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

[Danger41]

Would have...should have...should have...could have.

(End of grammar nerd rant.)

Also acceptable: Would've, should've

[waveshaper]

Yeah, it is a bridge quite far but the Free Syrian Army & associated anti-regime groups fighting Al-Assad have either joined the IS or are no longer operational or viable. The West could adopt a neutral stance, let the Russians & Iranians continue their diplomatic relations and support, We help the Iraqis & Kurds defeat the IS and at the conclusion of hostilities very quietly accept Al-Assad's government.

Could very well be a valid point at this stage of the game? Lets see how the US backed/supported Free Syrian Army is

doing in its effort to remove Assad's ISIL/ISIS killing machine. Remember these Islamic boys are all free agents and

want to play on the winning team.

Source; The Long War Journal.

List of groups (66) that defected from the US backed Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Coalition, as of September 2013. Most have defected to the more extreme groups with caliphate type aspirations.

Ansar al Sunnah Brigade

Tawhid al Janub Brigade

Al Shahid Brigade

Al Tahrir Brigade

Special Tasks Brigade

The Elite Brigade

Asifat al Janub Brigade

Al Mayzan Brigade

Shuhada al Hurriyah Brigade

Amud Hawran Brigade

Tabarak al Rahman Brigade

Salah al Din Brigade

Yusuf al Azmah Brigade

Tawhid al Lujah Brigade

Hawran Battalions Alliance Brigade

Hawran Commandos Brigade

A'ishah Brigade

Artillery and Rockets Regiment

The 1st Cavalry Regiment

The 2nd Cavalry Regiment

Al Mu'tazz Brigade

Fajr al Islam Brigade

Al Karamah Brigade

Shuhada al Yarmouk Brigade

Al Haramayn Brigade

Homs al-Walid Brigade

Asad Allah al Hamzah Brigade

Al Habib Brigade

Special Task Brigade

Asifat Hawran Brigade

Usud al Islam Brigade

Jaydur Brigade

Al Fursan Brigade

Saraya al Karamah Brigade

Imam al Nanawi Brigade

Al Ababil Brigade

Al Khansa Brigade

Anwar al Haqq Battalions Alliance

Dir al Lujah Brigade

Sanad Hawran Brigade

Rockets and Artillery Battalion

Luyuth al Furqan Alliance

Ali Bin Abi Talib Brigade

Abu Bakr Brigade

Mu'awiyah Brigade

Rijal al Sham Brigade

Al-Juwlan Commandos Battalion

Hamzah Abu Salah Battalion

The 2nd Division

Ababil Hawran Brigade

Shuhada Dimashq Brigade

Al Uhdah al Umariyah Brigade

Abdallah Bin Mas'ud Brigade

Ahfad al Umawiyyin Brigade

Al-Husun Brigade

Al-Fursan Brigade

Saqr Hawran Brigade

The Alliance of Western Countryside Brigades

Al-Masih Brigade

Al-Sahabah Brigade

Ahmad Khalaf Brigade

Shuhada al Islam Brigade

Bayariq al Islam Brigade

Fajr al Mujahidin Brigade

Fajr al Sham Brigade

Bayariq al Sham Brigade

10 Aug 2014; And the defection of US backed/armed Free Syrian Army units to ISIL continues.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/12/370930/syria-militant-factions-join-isil/

[MD]

All this proves is that Assad was correct in stating that the FSA "rebels" were nothing more than terrorists and the same people we were fighting in Iraq; yet somehow, we want to give them arms and support? Are we really that utterly stupid in this country? We must be.

Assad is no angel, no dictator is. However he did run a legit government, Syria was one of our coalition allies in Desert Storm, and even Israel saw Syria as a stable neighbor. Not a buddy buddy neighbor, but one where there was a peaceful existance of neither bothering the other post-1973. There was stability on that particular border of theirs that Israel could at least count on; same as they counted on with the Egypt border, but low and behold.....we stupidly screwed that one up too. Same thing we did with Libya.

Edited August 10, 2014 by MD

[Clark Griswold]

As LBJ said: "He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch"

Assad was not exactly our guy but we could do business with him:

John and Teresa enjoying dinner with the Assads in 2009.

