ISIS reaches center of Rhamadi

  • Thread starter Thread starter grotto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Well there was division among the brass on this. They either wanted out altogether, or if they must stay, have a large enough force to fight of an attack. As it was, they never trusted the Iraqi government and didn’t trust that the Iraqi’s themselves would not attack a small American force.

That being said, commanders don’t set foreign policy for the United States, that’s the President’s job.

We never want out military commanders to trump the decisions of a civilian government,

Jim
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, the “civilian government” which in that particular decision was Barack Obama and his political people alone, can make a terrible mistake in not paying attention to those with expertise.

Those who had expertise predicted the scenario we have now. The U.S. is not going back there, because by the time Obama is out of the White House ISIS will be a lot stronger unless Iran conquers the whole of Iraq and Syria. Either way, the Middle East will be a slaughterhouse. That such an outcome could have been prevented is beyond serious question.
 
bibcat said:
The irony is the Afghans (especially women and children) lived worse under the Taliban–and the mess that is running their country now–than they would have had under a pro-Soviet regime. At least under the latter, they’d have had secular education, equal rights for women, a society not based on superstition and depravity, and at least a glimpse into 20th century life.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you know that. The Soviets were at least as good at mass slaughter as Al Quaeda. I think the Chechens would tell a different story even about post-Soviet Russia.
 
Ridgerunner said:
That such an outcome could have been prevented is beyond serious question.
Click to expand...
Yes, if Bashar al-Assad had been more decisive in squashing the uprising in Syria–or treated it with some respect early on–ISIS would never have had a chance to form a stronghold in Syria that is now threatening Iraq. But I know that’s not what you meant. You’d blame Barak Obama for a rainy day, I know that now.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t think you know that. The Soviets were at least as good at mass slaughter as Al Quaeda. I think the Chechens would tell a different story even about post-Soviet Russia.
Click to expand...
The Chechens wanted to establish an Islamic state and the Russians put the kibosh on that–although the Russians lost 30,000 men killed (twice as many as in Afghanistan) against 5th rate opposition. Not impressive. As for Afghanistan, if the Soviets did manage to wipe out the Islamic fundamentalist wackadoos–which they didn’t, so their vaunted skills at mass slaughter didn’t quite measure up–it would have made life for the rest of the Afghan population all the better. In other words, small loss.
 
Tomdstone said:
I thought it was the Republican President Ronald Reagan who supported Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, calling them freedom fighters?
Click to expand...
Al Qaeda did not exists then.

The Afghan Freedom Fighters were supported by the US. Some of them, like Bin Laden later became the organization which we’ve come to know as Al Qaeda.

The first blunder the Bush administration made was ignoring the intelligence we had from the Soviet Afghan war about the Afghan politicians they help put in control of the government.

Had they used it, they would’ve known the shady characters they were helping to create the Afgan government, begining with Karzai himself.

The defense minister in the setup government, actually fought on the side of the Soviets and tortured fellow countrymen who were taken prisoner.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Well there was division among the brass on this. They either wanted out altogether, or if they must stay, have a large enough force to fight of an attack. As it was, they never trusted the Iraqi government and didn’t trust that the Iraqi’s themselves would not attack a small American force.

That being said, commanders don’t set foreign policy for the United States, that’s the President’s job.

We never want out military commanders to trump the decisions of a civilian government,

Jim
Click to expand...
Who is this “Top Brass”? I think the only ones who wanted the drastic drawdown were politicians.
US military commanders, led by Gen. Lloyd Austin III, the senior commander in Iraq, are proposing that up to 18,000 US troops remain in Iraq after the year-end pull-out date. Currently, about 45,000 US troops are in Iraq.
Click to expand...
The military request for a higher residual force reflects a conclusion by commanders on the ground that Iraqi security forces are not yet ready to forgo the support and guidance of a substantial US training presence. Officially, any remaining US forces would be limited to training functions, which is already the stated purpose of US troops in Iraq.
Click to expand...
csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0907/Iraq-withdrawal-How-many-US-troops-will-remain

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin

Again, I will go with the point of view of the General.
 
