War Against ISIS

[STURM]

As for rebuilding either country, you can not help people that hate you or are too stupid to recognize help when offered.

In both cases there was no interest; let alone any long term planning with regards to re-building either country. That was the problem! In Iraq, the State Department and the Pentagon were not on the same book and there was little initial attempt to fix what went wrong. As for Aghanistan, a few years after the invasion, only a fraction of the promised funds intended for re-development and to get Afghan farners away from poppy farming actually came through. The U.S. only welcomed in the UN, EU and other agencies/insitutions when it realised that things had gone rat shit and help was needed.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey2WfFIpiUI"]Insight with Ahmed Rashid - Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Gremlin29]

That's the problem with introducing timetables to pull out. I can't think of any armed conflict that achieved lasting peace on the basis of a deadline. The only way Iraq is going to secure a peaceful future is by foreign occupation enforcing peace and security. Western powers are the only ones capable of doing this, but this just isn't going to happen. Short of this, all of the half hearted efforts to help will just heap missery upon missery. How much of a role is Iran going to play or, is their role going to be limited to a symbolic political statement?

 

[Twain]

I think Colin Powell (and others) figured out the clusterphuck potential and massive expense of this but nobody wanted to hear it. To be sure Saddam tried to give the world the impression he had WMD but that was to scare off Iran which was in the position to clean his clock assuming no Western foreign intervention. He wasn't close to having a bomb and the West either knew this or should have.

Take this for what it's worth on an anonymous board, but a conversation I had once with someone working in the pentagon in 2002 went something like this: Numerous people in the pentagon kept asking rumsfeld what the post war stabilization plan for Iran consisted of, After this question was repeated enough times with no answer, Rumsfeld said "the next person who asks me about a post war plan is fired". It was never brought up again until franks retired and things were getting really ugly.

So yes a lot of people knew it was going to be a mess but they were silenced. A group of about 6 Colonels stationed in the pentagon resigned in protest of this just short of the actual invasion. They tried to get some higher ranking officers to follow suit but were unsuccessful.

 

[John Fedup]

Actually during the 2002-2003 period many Afghans welcomed the presence of foreign troops and they genuinely believed that there was going to be a 'new' Afghanistan. This was at a time when the Taliban was in disarray and before there was resentment with the Karzai government; then things strated to go horribly wrong, the Taliban made a comeback and there were lost opportunities.

True and if the massive effort that got applied to Iraq was instead applied to Afghanistan in 2003, the coalition forces might have been out of there years ago and those Pakistani MFs would have received an important message. Let us not forget, the Taliban and many other vermin organizations are trained by them and funded by Saudis and other Gulf states.

 

[STURM]

How much of a role is Iran going to play or, is their role going to be limited to a symbolic political statement?

In the Iranian scheme of things, Iraq is far more important than Syria. I would be very surprised if the Iranians don't put in a serious effort to prop up their Shiite brethren in Baghdad and to defeat ISIS and groups like it. Lebanon is also far less important than Iraq yet the Iranians have spent years maintaining a presence there. The question we should also ask is what role is Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf states playing in this? The irony is that the West actually needs Iranian help in Iraq but in Syria are on opposing sides; another irony is that the U.S. tried - unsuccessfully - to contain Iranian influence in Iraq.

 

[John Fedup]

Take this for what it's worth on an anonymous board, but a conversation I had once with someone working in the pentagon in 2002 went something like this: Numerous people in the pentagon kept asking rumsfeld what the post war stabilization plan for Iran consisted of, After this question was repeated enough times with no answer, Rumsfeld said "the next person who asks me about a post war plan is fired". It was never brought up again until franks retired and things were getting really ugly.

So yes a lot of people knew it was going to be a mess but they were silenced. A group of about 6 Colonels stationed in the pentagon resigned in protest of this just short of the actual invasion. They tried to get some higher ranking officers to follow suit but were unsuccessful.

Hard to say what difference a group of generals denouncing Rumsfeld would have made on the Iraq invasion. One can not help but think that had they been successful in derailing this event, the US defence and economic situation would be more positive and more focus would have been applied to Afghanistan.

 

[John Fedup]

In the Iranian scheme of things, Iraq is far more important than Syria. I would be very surprised if the Iranians don't put in a serious effort to prop up their Shiite brethren in Baghdad and to defeat ISIS and groups like it. Lebanon is also far less important than Iraq yet the Iranians have spent years maintaining a presence there. The question we should also ask is what role is Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf states playing in this? The irony is that the West actually needs Iranian help in Iraq but in Syria are on opposing sides; another irony is that the U.S. tried - unsuccessfully - to contain Iranian influence in Iraq.

It would seem that some kind of back room deal between the US, Turkey, and Iran involving the partition of Iraq might be the best solution. The Saudis and other gulf states won't like this but that is just too frigging bad. They helped cause this $hit.

 

[Waylander]

It's hard to think of anything more ironic than the prospect of Iran getting involved in an Iraqi counterinsurgency quagmire...