Keeping a lid on Islamic Fascism is job 1 and somewhere down the list is encouraging democracy / human rights in the Middle East. I don't want those people to have to live under dictatorships but what is bubbling under the surface is worse.

[Mark1]

...and the same people we were fighting in Iraq; yet somehow, we want to give them arms and support?

Yes we were fighting them in Iraq, but we also gave them support when we were there as well (Sons of Iraq). In fact, we had them on the payroll to the tune of several hundred million dollars...and in large part, it improved conditions in Iraq while we were still there (even if the 'peace' was simply bought). It's a mistake to write off ISIS as a solely crazy fundamentalist Islamic militant organization that won't respond to reason (or money, or inclusion in society, etc.). They're is certainly a component of that within their ranks, but it's more complicated. Unfortunately things have gotten bad enough that for the time being the imminent threat has to be dealt with, but there's a reason they aren't pushing into Turkey/Lebanon/Jordan.

If their forces were only basing their advance on some backwards militant Islamic principle and they truly wanted to martyr themselves in battle they'd be fighting everywhere they could reach, but they aren't. They've carved out a very specific region for themselves, and it's based on logic (even if flawed), not on some fundamentalist ideal.

In 2003 when we rolled into Baghdad there were plenty of people in the streets singing the praises of the Coalition. Every single one of them was a Shiite Muslim that felt he'd been liberated from the oppression of the Sunni dominated Hussein regime of the previous 20+ years. Behind the scenes, the 35% Sunni population was quietly shitting their pants with the expectation of going from the dominant force in the country to complete subjugation by the majority Shia, and likely reprisals for the last two decades. When Paul Bremer blacklisted Ba'ath Party members and dissolved the entire Sunni dominant Iraqi military (against advice of others), their fears were realized. Hundreds of thousands of young men took their weapons and went home unemployed...and then the insurgency flared up. Elections were boycotted by the Sunnis and the government turned out to be largely biased towards the Shiites. Exceptions only existed because the U.S. took steps to ensure at least some Kurdish and Sunni participation. Then Bush installed Al-Maliki, a man widely considered incompetent. Several high level officials resigned over frustration in dealing with him. When we left, there was no longer anybody to ensure a balanced makeup of the Iraqi government.

Al-Maliki immediately began a campaign of purging the government of Sunni participation. He had his own Sunni vice president arrested days after U.S. forces departed, and started cracking down on Sunnis throughout the country. That included slowly eliminating the Sons of Iraq from participation in the Iraqi Security Forces, again sending a hundred thousand armed, disgruntled men, home unemployed.

There are some very aggressive and violent people (many foreign fighters) occupying leadership positions within ISIS, but they can't be effective without cannon fodder. They've got plenty of foot soldiers at their fingertips because of the disillusioned Sunni population in Iraq that would rather align with other Sunnis, regardless of their brutality, than to be a subjugated class within Iraq. Even those Sunnis that aren't willing to actively participate in the movement are likely to allow ISIS to 'occupy' their villages without resistance. That makes it possible for ISIS to push their offensive lines further into contested areas without having to dedicate fighters to maintain a presence in every village they pass through in order to protect their supply lines.

The complete removal of the Sunnis from Iraqi civil governance is what Obama was referring to when he said that there is no military solution to the problem...and he's right. They're in a situation no different than the Shia were under Hussein, except that they are a minority where the Shia at least had numbers under Hussein.

When the Shia attempted to revolt against Hussein's government, the U.S. lionized them as freedom fighters. Now the Sunni do the same under similar conditions (yes, I know, the severity of the subjugation doesn't compare to Shia under Hussein) and they're just written off as crazy animals. Their behavior has earned them that, and I'm certainly not excusing it, but don't think for a second that had the Shia been able to get the upper hand in 1991/92 that they wouldn't have done the same.

And again, it's a mistake to write them off as unreasonable.

If conditions change (and I'm not saying that they will or can at this point) many ISIS foot soldiers may abandon the cause and the animals at the top can't survive without them.

[SurelySerious]

ISIS is the former AQ-Iraq Zarqawi was running, different than Sons of Iraq.

[HercDude]

Source; The Long War Journal.

List of groups (66) that defected from the US backed Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Coalition, as of September 2013. Most have defected to the more extreme groups with caliphate type aspirations.