Path_Finder said:
Who is this “Top Brass”? I think the only ones who wanted the drastic drawdown were politicians.

csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0907/Iraq-withdrawal-How-many-US-troops-will-remain

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin

Again, I will go with the point of view of the General.
Click to expand...
politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/

Decisions were swinging back and forth, but Raddatz’ claim is mostly true. It’s also mostly true that al-Maliki is mostly at fault here, for being such a stick in the mud regarding status of forces.
 
bibcat said:
Yes, if Bashar al-Assad had been more decisive in squashing the uprising in Syria–or treated it with some respect early on–ISIS would never have had a chance to form a stronghold in Syria that is now threatening Iraq. But I know that’s not what you meant. You’d blame Barak Obama for a rainy day, I know that now.
Click to expand...
Oh no. Right now the rain is due to El Nino conditions, and a rainy day is always welcome to me.

But when it comes to the ongoing disaster in the Middle East, one has to put at least some credence in the opinions of the Sunni tribal leaders, the Kurds, the Sistani Shiites, Leon Panetta, the CIA, the generals and just about everybody who had any serious knowledge of the situation.

Assad might have played a more effective part against ISIS, but one questions it because he seems to be so widely hated in Syria. But ISIS had to cross a lot of open country in serious numbers and with equipment, to invest northern Iraq the way it has. And even in Syria, one has to wonder why Obama wouldn’t agree to establishment of a “no-fly zone” in the north of the country, which was Turkey’s sine qua non for attacking ISIS itself. Maybe Obama had good reasons for that, and maybe he didn’t. Of course, he was courting Iran at the time and maybe Iran wouldn’t approve such a measure.🤷
 
bibcat said:
politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/

Decisions were swinging back and forth, but Raddatz’ claim is mostly true. It’s also mostly true that al-Maliki is mostly at fault here, for being such a stick in the mud regarding status of forces.
Click to expand...
Maliki was not “mostly at fault”. Obama wanted out, period. He said as much in the presidential debate with Romney. At the end, Maliki was unwilling to go to the Iraqi parliament with a status of forces agreement if the force limit was 3,000, which is what Obama reduced it to. Everybody, including the Iraqis, knew that was not enough.

As it turns out, of course, 3,000 is about what Obama has in the country right now, but that number is either going to have to go up or it may be forced to go down under the pressure of events, unless we’re willing to withdraw to the Shiite areas under Iran’s protection.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But sometimes peoples do want our presence. Before Obama withdrew from Iraq, the Sunni tribal leaders, the Kurds and the majority of Shiites begged the U.S. to stay. Why? Because they knew the country would turn into a battleground between Sunni radicals and Iran if we did. U.S. military leaders and intelligence knew it too and told Obama that. But he left anyway, claiming “victory” as he did.
Click to expand...
Yup! 👍 I noticed some of our posters why go back to 2011, then they go back even farther and say “if you knew then what you know now would you have voted to kick Iraq out of Kuwait”. The real issue is not if we should have defended Kuwait, but if we should have run out on Iraq prematurely. That is the root cause, that is what gave an opening for the Islamic State Caliphate to metastasize.

Why is it that the secular press asking the president the question,
“Knowing what we do now, was abandoning Iraq, the right thing to do?”
 
Ignatius said:
Yup! 👍 I noticed some of our posters why go back to 2011, then they go back even farther and say “if you knew then what you know now would you have voted to kick Iraq out of Kuwait”. The real issue is not if we should have defended Kuwait, but if we should have run out on Iraq prematurely. That is the root cause, that is what gave an opening for the Islamic State Caliphate to metastasize.

