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

[hispeed7721]

Edited August 14, 2014 by hispeed7721

[chim richalds]

I just wished we picked a correct Muslim dictatorship to fund and arm this time, what's our record over there of having these heathens turn against us?

[SurelySerious]

Man up and do the same or go be a little bitch elsewhere... so we can have a real discussion here.

Except you never really have a discussion, you just write 690 paragraphs belittling everyone that disagrees with anything you say with no real content, like an asshat, which is why you get put in the corner every 6 months.

[Champ Kind]

So, ISIS should have picked.....their battles....a little more wisely?

[DirkDiggler]

I thought PYB had been banned from here at least twice now? His persistence is impressive, and sorta sad.

[Prozac]

Seems USAFPilot keeps picking the same battle. Listen dude, if you want to constantly criticize your government and it's international doctrine, have at it. That's your right and there are plenty of places for you to do that. In uniform is not one of them. You claim to be an authority on how the founding fathers wanted this country organized but you consistently and conveniently forget one major fact: The military was and is deliberately distanced from making policy. And for good reason. As was said a few posts up, this is what separates us from the Third World shitholes where the strongest guy gets to run things until somebody more brutal comes along. Make no mistake; YOU and I and EVERYONE WHO SERVES are INSTURMENTS of power. That oath you keep talking about makes that point pretty clearly (Hint: It's deeper than it appears and you and the oath takers don't have exclusive rights on interpretation). You don't get to decide where we fight. The people of this nation do that through their elected leaders. Don't get confused by the fact that you get to participate in that process. Part of being a professional officer is being able to put your personal ideals aside when your country calls you. If you can't do that, I sure as fuck don't want you in my cockpit, on my wing, or anywhere near US military assets when the shit hits the fan. If you're as conflicted as you appear, I suggest you consider taking a leave of absence (new program--probably perfect for you) and consider your chosen profession.

[bucky60k]

"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."

Hey a military Junta worked out great for Argentina. I vote the Air Force should be in charge for Taco Tuesday

[clouseau]

I just wished we picked a correct Muslim dictatorship to fund and arm this time, what's our record over there of having these heathens turn against us?

I think we are 0-3 or something like that .

BTW what the hell is up with the press calling ISIS militants or rebels instead of what they really are -TERRORISTS!

[HeloDude]

Make no mistake; YOU and I and EVERYONE WHO SERVES are INSTURMENTS of power.

Just curious, is there any time you could think of where our military (via the top General/Flag Officers to the rest of the force?) should/would go against what the President was ordering us to do? Or is there a time where our military should step in and stop the President from doing something...and then possibly overthrow him/her? If yes, then please provide a couple of examples of where this would be possible. Now if the answer is no, then my next question would then be why don't military officers just take an oath to support the current President and execute his/her orders? I mean, that's kind of what the military does, right?

Since the 1880's, I'm not aware of the military (from the top down) ever going against whatever the President has ordered...is this because the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' 100% of the time? I have a feeling the American citizens who were put against their will (without due process) into camps (all because of their Japanese ancestry) didn't believe that the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' at that time. So should someone have stepped in? If so, who should have done it? Or does it just come down to what 5 people in black robes says is Constitutional?

I was taught way back in the day that what made our military different than many others in the word/history is that we don't take an oath to support a specific person, that we didn't take an oath to support a specific government office, that we didn't take an oath to support a certain piece of land...that we took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. But if what we're really doing is just supporting and defending the part of the Constitution that says the President is in charge no matter what he/she orders at the time, then we should probably just be honest and say that's what we support and that the rest of The Constitution is just meh.

This discussion probably should be moved to a different/its own thread.

[Lawman]

Just curious, is there any time you could think of where our military (via the top General/Flag Officers to the rest of the force?) should/would go against what the President was ordering us to do? Or is there a time where our military should step in and stop the President from doing something...and then possibly overthrow him/her? If yes, then please provide a couple of examples of where this would be possible. Now if the answer is no, then my next question would then be why don't military officers just take an oath to support the current President and execute his/her orders? I mean, that's kind of what the military does, right?

Since the 1880's, I'm not aware of the military (from the top down) ever going against whatever the President has ordered...is this because the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' 100% of the time? I have a feeling the American citizens who were put against their will (without due process) into camps (all because of their Japanese ancestry) didn't believe that the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' at that time. So should someone have stepped in? If so, who should have done it? Or does it just come down to what 5 people in black robes says is Constitutional?

I was taught way back in the day that what made our military different than many others in the word/history is that we don't take an oath to support a specific person, that we didn't take an oath to support a specific government office, that we didn't take an oath to support a certain piece of land...that we took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. But if what we're really doing is just supporting and defending the part of the Constitution that says the President is in charge no matter what he/she orders at the time, then we should probably just be honest and say that's what we support and that the rest of The Constitution is just meh.

This discussion probably should be moved to a different/its own thread.