Iran faces a real dilemma. On the one hand supporting the Shias of Iraq is probably the most thing for Iran right now. On the other hand their economy is already in shambles and a heavy involvement in Iraq isn't going to improve it. The prospect of investing lots of blood and money is not a happy one for Iraq I would think.

 

[STURM]

Indeed, given that Iran is already involved in Syria; involvement in Iraq will be a further drain on resources. The problem is that Iran has no choice. To stay away from Iraq would be disastrous.

A lot of interesting points raised in this video, including the Kurds being used but facing the possibility of later being left in the lurch again. The best part is about Maliki - a U.S. friend - fighting the same enemy as Assad; whom the U.S. wants gone!

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVPzo0WpWsk"]Iraq: Should neighbours be worried ? - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[John Fedup]

It's hard to think of anything more ironic than the prospect of Iran getting involved in an Iraqi counterinsurgency quagmire...

Iran faces a real dilemma. On the one hand supporting the Shias of Iraq is probably the most thing for Iran right now. On the other hand their economy is already in shambles and a heavy involvement in Iraq isn't going to improve it. The prospect of investing lots of blood and money is not a happy one for Iraq I would think.

Thus they understand the Western prospective, what comes around goes around, in Iraq for sure. $hit happens, the question is will they be willing to compromise and agree to prevent more serious $hit from happening. This might be an opportunity for the West, Russia, and China to play nice, for awhile at least.

 

[STURM]

the question is will they be willing to compromise and agree to prevent more serious $hit from happening.

The question is really what the U.S. will do to curb its strategic partner Saudi Arabia, and what kind of behind the scenes cooperation will there be with 'evil' and 'dangerous' Iran?

This might be an opportunity for the West, Russia, and China to play nice, for awhile at least.

All have different agendas and have differences of opinion with regards to the Middle East. Russia has already said that the current situation is 'proof of the failure of the U.S. invasion of Iraq'. Behind the scenes there is probably a lot of talk in Washington as to what to do with Saudi Arabia; which off course is not pleased with U.S. actions over Iran and Syria and wants to weaken Iran; its arch enemy.

Some strike footage from an Iraqi plane in the opening seconds of the first video.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUeuWphlu_8"]ISIL vows to march on Iraq's capital - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FsS6de0EmQ"]Iraq desperate for options against ISIS - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yaqfdt0wwB4"]Meet the terrorists who scare Al-Qaeda - YouTube[/nomedia]


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E9c2voj_2I"]Is the U.S. Embassy safe in Iraq? - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[John Fedup]

The question is really what the U.S. will do to curb its strategic partner Saudi Arabia, and what kind of behind the scenes cooperation will there be with 'evil' and 'dangerous' Iran?



All have different agendas and have differences of opinion with regards to the Middle East. Russia has already said that the current situation is 'proof of the failure of the U.S. invasion of Iraq'. Behind the scenes there is probably a lot of talk in Washington as to what to do with Saudi Arabia; which off course is not pleased with U.S. actions over Iran and Syria and wants to weaken Iran; its arch enemy.

Russia may be right about Bush Jr.'s invasion of Iraq but their Afghanistan adventure and current Crimea BS does not give them much credibility either. As for what to do with Saudi Arabia, ( and Pakistan as well as some other gulf states) I have to hold back my response so I can continue to post here.

 

[2007yellow430]

Russia may be right about Bush Jr.'s invasion of Iraq but their Afghanistan adventure and current Crimea BS does not give them much credibility either. As for what to do with Saudi Arabia, ( and Pakistan as well as some other gulf states) I have to hold back my response so I can continue to post here.

There are a lot of us who are bitting our tongue regarding Saudi Arabia. Until we deal with them, look for more chaos in that area.

 

[STURM]

Given that the U.S. has been declaring for years that Saudi Arabia is a ally and a partner I would argue that the onus is on the U.S. to persuade its ally and partner to behave. If not the U.S., who else? No other country exerts the same level of influence on the Saudis the way the U.S. does. The Saudis may be very displeased about U.S. policy on Syria and Iran but they still depend on U.S. assistance for regime survival - any country that threatens Saudi Arabia will feel the full weight of the U.S. military - and U.S. arms sales to the Saudis are substantial.

Saudi aid to ISIS and similar groups is part of the longstanding Cold War being fought against the Western backed Sunni Arab states against the heretic Iranians, thus is hardly surprising. Lets not forget that over the years, the Saudis encouraged Saudi volunteers to wage jihad against the Soviets, alongside the Taliban, etc.- this killed 2 birds with one stone; it helped spread wahhabism and kept these fanatics away from Saudi soil. Off course from 1980 to 1988 Saudi Arabia and a host of other Arab countries - with full backing of the West - bankrolled Saddam's war - he was a friend then - against Iran. In many ways, that war never ended.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-dread-to-think-what-will-follow-9536467.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-been-bankrolled-by-saudi-arabia-9533396.html