Why is it that the secular press asking the president the question,
“Knowing what we do now, was abandoning Iraq, the right thing to do?”
Click to expand...
What “gave an opening for the Islamic State Caliphate to metastasize” was the attractiveness of fundamentalist Sunni Islam to Iraqi Sunnis, along with the cravenness of the majority Shia Iraqi Army. Face it, as long as the Iraqi government is independent (i.e. ruled by Iraqis and not from the green zone), unless we had surge-levels of American troops still in country, and that wasn’t realistic no matter who was POTUS, things would be pretty much as they are now. Considering how ISIS has stood up to–and beat-- the best that Iran and Hezbollah has put up against them, there’s no guarantee our ground forces would be able to stop them either. But I’m casting pearls before … well, you know 😉 on this thread. It would take a stout crowbar to separate most of the posters here from those on Free Republic or American Stinker.
 
bibcat said:
What “gave an opening for the Islamic State Caliphate to metastasize” was the attractiveness of fundamentalist Sunni Islam to Iraqi Sunnis, along with the cravenness of the majority Shia Iraqi Army. Face it, as long as the Iraqi government is independent (i.e. ruled by Iraqis and not from the green zone), unless we had surge-levels of American troops still in country, and that wasn’t realistic no matter who was POTUS, things would be pretty much as they are now. Considering how ISIS has stood up to–and beat-- the best that Iran and Hezbollah has put up against them, there’s no guarantee our ground forces would be able to stop them either. But I’m casting pearls before … well, you know 😉 on this thread. It would take a stout crowbar to separate most of the posters here from those on Free Republic or American Stinker.
Click to expand...
Don’t call people swine or even suggest that. It’s ill-mannered, and not allowed here.

If you believe it would have taken surge-level troop numbers to maintain the peace in Iraq, go on and think it. But the military didn’t think so.

I think I can assure you that ISIS has not yet met Iran’s best. They might get the chance soon, but so far ISIS has only fought with Hezbollah, Assad and Iraqi Shiite militias; under Iranian tutelage, to be sure. But ISIS has not yet fought Iranian regular forces.

And it might not in the foreseeable future, either. Likely Iran could take on ISIS and sweep it out of Iraq and Syria, if ISIS was the only adversary. But one suspects Iran will think twice or more about shooting up Sunni while having Turkey on one flank of its forces and possibly an Egyptian task force on its other flank out of Saudi Arabia.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Don’t call people swine or even suggest that. It’s ill-mannered, and not allowed here.

If you believe it would have taken surge-level troop numbers to maintain the peace in Iraq, go on and think it. But the military didn’t think so.

I think I can assure you that ISIS has not yet met Iran’s best. They might get the chance soon, but so far ISIS has only fought with Hezbollah, Assad and Iraqi Shiite militias; under Iranian tutelage, to be sure. But ISIS has not yet fought Iranian regular forces.

And it might not in the foreseeable future, either. Likely Iran could take on ISIS and sweep it out of Iraq and Syria, if ISIS was the only adversary. But one suspects Iran will think twice or more about shooting up Sunni while having Turkey on one flank of its forces and possibly an Egyptian task force on its other flank out of Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
Sorry I struck a nerve. And I don’t include all posters here under my Matthew 7:6 quip. Anyhow, those of us old enough to remember the Iranian Army’s abysmal performance against the Iraqis (strategy basically being suffocate the Iraqis with the bodies of dead Iranian teenagers) see Iran as something of a paper tiger–rather like Chiang Kai-shek’s China of the 1930s-1940s. If that’s the case, then ISIS is analogous to the Japanese Imperial Army of that time!
 
bibcat said:
Sorry I struck a nerve. And I don’t include all posters here under my Matthew 7:6 quip. Anyhow, those of us old enough to remember the Iranian Army’s abysmal performance against the Iraqis (strategy basically being suffocate the Iraqis with the bodies of dead Iranian teenagers) see Iran as something of a paper tiger–rather like Chiang Kai-shek’s China of the 1930s-1940s. If that’s the case, then ISIS is analogous to the Japanese Imperial Army of that time!
Click to expand...
The greater likelihood is that we would find the reverse to be true. But until it happens, we won’t know for sure.

