Iraq in state of emergency - Mosul overrun by militants; government flees;

[jrobe]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/politics/iraq-obama/

Awesome...they need more support....but no boots on the ground....

BS

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[AnimalMother]

They must be pretty radical if you're afraid of posting them anonymously on a public forum.

If you're upset because I didn't offer to include you I apologize, but the offer was generic. PM me if you're interested, your bank account might appreciate it one day.

[BitteEinBit]

You think that's how it works? Maybe.

An alternative explanation is that US actions since 9/11 have drastically increased global terrorism, perhaps exponentially so. By using such blunt, huge military force, we have made many, many errors. Other options were and are possible. Actions have consequences far beyond their original intentions. Every time we've carelessly or accidentally killed an innocent, or staged in regions where we're not welcome, we have created numerous new "terrorist" enemies. Some people might even say that the emerging ISIS Iraq-Syria super terror nation was only possible because of the US. We have funded and trained some of these terrorists. We also created the power vacuum in the region by killing Saddam and ending the Iraqi military.

But sure, it sounds nice and patriotic to say that we are "taking the fight to the enemy before they come to our 'Homeland.'" Not many people are willing to stand up today and say that the US effort since 9/11 has had a net positive on the world, or the US, so I applaud you. Like I said, maybe you're right...

This question is more thought provoking as opposed to me trying to get you to give me a "what could have been" answer...but, what do you think the world would be like had we done nothing in response to the attacks on 9-11?? Are you suggesting we should not have gone into Afghanistan at all since the end result has been more terrorists? What would your response have been if you were POTUS on 9-11? I honestly wonder what the current POTUS's response would have been. Inaction may be just as bad. But we'll never know, we've passed that fork in the road already.

Edit: I cannot type to save my life

Edited June 13, 2014 by BitteEinBit

[guineapigfury]

You're assuming the only option was to go in the way we did, with 100,000 troops. We should have left Big Army at home, and let the bearded commandos and air strikes do their thing. Afghanistan would be the same festering shithole it is today, we'd still have killed plenty of terrorists, 2000+ servicemembers would still be alive, and we'd have an extra half-trillion dollars lying around.

[ElLoco]

You're assuming the only option was to go in the way we did, with 100,000 troops. We should have left Big Army at home, and let the bearded commandos and air strikes do their thing. Afghanistan would be the same festering shithole it is today, we'd still have killed plenty of terrorists, 2000+ servicemembers would still be alive, and we'd have an extra half-trillion dollars lying around.

Word

[BitteEinBit]

You're assuming the only option was to go in the way we did, with 100,000 troops. We should have left Big Army at home, and let the bearded commandos and air strikes do their thing. Afghanistan would be the same festering shithole it is today, we'd still have killed plenty of terrorists, 2000+ servicemembers would still be alive, and we'd have an extra half-trillion dollars lying around.

Not sure if that was a response to my post, but I didn't make any assumptions at all. I asked a question about action vs no action. But lets say we let the bearded snake eaters go in and the air strikers were allowed to do their thing, and left 100,000 troops at home, would there be any less terrorists or hate for the US for taking action around the globe? What I got from the original author was that we have more terrorists and are hated more because we took action. I'm just curious if anyone thinks things would be better if we took no action...maybe we could just draw a red line in the sand and tell those guys not to do it again.

[HU&W]

Fox news says Balad is being evacuated.

[tac airlifter]

But sure, it sounds nice and patriotic to say that we are "taking the fight to the enemy before they come to our 'Homeland.'" Not many people are willing to stand up today and say that the US effort since 9/11 has had a net positive on the world, or the US, so I applaud you. Like I said, maybe you're right...

Maybe you should read my post again since I did not say anything you are attributing to me. I don't know whether or not we have had a net positive affect based on the wars. I certainly didn't say anything about our "homeland" and responding to somebody with quotation marks about something they didn't say is a foul. We have had the wrong strategy, based on a faulty understanding of the nature of our enemy which has lead us astray. That said, I do genuinely believe the named objectives we're fighting are terrible people and I would rather spend my time hunting them than flying for the airlines.