Iran has openly spoken of a possible alliance with the U.S. Despite Iran being a member of the Axis of Evil both countries have cooperated in the past. Iran agreed to turn a blind eye to any downed U.S. airman being rescued along the border area during the 2003 invasion and both sides later held talks on how to deal with the Taliban. Incidently, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were the first to recognise the Talibs when they seized power in 1996.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ouhani-says-we-are-ready-to-help-9537171.html

This article mentions the Revolutionary Gurad already in Iraq and planning the defence of Baghdad. And apparently it was not ISIS but Jaish Naqshbandi which captured Tikrit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-prevent-collapse-of-iraqi-state-9536275.html

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5IGQzUamB8"]Inside Story - Iraq on the brink? - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[John Fedup]

If you wanted to mint a coin showing the two worst A-hole countries pretending to be our friends, one starts the the letter S and the other starts with P. Both of them need to feel some serious hurt.

 

[nkvd]

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't i think is the driving principle of US policy on KSA.Topple the House of Saudi What comes next? Can any of you guys propose what the US can do about KSA short of nuking it?Sanctions i hear some say.So sanctions on Russia,Iran,KSA and Qatar and on top of that limited oil flow from Libya and Iraq.Inflation would have a field day and lets see how many democratically elected goverments will survive that. Guys there is such a thing called strategic overreach and in my opinion long time and current US policy on KSA is both pragmatic and opportunistic-think arms sales,commercial trade,ad hoc military bases and oil traded in US dollars(and its implications).KSA is a deeply flawed ally but still any ally worth having in your tent in my useless opinion anywhere

 

[2007yellow430]

I don't know how far the moderators will allow political discussion, and hopefully this doesn't imping:

When we become oil sufficient in 2015-2016, then we should put them on notice that we aren't going to tolerate this type of behavior.

 

[RobWilliams]

US has send a CVN + CG + DDG into the Arabian Gulf

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81673

This is down to the US considering airstrikes against ISIS targets including the use of armed drones in the country. IIRC there was a report not long ago about the US admitting to using drones over Iraq for ISR purposes.

Iranian troops have crossed the border (2000 troops)

The Iraqi official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border into the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province, in central Iraq on Friday, while another 500 had entered the Badra Jassan area in Wasat province overnight.

The article then goes on to say that some Iranian top brass are taking part to organise the defence of Baghdad, the BBC claims they have been told that includes 130 troops from the Revolutionary Guard

The Guardian confirmed on Friday that Major General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, had arrived in Baghdad to oversee the defence of the capital.

However, the BBC's Kasra Naji in Iraq has been told that more than 130 of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have arrived to provide training and advice. An Iranian general is also reported to be in the capital.

Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants | World news | theguardian.com
BBC News - Iraq conflict: Sunni militant push on Baghdad 'halted'

The BBC article describes how the Iraqi army has regrouped and is now beginning operations to recapture territory lost, most recently "a number of towns" north of Baghdad which were captured with Shia and Khurdish militias supporting.

There has since been calls to arms for the population and apparently thousands of citizens have turned out to sign up for Iraqi security forces.

 

[STURM]

The Independent also mention IRGC elements on the outskirsts of Badghad planning its defence; this despite Iranian denials. Things just get more and more confusing in the Middle East, the very same chaps now advancing on Baghdad are the very same chaps the West was hoping would overhrow the Baathists in Syria. Given that Baghdad is much larger than Tikrit or Mosul and contains a larg Siite population; it remains to be seen how successful ISIS will be if indeed it reaches the capital.

Guys there is such a thing called strategic overreach and in my opinion long time and current US policy on KSA is both pragmatic and opportunistic-think arms sales,commercial trade,ad hoc military bases and oil traded in US dollars(and its implications).

Strategic overach or not the chickens have now come home to roost: the U.S. is now paying the price for years of flawed policy in the region; by propping up governments that were never elected, by being hyprocritical about human rights and democracy, by being selective about who it wanted to be mates with, etc. Remember how Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to deal with the Shiites and barely got a slap on the wrist from the State Department? Remember how Hilary Clinton spoke of Ben Ali being a friend; shortly before he was toppled? Remember how the West and the Gulf states bankrolled the war Sadddam started against the evil and heretic Iranians? A war in which thousands and thousands of Iranians died and led to Saddam convincing himself that he could get away with anything. And lets not mention Egypt which has a military ruler who came to power in a coup and only got a slight rebuke from the State Department.

Even if ISIS is eventually defeated in Iraq the problem will not go away. There are so many deep rooted problems in the Middle East. Granted, the Arabs by some miracle have to sort out their own mess but to fair a lot of the problems they face were created by outside powers for their own selfish self-interests ....


.

 

[RobWilliams]

Suicide attacks inside Baghdad are beginning, at least 9 deaths + 20 injured

BBC News - Deadly suicide attack hits Baghdad

With respect to size, the spokeperson for another militant organisation (Iraqi revolutionaries) claims that Mosul was a city too big for ISIS to have captured alone and they believe they are stronger than ISIS

BBC News - Iraq conflict: 'We are stronger than ISIS'