More American War in Iraq?

I think from what I have seen so far, we are going to help the Iraqi government and forces help themselves of which they are starting to do.

Iraq's military said it repelled an attack by an al-Qaeda breakaway group about 55 kilometers (34 miles) north of Baghdad

If the Sunni locals are assisting ISIS or tolerating their being used as a tactic to prevent air strikes, either because they support the "cause" or hope to benefit from US pressure on Maliki to allow Sunnis a bigger role in the government, then they have chosen sides in a war.

Embedding themselves in civilian populations has become a favorite tactic of insurgents around the world when the West is militarily involved.

A) Because they don't care about civilian casualties
B) Because the West does

As long as the West allows it to work it will continue to be used.

By now the people in Masul and Takrit who have resisted ISIS (Shiia) have had their heads sawed off. The Sunni's who support ISIS have thrown their lot in with them.

I feel sure that there are Sunnis in these cities who do not support ISIS, but who fear for their lives if they attempt to leave. These folks are in a terrible position. No matter what the US decided to do or not do, they are in great peril.

There is no nice clean answer to this dilemma. No military has bombs and bullets so smart that they are able to only hit ISIS combatants and Sunni civilian supporters.

Any attempt to take back these cities without air strikes, will require troops engaged in urban warfare. Many will die and so will civilians (ISIS support not-with-standing) Ground troops are not going to attack Mosul and Takrit without tanks and artillery and both are no more, and possibly less, discriminating than air strikes.

If the US conducts the air strikes, there will at least be an effort to minimize civilian casualties, if only for optics. If the US doesn't get involved, Iran, will and they will have no compunction about killing any and all Sunnis in these cities.

If Iran, rather than the US pulls Maliki's fat out of the fire, the Iraqi Sunnis will be in worse shape than they were before ISIS invaded, and Iraq will squarely assume a role as Iranian satellite.

Unless we are going to forswear any and all future involvement in the Middle East, and turn away from strategic interests and humanitarian disasters, it is better to address this conflict now rather than its aftermath later.

And we are not going to completely pull away from the region, no matter what Obama and the isolationists in this country would like.

A showdown between the Sunni states and Iran is inevitable. The US will have to take sides.

And no matter what the haters of Israel in this country would like, we are not going to abandon them.

The lessons we should be learning from these conflicts is not that we shouldn't ever get involved, but that if we do we should anticipate insurgencies and deal with them effectively.

We've learned how to overwhelm a nation's army in a very short period of time, and, so far, we've been good at that. The mistakes made relative to the Iraq War were not anticipating insurgent/terrorist activity after the heavy bombing was over, not having an effective counter-insurgency plan, and not leaving a sufficient presence to ensure the gains that were achieved at high cost. These mistakes began with one Administration and ended with another.

I doubt that there weren't people in the Pentagon and CIA who warned or wanted to warn Rumsfeld of the aftermath of the Shock & Awe stage, but his ego is so colossal he wouldn't listen to any advice that contradicted his assessments, even after the advice proved to be correct. Bush stuck with Rumsfeld far too long, despite the advice, I"m sure, he received that a change was necessary. Either this was due to a misplaced sense of loyalty or Rumsfeld knew how to appeal to him and intellectually overpowered him. Probably both.

Once Rumsfeld was gone the Surge was ordered and Patraeus devised and executed a successful counter-insurgency strategy that remained effective until we withdrew.

These lessons of Iraq have been taught, but it remains to see if we have learned them.

Now the lesson of what will occur if the president orders a full withdrawal before all the work is done and the ultimate goal achieved is being taught. Despite what Obama said in a speech at Fort Bragg on 12/14/11, we did not leave behind "a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq." If anything proves how wrong that was, it's this mess now.

Unfortunately, wars don't get fought without civilian politicians calling the most important shots, and civilian politicians never do anything without considering politics, so there's a good chance that while the military will learn the lessons of Iraq, future Administrations will not.

Most of the ISIS are coming from the Syria conflict from what I understand, moreover, Saudis basically support the Sunnis and throwing their money and support behind them according to the Iraqi government. If we stayed another 10 years the same could have happened at any time if the conditions ripe for it.



source

We have more of an obligation to help the Iraqi government , which we helped set up, and the violence spreading than to worry about Israel's interest in this right now, imo. I don't know what Israel's got to do with it.

I don't think that one part of the Muslim world is more friendly to Israel than the other, just because they are Sunni or Shia.


(Source: via wikipedia)


And actually people in the so-called "Shia Crescent" seem to be less concerned about terrorism

(Sources as above)

For a decade (1979-1989) the Taliban were allies of the USA. I really hope, all (not only the USA) have learnt ...

A continued military presence in Iraq would have:

1) Assisted in applying pressure on Maliki to be more inclusive of the Sunnis
2) Retarded if not prevented the ripening of these conditions
3) Served as a counter-weight to Iran's efforts to turn Iraq into a satellite and thereby not required the Saudis to find a surrogate to do the job
4) Prevented ISIS from making the significant gains it already has

I don't know what Israel has to do with it either, and I'm not sure why you made that comment.

I suspect it is because I reference Israel in my post, but if you read what I wrote you will find that I didn't refer to Israel in the context of this current conflict but as one of the reasons why the US is not going to withdraw entirely from the region for the foreseeable future.

Sometimes it helps to read what is actually written rather than what you would like to respond to.

That won't happen. Reality check.

You're sounding like George Bush. I suppose it's a lot easier to target civilians in Iraq than their Saudi paymasters. Especially when those Saudis are so tied up with American oil and funding Republican politicians it's hard to tell them apart.

