koreans are more likely to make a success story than a Shia, Sunni, Kurds bunch. Even if it was all Sunni or all Shia, I'd still think the South Koreans would have the better chance in making a success story.
  • 0

#87 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,014 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0452 AM

Though to be quite honest, its not like the original Iraqi Army was very good at winning wars either. I think disbanding the Army was a foolish ideas for a number of reasons, but command above Brigade had to go any. It was just institutionalised failure. Im not sure Brigade level could have been that much better.


Reportedly, Maliki has rehired some special forces officers from Saddam's army to train troops against ISIS...
  • 0

#88 m1a1mg

m1a1mg

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0559 AM

 

Though to be quite honest, its not like the original Iraqi Army was very good at winning wars either. I think disbanding the Army was a foolish ideas for a number of reasons, but command above Brigade had to go any. It was just institutionalised failure. Im not sure Brigade level could have been that much better.


Reportedly, Maliki has rehired some special forces officers from Saddam's army to train troops against ISIS...

 

The Iraqi Army has used former Saddam SF forces since at least 2007. One of the Iraqi division commanders was one. 


  • 0

#89 m1a1mg

m1a1mg

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0604 AM

Iraq's most senior Shia cleric has issued a call to arms after Sunni-led insurgents seized more towns.

The call by a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani came as the militants widened their grip in the north and east, and threatened to march south, towards Baghdad.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-27834462

I think that ISIL may have someone waiting for them when they get to Baghdad. 


  • 0

#90 Archie Pellagio

Archie Pellagio

    Now flouridating a water source near YOU!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,224 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0628 AM

This is doing the rounds, in a nutshell:

 

10440961_1565678063659317_80320335061963


  • 0

#91 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,678 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0639 AM

Just had a thought.  I wonder how the ME would have turned out now if Bush had never invaded?

 

1. Would Iraq be in the same shitstorm Syria is now?  I mean look at Egypt, Lybia, Tunisa, would Iraq be in the same boat?

 

2. Would the Arab spring even have occured in the first place without the US invasion?  I mean it had obviously been simmering, but perhaps it was one of the factors to contributed.

 

1. No, Iraq had its own "spring" post Desert Storm - Saddam crushed it with plenty of force - attempts to remove Saddam pre-2003 all failed. Why would it be different with no external aid when Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries would rather have Saddam than a Shia regime?

2. Yes, events sparking the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were internal, much the same in Syria, and Argelia before that. Note that today Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt and Syria are in different boats - each place has its particularities.

 

Iran is not going to get embroiled in an Iraq problem because the areas they care for are already Shia. The Sunnis fear Iran more than anything else, I suggest reading "Saddam's generals" interviews: http://www.isn.ethz....ng=en&id=146268

 

The Kurds have their own de facto state, if they are left alone, they have no dog in this fight.


Edited by RETAC21, 14 June 2014 - 0639 AM.

  • 0

#92 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0641 AM

Gee, who misses the old days of Saddam

We had many arguments on this site back in the day about what to do with the Iraqi army. The US at the time unemployed them, fired those Col and above. Now we know where those guys went. We should have offered them jobs and kept them going

 

No.

 

The State Department at the time unemployed them, fired those Col and above.  The Pentagon's plan was to keep them on a payroll.


  • 0

#93 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0643 AM

Miss-Saigon-02.jpg


  • 0

#94 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0650 AM

Hardly decimated, likely on retreat.

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

 

Splitters.

http://www.washingto...cks-on-america/


  • 0

#95 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,678 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0719 AM

 

Gee, who misses the old days of Saddam

We had many arguments on this site back in the day about what to do with the Iraqi army. The US at the time unemployed them, fired those Col and above. Now we know where those guys went. We should have offered them jobs and kept them going

 

No.

 

The State Department at the time unemployed them, fired those Col and above.  The Pentagon's plan was to keep them on a payroll.

 

 

Actually, it's was Bremer who executed the decision, and he worked for DoD.

 

Bremer was appointed by President Bush as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on May 9, 2003. His appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.


  • 0

#96 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 949 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 0840 AM

 

Hardly decimated, likely on retreat.

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

 

Splitters.

http://www.washingto...cks-on-america/

 

 

That's what I have intended. They are not a part of AQ anymore. 

 

I would add, more aggressive and more brutal. 


  • 0

#97 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,822 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 1051 AM

...

Tinfoil hat mode on - What are a bets that in addition to "Taliban 5" part of POW exchange deal was "Don't bomb ISIS in Iraq for a while"... :ninja:


  • 0

#98 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,784 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 1106 AM

No doubt, JasonJ, but it occurs that there must be another culture that could consolidate under enduring protection, not just the S Koreans.

 

The model for the Fall of VN was the US air support only limitation vs the NVA 1973 invasion, ending in a ceasefire and sort-of peace treaty that left the NVA/VC in control of designated zones of RVN. The die was cast then for the 1975 collapse, as the ARVN could no longer stand up to the NVA after its buildup and the US was absent. This was the so-called Decent Interval ™


  • 0

#99 crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,602 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 1115 AM

 

Gee, who misses the old days of Saddam

We had many arguments on this site back in the day about what to do with the Iraqi army. The US at the time unemployed them, fired those Col and above. Now we know where those guys went. We should have offered them jobs and kept them going

 

 

Though to be quite honest, its not like the original Iraqi Army was very good at winning wars either. I think disbanding the Army was a foolish ideas for a number of reasons, but command above Brigade had to go any. It was just institutionalised failure. Im not sure Brigade level could have been that much better.

 

 

Not entirely true. Many officers of the Iraqi military were still much better disciplined than other individuals in Iraq. If not military, civilian jobs may have suited them just fine. Simply firing hundreds of thousands of people, all whom have some sort of military training and access to heavy weaponry, is just a terrible idea if you're trying to pacify a country you just conquered.


  • 0

#100 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,262 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 1232 PM

No doubt, JasonJ, but it occurs that there must be another culture that could consolidate under enduring protection, not just the S Koreans.
 
The model for the Fall of VN was the US air support only limitation vs the NVA 1973 invasion, ending in a ceasefire and sort-of peace treaty that left the NVA/VC in control of designated zones of RVN. The die was cast then for the 1975 collapse, as the ARVN could no longer stand up to the NVA after its buildup and the US was absent. This was the so-called Decent Interval ™

I agree with there being other cultures that can. However, I still feel skeptical about Iraq because of a lot of internal friction and the extreme differences between the Muslim culture there and American culture.

Interestingly the Koreans did refuse US pressure for sustaining a democratic government in the 60s and gone with Park's era which resulted in South Korea's rapid growth.

So I don't know, another 10 years of full and straight through American commitment in Iraq would produce a stable Iraq?

Edited by JasonJ, 14 June 2014 - 1233 PM.

  • 0