[Alpharatz]

Well, you got me there. Babysitting an airliner isn't the most exciting of jobs. However, I for one don't plan on hiring on to help manage and keep paying for the end game (at best) touched off by some long ago father son psychological SNIT aided and abetted by Rummie and Cheney. This is going to get really bad in my opinion. The British et. al. started this whole thing. We kept it going to support our thirst for petroleum. If the Europeans, Saudis, Turks and maybe even the Iranians can't or won't step up QUICKLY to put an end to this then good luck to them. I suggest that the Canadians, the USA, the Mexicans, the Central Americans, and Sud Americanos start doing some SERIOUS talking before it's too late. There is plenty of trade opportunity and POL supply from the Drake Passage to the Chukchi Sea to keep us all going. I hate to say it but the Israelis may have to go it alone on this one which will make it really really bad. Now this last reflection might be a little controversial. The only U.S. forces that should be threatening in this situation are in Maine and NoDak.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Well, you got me there. Babysitting an airliner isn't the most exciting of jobs. However, I for one don't plan on hiring on to help manage and keep paying for the end game (at best) touched off by some long ago father son psychological SNIT aided and abetted by Rummie and Cheney. This is going to get really bad in my opinion. The British et. al. started this whole thing. We kept it going to support our thirst for petroleum. If the Europeans, Saudis, Turks and maybe even the Iranians can't or won't step up QUICKLY to put an end to this then good luck to them. I suggest that the Canadians, the USA, the Mexicans, the Central Americans, and Sud Americanos start doing some SERIOUS talking before it's too late. There is plenty of trade opportunity and POL supply from the Drake Passage to the Chukchi Sea to keep us all going. I hate to say it but the Israelis may have to go it alone on this one which will make it really really bad. Now this last reflection might be a little controversial. The only U.S. forces that should be threatening in this situation are in Maine and NoDak.

Lol, what? Do you subscribe to AnimalMother's controversial websites? (I keed, I keed).

What I want to know is if we'll be throwing down airstrikes in Iraq in the near future, like we are in other countries that we have "no boots on the ground," yet we are still fighting the bad guys.

[Skitzo]

So if we bail them out can we get a SOFA and more favorable diplomatic clnce?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frog]

Fox news says Balad is being evacuated.

That escalated....

[Clark Griswold]

Need an army to do some work in a place you don't want yours to go? Send the FFL...

[waveshaper]

Balad AFB; Iraqi C-130s evacuating US contractors/others + it sounds like the Iraqi Security Forces bugged out and the

contractors picked up the abandoned arms to fight the ISIS attackers, Benghazi 2? (unconfirmed).

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/?iref=allsearch

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/200-u-s-contractors-surrounded-by-jihadists-in-iraq/

Excerpts from article;

The attacking ISIS forces approached the base in trucks Wednesday and called through loudspeakers for all private

security forces and Iraqi special military to leave immediately or die.

The U.S. private contractors in touch with WND reported that after hearing the broadcast, the private security forces

and the Iraqi military defending the base dropped their weapons and ran.

The American contractors collected the weapons left behind and were able to hold off further immediate advances.

The surrounded Americans said they were under ISIS fire from small arms, AK47s and rocket propelled grenades, or RPGs.

The contractors had been able to hold the base, but those on the scene reported it was only a matter of time before the

ISIS terrorists succeeded in breaking through the perimeter. The sources confirmed the contractors were still under

siege, despite an Associated Press report Thursday, citing U.S. officials, that three plane loads of Americans were being

evacuated from Balad.

WND learned from sources that the jihadists closed down escape routes, and the U.S. Air Force was in a stand-down

position. U.S. forces were not assisting even with air cover so a private extradition flight could land for a rescue,

the sources said.

Privately scheduled exit flights had fallen through, sources said, as several private pilots originally scheduled to

make the flights quit.

The sources contended the U.S. military could provide the necessary air cover to protect C-130s or other air transport

craft sufficient to make the evacuation, but so far officials had refused to get involved.

[AnimalMother]

You're assuming the only option was to go in the way we did, with 100,000 troops. We should have left Big Army at home, and let the bearded commandos and air strikes do their thing. Afghanistan would be the same festering shithole it is today, we'd still have killed plenty of terrorists, 2000+ servicemembers would still be alive, and we'd have an extra half-trillion dollars lying around.

But if that money was just lying around now, it wouldn't be in the pockets of our major defense contractors and their politician-champions. I shudder to think of where that would have left us...

Lumberjack, you're probably just too polite to ask, so here's some uber radical thoughts to get you started (or for the group at large).

http://dailyreckoning.com/the-why-of-war/

[StoleIt]

http://dailyreckoning.com/the-why-of-war/

That article...wow...propaganda much? I get it...war is bad...but way to leave out tons of facts/justifications just so you can say "war is bad."

[Clark Griswold]

Taking a stand in the north against ISIS...

Maybe Crazy Joe was right when he wanted to split Iraq into 3 parts based on Sunni-Shiite-Kurd

Seems to be working towards that anyway.

[JBueno]

Here's an interesting look at our general foreign policy. Thought provoking if nothing else.

http://www.steynonline.com/6414/helicopters-on-the-roof

[nsplayr]

The author provides nothing but platitude-laden criticism mixed with a lack of expertise. His main "credential" is guest hosting several popular conservative radio programs. There are plenty of well-argued criticisms of Obama's handling of Iraq out there if that's what you're in search of, this just doesn't measure up if you ask me.