Iran has available frontline troops of about a half million. Not comparable to the U.S., of course, but more than Britain and France put together. Four times the number of tanks the U.K. has. Might not be such a paper tiger as some would prefer to think.
 
bibcat said:
politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/

Decisions were swinging back and forth, but Raddatz’ claim is mostly true. It’s also mostly true that al-Maliki is mostly at fault here, for being such a stick in the mud regarding status of forces.
Click to expand...
The article agrees with what I posted:
Military commanders in Washington and in Baghdad pushed for a residual force between **16,000 and 24,000 **to conduct counterrorism work and train Iraqi security forces.
Click to expand...
politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/
It did not have to be this way. In 2011, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, recommended keeping between 14,000 and 18,000 troops in Iraq (down from 45,000). The White House rejected Austin’s recommendation, worried about “the cost and the political optics.” So our commanders reduced their request to 10,000 — a number commanders said might be able to work “in extremis.” But the White House rejected this as well, insisting the number be cut to between 3,000 to 4,000 troops — a level insufficient to provide force protection and train Iraqis, much less to counterbalance Iran.
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-iraq-disaster/2014/06/16/7151391e-f55b-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html
 
Ridgerunner said:
The greater likelihood is that we would find the reverse to be true. But until it happens, we won’t know for sure.

Iran has available frontline troops of about a half million. Not comparable to the U.S., of course, but more than Britain and France put together. Four times the number of tanks the U.K. has. Might not be such a paper tiger as some would prefer to think.
Click to expand...
Chinese ground forces were far more numerous on paper than Japan’s were in the 1930s. They still broke and ran. Even under American tutelage they performed poorly. As for Iran’s armor inventory, it’s mostly old cold war stuff. T-54/55, T-62, M47/M60 Patton, with some 70s era T-72s. Wonder how many they can keep running (especially the Pattons)? And could they hold up against ISIS’ ATGMs? It’ll be a while before there’s a direct clash between the two. But Iranian Revolutionary Guard units (allegedly the regime’s “elites”) are already fighting in Syria, and judging from the results, not doing so well. time.com/90807/iran-syria-revolutionary-guard/ I wouldn’t shed any tears if ISIS gave Iran a drubbing. I still hold a grudge over the whole hostage thing. For me, it would be not-so-instant Karma for them.
 
bibcat said:
Chinese ground forces were far more numerous on paper than Japan’s were in the 1930s. They still broke and ran. Even under American tutelage they performed poorly. As for Iran’s armor inventory, it’s mostly old cold war stuff. T-54/55, T-62, M47/M60 Patton, with some 70s era T-72s. Wonder how many they can keep running (especially the Pattons)? And could they hold up against ISIS’ ATGMs? It’ll be a while before there’s a direct clash between the two. But Iranian Revolutionary Guard units (allegedly the regime’s “elites”) are already fighting in Syria, and judging from the results, not doing so well. time.com/90807/iran-syria-revolutionary-guard/ I wouldn’t shed any tears if ISIS gave Iran a drubbing. I still hold a grudge over the whole hostage thing. For me, it would be not-so-instant Karma for them.
Click to expand...
Iran is extremely secretive about its military capabilities, at least until it wants to scare someone with some new system or other. For all we know, they may be buying lots of stuff from Russia right now to build up their inventory.

How many Revolutionary Guards are actually fighting in Syria, and what equipment do they have? The last I knew, the only Rev Guards in Syria were few in number and only providing tactical advice to Hezbollah fighters and supplementing Assad’s forces in a smallish way. Some say the total Iranian force in Syria is about 6,000 men. now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/565123-iran-revolutionary-guards-reportedly-pull-back-in-syria
 
Regardless of where Iranian forces are fighting, Israel will support the opposition against them.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top