Ansar al Sunnah Brigade

Tawhid al Janub Brigade

Al Shahid Brigade

Al Tahrir Brigade

Special Tasks Brigade

The Elite Brigade

Asifat al Janub Brigade

Al Mayzan Brigade

Shuhada al Hurriyah Brigade

Amud Hawran Brigade

Tabarak al Rahman Brigade

Salah al Din Brigade

Yusuf al Azmah Brigade

Tawhid al Lujah Brigade

Hawran Battalions Alliance Brigade

Hawran Commandos Brigade

A'ishah Brigade

Artillery and Rockets Regiment

The 1st Cavalry Regiment

The 2nd Cavalry Regiment

Al Mu'tazz Brigade

Fajr al Islam Brigade

Al Karamah Brigade

Shuhada al Yarmouk Brigade

Al Haramayn Brigade

Homs al-Walid Brigade

Asad Allah al Hamzah Brigade

Al Habib Brigade

Special Task Brigade

Asifat Hawran Brigade

Usud al Islam Brigade

Jaydur Brigade

Al Fursan Brigade

Saraya al Karamah Brigade

Imam al Nanawi Brigade

Al Ababil Brigade

Al Khansa Brigade

Anwar al Haqq Battalions Alliance

Dir al Lujah Brigade

Sanad Hawran Brigade

Rockets and Artillery Battalion

Luyuth al Furqan Alliance

Ali Bin Abi Talib Brigade

Abu Bakr Brigade

Mu'awiyah Brigade

Rijal al Sham Brigade

Al-Juwlan Commandos Battalion

Hamzah Abu Salah Battalion

The 2nd Division

Ababil Hawran Brigade

Shuhada Dimashq Brigade

Al Uhdah al Umariyah Brigade

Abdallah Bin Mas'ud Brigade

Ahfad al Umawiyyin Brigade

Al-Husun Brigade

Al-Fursan Brigade

Saqr Hawran Brigade

The Alliance of Western Countryside Brigades

Al-Masih Brigade

Al-Sahabah Brigade

Ahmad Khalaf Brigade

Shuhada al Islam Brigade

Bayariq al Islam Brigade

Fajr al Mujahidin Brigade

Fajr al Sham Brigade

Bayariq al Sham Brigade

10 Aug 2014; And the defection of US backed/armed Free Syrian Army units to ISIL continues.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/12/370930/syria-militant-factions-join-isil/

[Mark1]

ISIS is the former AQ-Iraq Zarqawi was running, different than Sons of Iraq.

Most of my point is that that is not the case. It may have been their distant origins, but they are not the same organization today as they were 8 years ago.

Yes, leadership and perhaps 1500 core fighters within the organization are truly radicals. But they didn't find their way from 1500 members to 15-20k by radicalizing the difference in a few short years.

The whole point is that you may not be able to reason with the hardliners within the organization, but the bulk of their fighters that have allowed them to re-energize and become a more effective fighting force than they have ever been in the past are not radical hardliners. They're made up of run-of-the-mill military age Sunni males (i.e. Sons of Iraq) that are disillusioned with their prospects in an Iraqi state that is now dominated by Shiites that aren't interested in forming a country based on equality between the minorities/majority. They might be susceptible to re-incorporation to an Iraqi state if that state actually tried to represent their interests.

Unfortunately it's probably too far gone, but ISIS is not made up of 20k unreasonable, violent, radical, militant animals. That's only a fraction (they happen to be the fraction that you see in disturbing execution videos, skewing perception). The longer that the bulk maintain their membership in ISIS because they see no other valid option, the more will adopt the radical approach.

[SurelySerious]

Most of my point is that that is not the case. It may have been their distant origins, but they are not the same organization today as they were 8 years ago.

Yes, leadership and perhaps 1500 core fighters within the organization are truly radicals. But they didn't find their way from 1500 members to 15-20k by radicalizing the difference in a few short years.

1500? AQ-I/ISIS has been bigger than 1500 for a long time. You're right it's not the same; it's far more brutal than it was 8 years ago.

[tac airlifter]

Most of my point is that that is not the case. It may have been their distant origins, but they are not the same organization today as they were 8 years ago.

Yes, leadership and perhaps 1500 core fighters within the organization are truly radicals. But they didn't find their way from 1500 members to 15-20k by radicalizing the difference in a few short years.