Here's a short piece on Iraq from someone who I think is one of the best foreign correspondents out there. This much longer one is worth a read as well. So is the author's book. Master's degree in IR and more time on the ground in war zones than probably any of us FWIW, plus he's just a great writer.

I for one completely agree with the analysis Filkins presents: Iraq is in chaos because it's neighbor is in the middle of a violent sectarian war that's 4 years old at this point, it's PM is an autocrat who's done nothing to include Sunni or Kurd minorities in the new Iraqi government, we completely (and unnecessarily) destroyed the Iraqi state institutions when we invaded, and we didn't follow-through and negotiate the ability to leave a residual force behind to help prevent exactly the mess we're in now.

Plenty of blame to go around both parties, several American administrations and policy makers, the Iraqis themselves, and the wider Mess O'Potamia region.

[Clark Griswold]

The author provides nothing but platitude-laden criticism mixed with a lack of expertise. His main "credential" is guest hosting several popular conservative radio programs. There are plenty of well-argued criticisms of Obama's handling of Iraq out there if that's what you're in search of, this just doesn't measure up if you ask me.

A bit flippant yes but his parting shot as to our sieve-like border was perfect.

His article (Dexter Filkins) was good but just a rehash of what has happened. With the gang that can't shoot straight running the White House, the fourth estate is going to have to prompt him to take decisive action to forestall disaster. A smart air campaign with surgical strikes & persistent ISR will shore up the Iraqi government. But if they won't launch at least a cruise missile strike on Al-Assad after declaring a "red-line" don't hold your breath for anything.

I don't mean to beat the war drum too loudly especially as I am comfortable in 'Merica and not currently over in the sandbox but if we want to influence events and shape the outcome over there (not even saying we should) then we should do it and not just look like a bunch of big talkers and then no action when the time comes.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[Chuck17]

...if we want to influence events and shape the outcome over there (not even saying we should) then we should do it and not just look like a bunch of big talkers and then no action when the time comes.

You just defined the American military instrument of power since the Vietnam War. Tough talk, air strikes, carrier strike groups and no boots on the ground - the Persian Gulf War and Iraq/Afghanistan excepted. In short, a form of air policing (http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36386.html) - except we don't take it to the extreme required for it to be effective.

This presidents rhetoric about America receding and the rest of the world stepping up to fill the gap and create lasting peace is terribly flawed and historically uninformed - talk about rose colored glasses. The world will NOT be more peaceful, but we cannot (peace costs $) continue to be the worlds police... Remember the red lines in Syria - these guys currently slaughtering thousands in the march to Baghdad were fighting Asad in Syria a year ago... Maybe the president was right to wait instead of aid and abet Islamist thugs just because Asad is a bad guy. The president is not all at fault. The morons on the right who are screaming for action and blaming the president (a political move to appear strong) are not doing anything to help Americas standing.

Everyone needs to eat some fiber and read a fucking history book.

Iraq as we know it is going to fall, likely to be separated into three areas between Shiites, Sunis and Kurds. Like much of the rest of the shitholes we've fought in, theses people are not willing to work together, have no national identity and rely on tribal and religious enclaves for safety and leadership. The fact that Americans can't identify the major players or the implications of actions/inaction doesn't make it our situation any easier.

I'd start reading up on the rise of regionalism.... the unification of Germany, the Franco-Prussian War, and the lead up to WW1... Regional powers coalescing and coming into conflict on their peripheries... All signs are pointing in a similar direction re: the Middle East / Russia / China.

And there is very little we can do about it.

Chuck

[nsplayr]

I agree with you...Filkins does have a great summary of how we got to where we are and that's important. He argues that the Arab Spring-caused civil war in Syria and a decision we made more than a decade ago are largely to blame and I agree.

I would have fully supported a residual CT force in Iraq, but most Americans didn't want that for political reasons and the Iraqi goverent didn't want that for political reasons as well. So no dice...and I sure as hell don't wanna be TDY to Iraq if we'd be subject to their kangaroo courts.

[RTB]

M

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[17D_guy]

Well, now we've got pictures of mass executions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/15/these-dramatic-images-show-apparent-mass-execution-of-iraqi-soldiers-by-isis/

[MD]

Well, now we've got pictures of mass executions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/15/these-dramatic-images-show-apparent-mass-execution-of-iraqi-soldiers-by-isis/

I would hope these guys weren't the willing-surrender and lay down their arms types who didn't put up a fight at all, thinking that would somehow be a good thing.