Thats a bit of a red herring argument to make when the idea being pushed here is Political Insubordination to actions viewed as non constitutional because they take place where "we have no business."

Thats the problem with the Oath Keeper argument, nobody in the military is condoning the idea of a President declaring themselves king or violating Posse Commitatus in order to impose some sort of political agenda of a tyrant on the citizens you swore to protect. But the Oath Keepers seem to pervert that into "we should refuse any order that doesnt abide our narrow and specific interpretation of executive powers." The Authorization to use force was approved by congress, and acted on by the executive branch which is exactly the way the use of our military was designed from the get go.

The question posed up was should Military Officers be questioning authority publicly and vocally thereby making themselves part of the political sphere of decision making as to whether or not we should go do something, not what will we do when asked to go do something. Absolutely not. No different than it is completely inappropriate to stand up and tell the boss "Hey I dont agree with ____ and you should change your mind and if you dont Im not carrying out your order" in front of your subordinates. There is a difference between standing up as the final back stop between some obviously illegal activity (anybody get ordered to drop a bomb on protestors?) and putting on your uniform to lend credibility to your argument of "I dont like this guys decision to go into country X, and I think its wrong so Im saying something (as a member of the military)." You have the right to disagree with whatever you like as a citizen, when you put on the uniform those rights and responsibilities change.

[xcraftllc]

Look at those glasses! They must have thrown off the CG of his head and given him neck problems!

Edited August 14, 2014 by xcraftllc

[HeloDude]

Thats a bit of a red herring argument to make when the idea being pushed here is Political Insubordination to actions viewed as non constitutional because they take place where "we have no business."

I wasn't commenting on your back and forth with USAFpilot...I was just asking some questions of my own, specifically in regards to Prozac's comment. I don't know why you replied to my comment if you weren't going to address what I asked.

[Prozac]

I couldn't have said it better than Lawman. Of course I'd like to think that few of us would stand for somebody naming themselves dictator and expecting the military to go along. That is not what we are talking about here. Until someone decides that 8 years just isn't enough, I'll consider the political process in this country to be working. Despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, there are still a lot of checks and balances at work in our system. As long as that is the case, I will salute smartly and do what my country asks despite whatever misgivings I may have. That is a big part of what I consider being a professional military officer (note that this does not change whether one decides to serve full or part time).

Now, If you are concerned about the apparent rise in the power of the executive branch (and I would agree there is evidence to support such a concern), let me ask you this: Can you separate your personal and political views from reality? Is our current president worse than our last (you know, the guy who signed the Homeland Security Act into law) in this regard? I would argue that its actually a pretty close call, but I don't recall many voices from within the military questioning my willingness to honor my oath when I went to the desert 10 years ago. This leads me to suspect that the current crop of PYBers are motivated as much or more by their political leanings as by their self assumed moral authority.

Military Officers in this country are generally a pretty conservative bunch. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that as long as we keep our personal views just that; Personal. What would be dangerous is for us as an officer corps to say "We support such and such party and if our CinC doesn't hold true to our political views, we will not follow his orders." The PYBers, I think have crossed that line.

[Herk Driver]

I would argue that its actually a pretty close call, but I don't recall many voices from within the military questioning my willingness to honor my oath when I went to the desert 10 years ago.

Or 20+ years ago.

Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

[clouseau]

Look at those glasses! They must have thrown off the CG of his head and given him neck problems!

Groucho Marx wants his glasses back !

Damn that's a serious bunch of guys in that photo .

Edited August 15, 2014 by clouseau

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

That's the full length version of the 5 part documentary Vice has been running on IS over the past week. It is an absolute must-watch, and will probably change your opinion of IS. They're like nothing we have seen. This is not some disorganized band of shitheads. I don't think the word "terrorist" applies to them anymore. They are a rogue state at this point. A few 500lb bombs and some MREs will do nothing to even slow them down. We're going to have to decide if we want to fully engage with them (total war) or stay out of it. Half measures will do nothing.

[hispeed7721]

Half measures will do nothing.

I think this applies to ~95%, if not more, of our foreign policy over the past several years

[HeloDude]

Now, If you are concerned about the apparent rise in the power of the executive branch (and I would agree there is evidence to support such a concern), let me ask you this: Can you separate your personal and political views from reality? Is our current president worse than our last (you know, the guy who signed the Homeland Security Act into law) in this regard? I would argue that its actually a pretty close call, but I don't recall many voices from within the military questioning my willingness to honor my oath when I went to the desert 10 years ago. This leads me to suspect that the current crop of PYBers are motivated as much or more by their political leanings as by their self assumed moral authority.

I'm not exactly sure if your post was in response my direct questions I asked you...because if it was, you didn't answer any of my questions. Or should I just assume your belief is that the military should always do whatever the President wants, no questions asked...and that the military should never step in and stop something from occurring in the US (ie Japanese interment camps) if the President doesn't order the military to do so? If so, then I'll ask again: Why then doesn't the federal government change the military officer's oath to reflect only Article 2, Section 2 of The Constitution and we all take an oath to the obey all orders that comes from the office of the Presidency? It wouldn't be too far from what other militaries do...correct me if I'm wrong, but British offers take an oath of loyalty to the crown, right?