The whole point is that you may not be able to reason with the hardliners within the organization, but the bulk of their fighters that have allowed them to re-energize and become a more effective fighting force than they have ever been in the past are not radical hardliners. They're made up of run-of-the-mill military age Sunni males (i.e. Sons of Iraq) that are disillusioned with their prospects in an Iraqi state......

Your assessment differs with all the others I've heard. Where are you getting your data? Overall I disagree with your opinion of the situation; but truthfully there's a lot no one knows since our collection networks disappeared after the withdrawal. So I'm interested to hear other view points, but I'm approaching yours with skepticism.

[LookieRookie]

Al-Maliki is taking over the green zone. I see he's trying to become Saddam 2.0

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/10/world/meast/iraq-baghdad-tensions/index.html?c=homepage-t

[Mark1]

1500? AQ-I/ISIS has been bigger than 1500 for a long time. You're right it's not the same; it's far more brutal than it was 8 years ago.

Despite the fact that my numbers are solid (maybe you're considering a different timeframe), what does it matter? Is there not an agreement that they've increased in size by something approximating an order of magnitude in a short time? The nature of their increase in size is not in dispute as it is well documented where the majority of the difference came from, so the point remains valid. Logical fallacy much?

Your assessment differs with all the others I've heard. Where are you getting your data? Overall I disagree with your opinion of the situation; but truthfully there's a lot no one knows since our collection networks disappeared after the withdrawal. So I'm interested to hear other view points, but I'm approaching yours with skepticism.

The information is readily available. There is no open source that I can provide that won't be picked apart here based on one fallacy or another (see above), so just seek out the facts for yourself if you're interested instead of listening to anybody who is going to write off the movement as a pure, simple, uncomplicated, case of twenty thousand psychopaths with identical psychotic views of the world happening into each other on the street-corner and deciding to form a gang.

There happens to be an article on CNN.com right now that deals with some of these issues. The fact that they're covering it, as quite possibly the worst media source of information on the matter, should make it clear how well accepted it is among circles that consider this kind of thing.

From the first page of a quick google search on the matter; the Presidents statement earlier this week:

“What we don’t have yet is a prime minister and a cabinet that can . . . start reaching out to all the various groups and factions inside Iraq and give confidence to populations in the Sunni areas” that the militants are “not the only game in town,” he said.

“In order to ensure that Sunni populations reject outright these kinds of incursions,” Obama added, “they’ve got to feel like they’re invested in a broader national government. And right now, they don’t feel that.”

Not much to say about radical Islam there because to suggest that that's the sole motivator is a lazy cop-out. Why would an inclusive Iraqi government placate a radical Muslim bent on martyring himself for the global caliphate? It wouldn't. Instead it appeals to human beings with human motivations behind their actions, and to write them off wholly as monsters that can't be reached and can only be stopped by a bullet will only lead to missed opportunities to fix the issue.

You can find similar statements about the need for inclusive government to stem the tide of fresh Sunni recruits to ISIS from the UK and French authorities earlier this week (among others, but they're actively participating in humanitarian efforts).

Open source information that supports their statements are readily available along with the fact that it's implicit in their statements that closed source intelligence assessments come to the same conclusion. And then for those of you that have access to the closed source data, there's that.

[Fuzz]

Al-Maliki is taking over the green zone. I see he's trying to become Saddam 2.0

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/10/world/meast/iraq-baghdad-tensions/index.html?c=homepage-t

Possible coup?

http://thehill.com/policy/international/214801-us-monitoring-reports-of-coup-in-iraq

[SurelySerious]

Incoherent babble

The "Sons of Iraq" have been fighting ISIS since at least January when ISIS rolled in and started disrupting life for everyone. The Sunnis recognized them as bad news and fought back. This is from open source information much contrary to whatever you're trying to quote, but won't provide.

Here's the first result from my 6-9 second search that corroborates what I read earlier in the year:

The 'Sons of Iraq,' Abandoned by Their American Allies: Sunnis who battled al Qaeda with us were left to the mercies of Maliki. Now the ISIS killers are slaughtering them.