Remember straight after 9/11 when all American commercial flights were grounded, the one exception being the flight that took Osama Bin Laden's family back to Saudi Arabia before the FBI/CIA could interview them.

Who know and of course we could always just allow blackwater to be hired, by the Iraq government, to send in a thousand or so ex-special forces to take care of the problem.also.

There would be some crying over allowing them the free reign to do the job in a far more bloodiest manner then US airbourne forces would have but what the hell.

Your context is muddled and even if taken in the context you claim, I hope we don't stay in the region (I assume Iraq is part of the region you referred to?)to appease Israel for some obscure reason. The whole line of your context is a bit on the odd side.

As far as the whole trying to make the factions be more inclusive in the government, good luck with that even if we another fifty years, we won't make a difference. Who ever is in charge, I suspect will do everything possible to oppress the other groups, unless they themselves want to end it. Anything we can do to influence it, we can do it without occupying their country.

I don't think Al Maliki will want to have anything to do with Blackwater. You really have very little understanding of what's going on in the area, or the Arab mindset.

Muddled?



Of course Iraq is part of the region, but our commitments to Israel's security was only a very minor and tangential reason for remaining in Iraq and that was to curb the influence and hegemonic desires of Iran which is clearly an enemy of Israel (ours too for than matter). We are not going to remain in the region to appease Israel but to assist them in their defense. Whether the need is real or politically manufactured is a matter of opinion. The fact remains that we will continue to be engaged in the region, in part, because of our commitments to Israel.

I always think of things after I push the box. Anyway, I do not know why Finn and other act like we had a choice in the matter concerning the end of Iraq. I know Obama likes to brag of we ended the war in Iraq, but we really had no choice because of the security agreement reached while Bush was president and of which the Iraqi government was sticking to. The only way I think they would have let us stay had something to do with the US soldiers able to be charged with crimes. Would have to look that up.

Well, bracing myself for being called an Israel hater, but I hope an excuse for staying in the region, whatever that means, is not connected to Israel. If Israel is directly threatened for real, then like any other country, we should deal with it when it happens.

The big mistake in Iraq (other than going in) was having absolutely no idea of what to do post Saddam. The whole public sector was de Ba'athified, meaning the bureaucracy was destroyed and the Sunni minority resented the West.

You had to be a party member to hold the most minor position similar to Nazi Germany, we didn't do that with the Nazis so why do it with the Ba'athists.

I would bet large amount of money up to the billions it would take to hired such a force that in order to keep his head on his shoulders he would welcome them with open arms.

Your response hardly qualifies you for being described as an Israel Hater, more like an Israeli Doubter. There are real Israel Haters in this forum and on the "outside.".

"Staying in the Region" means staying engaged in the region which includes:

1) The maintenance of existing military bases
2) Priority investments in diplomatic and intelligence resources
3) The expenditure of large sums of foreign aid
4) The willingness to intervene diplomatically, economically, or even militarily in the event that the interest of the US and its allies are at risk.

You seem to imply that considering the interests of our ally Israel within this list is merely an "excuse" and not valid, and that there is a distinct possibility that threats to Israel may not be "real" (whatever that means, to borrow your phrase).

I am thinking that the US troops sent "to protect the embassy" are really there to call in US airstrikes to protect the entire city. Does anyone else think so?

Nah, Obama would never mislead the public

Nearly 300 US forces move into Iraq with security mission

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 300 armed American forces are being positioned in and around Iraq to help secure U.S. assets as President Barack Obama nears a decision on an array of options for combating fast-moving Islamic insurgents, including airstrikes or a contingent of special forces.

The U.S. and Iran also held an initial discussion on how the longtime foes might cooperate to ease the threat from the al-Qaida-linked militants that have swept through Iraq. Still, the White House ruled out the possibility that Washington and Tehran might coordinate military operations in Iraq.

Obama met with his national security team Monday evening to discuss options for stopping the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Officials said the president has made no final decisions on how aggressively the U.S. might get involved in Iraq, though the White House continued to emphasize that any military engagement remained contingent on the government in Baghdad making political reforms. Still, there were unmistakable signs of Americans returning to a country from which the U.S. military fully withdrew more than two years ago. Obama notified Congress that up to 275 troops would be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad. The soldiers — 170 of which have already arrived in Iraq — were armed for combat, though Obama has insisted he does not intend for U.S. forces to be engaged in direct fighting.

"We are hard-wired into their system," the fledgling democracy that America helped institute, said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. "We can't walk away from it."

About 100 additional forces are being put on standby, most likely in Kuwait, and could be used for airfield management, security and logistics support, officials said. Separately, three U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending a contingent of special forces soldiers to Iraq.

Their limited mission — which has not yet been approved — would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation's north and west as the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011. Taken together, the developments suggest a willingness by Obama to send Americans into a collapsing security situation in order to quell the brutal fighting in Iraq before it morphs into outright war.

If the U.S. were to deploy an additional team of special forces, the mission almost certainly would be small. One U.S. official said it could be up to 100 special forces soldiers. It also could be authorized only as an advising and training mission — meaning the soldiers would work closely with Iraqi forces that are fighting the insurgency but would not officially be considered combat troops.

The White House would not confirm that special operations forces were under consideration. But spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said that while Obama would not send troops back into combat, "He has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces."

It's not clear how quickly the special forces could arrive in Iraq. It's also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation's north, where the Sunni Muslim insurgency has captured large swaths of territory ringing Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government.

It's that sort of thinking that fucked everything up in the first place. Blackwater is associated with large civilian casualties, and hated throughout the Moslem world. Iran has supported Al Maliki from the beginning. Republican guards are far better disciplined, and aware of civilians.