Believe it or not, my questions have nothing to do with our current President. I could have raised these questions with any other administration over the last 100-200 years--these are foundational questions. So yes, I most certainly can separate personal views from reality (for example, I recently said in another thread that I believe the federal income tax to be theft and I very much dislike it, however, it is very Constitutional so I would never say so otherwise).

So to relate this all to this current thread disucssion--as for the President attacking Iraq right now, well, if we can assume that the Iraq War Authorization from 2002 is still valid (I'm pretty sure it still is?), then Constitutionally I have no problems with the President doing so, regardless of my personal opinion of whether it's a good or bad idea (I would like to see Congress actually 'declaring war', but I suppose the war authorization act was essentially the same thing). Do I have a problem with the President purposely not enforcing immigration laws via executive order even though the law requires it, yes, I have a problem with this because I believe it goes against Article 2, Section 3.

Sorry to disappoint you, Prozac, but for me, this specific issue has nothing to do with politics because I could have raised the same issues 8 years ago...and unfortunately will probably be able to raise in 3, 11, 19 years. Oh, and just in case you're wondering, I'm also against the NSA stealing my emails without a warrant from a Judge, thank you Bush administration for giving us the horrible 'Patriot Act'.

[Clark Griswold]

That's the full length version of the 5 part documentary Vice has been running on IS over the past week. It is an absolute must-watch, and will probably change your opinion of IS. They're like nothing we have seen. This is not some disorganized band of shitheads. I don't think the word "terrorist" applies to them anymore. They are a rogue state at this point. A few 500lb bombs and some MREs will do nothing to even slow them down. We're going to have to decide if we want to fully engage with them (total war) or stay out of it. Half measures will do nothing.

Just watched - per usual with Vice it was excellent.

Watching the video and seeing the emphasis on inculcating the youth, the IS reminded me of the Nazis during the 30's on their ascent to power and transformation of Germany. I think it was Shirer in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" that said at some point WWII was unavoidable as a generation of Germans had been raised to believe that it was their right and destiny to dominate the world.

Seeing the effort to indoctrinate the youth of their captured territory reminded me of that thought. Past some point, and it may already be passed as Islamic supremacy has already been pushed by the Saudis thru the Wahhabist movement, Frontline report on this here, that a greater conflict will have to be fought as a generation of young men, who have just enough education to fight and have been taught that God wants them to fight the infidels wherever they are but especially in the ME, are turned loose against the world.

What exactly that conflict looks like is anyone's guess but what I think it would require no civilian leader today would ever order.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Clark Griswold

[waveshaper]

Some crazy soothsaying/famous quotes tailored to ISIS; "Beware the ISIS on the March" and we're nowhere near the "End of

the Beginning" when it comes to ISIS.

Iraq/Syria; In the last few years there has only been one positive event take place that actually might be working as

intended. That event was the agreement to remove and destroy the Assad regimes chemical weapons stockpile/production

infrastructure. To accomplish this task required the US to reach an agreement with a couple of devils, the Assad regime

and Russia.

The ISIS genie is now out of the bottle and i wouldn't be surprised, if the situation continues to worsen/spiral out of

control, that efforts will quietly be made to cut some new "limited" deals with some known devils (Assad regime, Russia,

Iran, etc). Obviously there will be wedge issues (Hezbollah, Iran's Nuclear Program, the Ukraine, etc,) that have to be

dealt with/overcome/temporarily tabled so we can all focus on a common enemy. Chances of something like this being

attempted/happening; Even money. Will there be blowback/fallout/unintended consequences from such agreements;

Definitely.

[Prozac]

CNN now reporting on a failed hostage rescue attempt inside Syria that happened "this Summer" WRT James Foley and other hostages held by ISIS.

[hispeed7721]

CNN now reporting on a failed hostage rescue attempt inside Syria that happened "this Summer" WRT James Foley and other hostages held by ISIS.

Almost goes without saying but the video of Foley was reported as being officially authenticated today too

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ecugringo]

With everything going on currently in Israel, Syria, and Iraq. I recommend "Lawrence in Arabia" Great book that discusses the Arab revolt, how the colonial powers came into play, and also briefly discusses how the Saudi royal family have been paying off followers of wahhabism for over 100 yrs to practice else where.

[mcbush]

For those that watched the Vice documentary, remember this guy? The spokesman? Looks like he fell just short of his goal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-spokesperson-reported-as-dead-9682738.html

[Guest ThatGuy]

Question is did the US or Iraqis pay for all the armored vehicles our fighters are bombing over there? I know the Iraqis were provided with US military equipment but are we blowing up equipment we supplied and paid for?