As the video of jubilant ISIS members extolling their bloody conquests slipped by, I began to fast forward to get through the madness, but I froze when I saw ISIS thugs attacking captured Iraqis. Many of the men being taunted, tortured and killed were leaders of the Sahwa, the Sunni militants who once fought against the American military and the Iraqi government before they realized that their bigger enemy was al Qaeda and joined us in the fight. U.S. forces, grateful for their support, dubbed them Sons of Iraq.

[Mark1]

The "Sons of Iraq" have been fighting ISIS since at least January when ISIS rolled in and started disrupting life for everyone. The Sunnis recognized them as bad news and fought back. This is from open source information much contrary to whatever you're trying to quote, but won't provide.

Here's the first result from my 6-9 second search that corroborates what I read earlier in the year:

And of course what you read earlier in the year was that a small contingent of remnant 'Sons of Iraq' militia forces that were still on the payroll of the Iraqi government, and therefore still aligned with them, fought to repel ISIS from their home region of Ramadi/Fallujah. And because tribal ties in that area of Anbar are much stronger than elsewhere in the province, they would have fought to keep outsiders out regardless of who they were, so why not do it with the support of an Iraqi military.

And of course that fact speaks to the entirety of the ~100,000 original members of the 'Sons of Iraq' despite the fact that less than 3000 were actually involved in the effort to repel ISIS in that specific case. But not to worry, having tabs on 3% of the former membership is enough to make sweeping generalizations despite the fact that there is ample evidence to show that their ranks have defected in great numbers to ISIS (much of it since the incident you site) because as the movement gained traction in western Iraq, they came to appear as a viable alternative to simply bearing a segregated Iraqi Shiite government.

The 4 lines of WSJ article that you provided before I ran into an advertisement was supremely convincing. You win the argument over whether ISIS is being fueled by disillusioned Sunnis upset over their lack of representation within the Iraqi government, or by disillusioned Sunnis upset over their lack of representation within the Iraqi government who used to be SOIZ. Well done, sir.

[FlyinGrunt]

<sigh> because a normal, 2-sided civil war was just too simple. Now we've got ISIS vs the Shia vs moderate Sunni vs Kurds vs Maliki.

Is it too early to initiate the 1258 plan and call it quits?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

"Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow . . ."

In all seriousness, this is hugely bad juju. Here's hoping cooler heads prevail, find a golden parachute to put Maliki out to pasture, and we get on with coopting the desperate ISIS-by-necessity folks while obliterating the rest through superior firepower. The broader chess match in the Middle East is just getting started, and if we can play to our strengths via local allied forces it will be a huge rebuttal to recent policy fumbles.

1. Even if we work with Iran and the IRGC to stabilize Iraq, I think we win in the end. America looks less like an imperialist power and one more willing to work, even with its rivals, in the name of stability and human rights - even as a lot of F/A-XX rain hate.

2. A stable Iraq helps stabilize Syria (or at least denies its use to the Iranian/Saudi/Turkish fighting the proxy war that makes us look less and relevant in the region.)

3. As much as we'd like to cut ties and call it a day, the Middle East is still the battleground for the Salafis/AQ/whatever. Allowing this scum to achieve their #1 strategic objective (read: re-establishing the Caliphate) will have far-reaching impacts on America's ability to defend its allies and interests worldwide (i.e., you couldn't even stop the scumbags that Assad pushed out of Syria? How do you expect to defeat Tsar Vladimir the First? Or China's new maritime imperialist agenda?)

[SurelySerious]

Words words words words words

Prove it. But please use brevity. Edited August 11, 2014 by SurelySerious

[ecugringo]

There was a Frontline episode about 2 weeks ago on ISIS. It was pretty interesting, most has been covered here. But it said Obama pretty much wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

[NHbound]

There was a Frontline episode about 2 weeks ago on ISIS. It was pretty interesting, most has been covered here. But it said Obama pretty much wanted nothing to do with Iraq.

Totally worth watching. Gave a great history of all of the steps/missteps leading up to the current situation in Iraq.

[Lawman]

Totally worth watching. Gave a great history of all of the steps/missteps leading up to the current situation in Iraq.

But does it to justice to the fact that even though that region has been in constant turmoil for the last 60 years, everything that occurs is because of G. W. Bush, his dad, and Reagan? You know because nobody else has been in charge.

[waveshaper]

Iraq Airstrikes for Operation "TBD" Paid for by OCO "A.K.A Crack Cocaine" Funds.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/13/iraq-airstrikes-paid-for-by-militarys-oco-budget.html?comp=700001075741&rank=3

[Lawman]

Lots of words and weird videos....

/s

Im just curious because your posts all show a trend of an isolationist "this isnt our business and its amoral to try and push our national interests on anyone anywhere," attitude....

Why are you in the military? Are you even in the military? Do your bro's in the unit or does your chain of command understand that you seem to be morally apposed to any and all actions that the rest of us carry out willingly?

Seriously, any time there is a thread about any kind of military action your quick to come in here and imply that we are all unknowing or ignorant conspirators in some sort of criminal/immoral activity. Im curious if and why you would continue to serve in such an organization.

[hispeed7721]

Im just curious because your posts all show a trend of an isolationist "this isnt our business and its amoral to try and push our national interests on anyone anywhere," attitude....

Why are you in the military? Are you even in the military? Do your bro's in the unit or does your chain of command understand that you seem to be morally apposed to any and all actions that the rest of us carry out willingly?

Seriously, any time there is a thread about any kind of military action your quick to come in here and imply that we are all unknowing or ignorant conspirators in some sort of criminal/immoral activity. Im curious if and why you would continue to serve in such an organization.

Big 2 to all these questions...

Also USAFPilot...what relevance in any way whatsoever does the pageant chick have to do with anything? If that's what you're using as evidence to support your point then i think you've shown the legitimacy of whatever point you're making

[Lawman]

Words

Thats about what I figured....

Anybody in the room who doesnt see your view point obviously isnt as smart as you... thats exactly how your opinion comes off in these threads. Like every action is a narrative and your the guy that can see through it all.

You repeatedly make comments along the lines of us being Mercenaries or unwilling accomplices to the global capitalist Machine of the 1% or something of that nature... So why the hell are you still here after you've seen the truth from the inside. Do you think that your service is the inside route to convince everybody that what we are doing is wrong? If your so bound and determined if there is some sort of moral high ground that you need to stand up on to challenge this status quo what are you doing wasting your time here?

You make the statement like its somehow our job to stand up to the leadership to challenge the civil authority.... Thats the kind of shit you see in backward ass South American countries where the Military decides "F this guy we know better." A thorough understanding of the constitution would let you understand that just about everybody with the exception of Ron Paul understands that an Authorization to use Force (which was given for our little romp in Iraq) carries the same standing as a Declaration of War, the title is just more politically palatable in todays day and age. No different than its the Department of Defense but we have a hell of a lot of Offensive Firepower when it used to be the War Department. Words change, meanings are the same. What are we supposed to do the day that the people in charge tell you drop that weapon on XXX, not fly? Go on camera in your uniform like those asshats on Facebook and let yourself become a tool in another nation/force/regimes propaganda? Its the military, we are the ultimate force behind the political will of our nation. We are not beholden to ourselves and our decisions on how we should be doing things beyond executing a policy. If thats your attitude your in the same boat as Caesar. Your voice in the discussion is your vote, not your uniform.

And your moral objection to a nation acting within its interests is just terrifyingly short sighted. Nationalism is not a goal I would support, but to be so naive to think that if we just take some sort of moral high ground and "let it be" that everything will work out is ridiculous. Stalin didnt respond to concessions he claimed half of Europe and would have taken all of it if we hadnt had tanks in the way. Putin has effectively annexed a chunk of Ukraine and the show isnt over while we have said its not our problem. What does that tell Lithuania or Finland when our national interest is to just wish real hard that everybody understands being nice to one another is the right thing to do. National prestige, power, influence, whatever you want to call it does not exist in a vacuum. Just because we vote ourselves out of the game doesnt mean we win because everybody else will keep playing. Do you think we should just show the world that we are out of the game? Should we have let Kuwait be annexed because hey bro not my problem? Do you think China is just going to stop trying to become the big player in Asia if we tell everybody over there "we are out guys, handle your business."

Edited August 13, 2014 by Lawman

[ThreeHoler]

or do not care about being a real officer, which means you'll make LtCol as long as you do your PME.

However, we know that you won't make Lt Col before you finally retire.