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

[HeloDude]

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.

Sounds awfully similar to what one American soldier 'might' have did in Afghanistan...

[Clark Griswold]

Not sure if I agree with this but it is an idea... OP-ED: Let the Islamists Have Their Caliphate - Then Bomb Them

The idea of a new caliphate may seem crazy but if I told you in 1918 that a severely wounded corporal of a defeated army whose highest educational attainment was being a drop out of an art college would in less than 20 years become the absolute ruler of the most powerful fascist state on earth, that would have seemed crazy too.

[HerkFE]

Anyone want to buy some Dinars?

[armada1651]

Iraq as we know it is going to fall, likely to be separated into three areas between Shiites, Sunis and Kurds.

We'll be lucky if it works out that cleanly. More likely it will become the Somalia of the Gulf.

[waveshaper]

We'll be lucky if it works out that cleanly. More likely it will become the Somalia of the Gulf.

Iraq and Afghanistan are America's version of "Hotel California":

"We are all just prisoner here of our own device"

And in the master's chambers

They gather for the feast

They stab it with their steely knives

But they just can't kill the beast

Last thing I remember, I was

Running for the door

I had to find the passage back

To the place I was before

"Relax, " said the night man

"We are programmed to receive

You can check-out any time you like

But you can never leave! "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S7T--uLRRiQ#t=48

[SuperWSO]

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...

Chuck

Chuck,

I typically agree with your posts, but I've seen this line of discussion from a number of officers. "We cannot afford to be the worlds police." I understand the sentiment, but it fails to ask the cost when peace breaks down. We rely on the free flow of world trade to support our economy. The news is already starting to ask if events in Iraq will effect gas prices. Its important because "every $10 increase in the price of oil shaves 0.5 percent of global growth." When global security breaks down, it comes with a cost. I believe that the cost of ceding our leadership and security role will exceed what we save on decreased military spending. Beyond that, I am not sure I trust another nation to enforce a world order that would still be favorable to our way of life.

[zach braff]

Chuck,

I typically agree with your posts, but I've seen this line of discussion from a number of officers. "We cannot afford to be the worlds police." I understand the sentiment, but it fails to ask the cost when peace breaks down. We rely on the free flow of world trade to support our economy. The news is already starting to ask if events in Iraq will effect gas prices. Its important because "every $10 increase in the price of oil shaves 0.5 percent of global growth." When global security breaks down, it comes with a cost. I believe that the cost of ceding our leadership and security role will exceed what we save on decreased military spending. Beyond that, I am not sure I trust another nation to enforce a world order that would still be favorable to our way of life.

So... Maybe we need a new commissioning oath?

"I raise my hand and take this oath,

in defense of oil and global growth."

zb

[Clark Griswold]

Decent article on why we should not intervene in Iraq. The Case for Doing Nothing in Iraq. I am trying to see the other side of the argument.

I still think that a limited campaign is probably the way to go, just enough to keep the al-Maliki government from falling but not enough to do anything other than that. Bailing him out will change nothing on the ground and keep the Sunnis / Kurds ostracized and pissed, thus kicking the can for a later date.

[SuperWSO]

So... Maybe we need a new commissioning oath?

"I raise my hand and take this oath,

in defense of oil and global growth."

zb

So your jet is solar powered?

I don't work for Shell or Exxon, but let's be honest, the green economy hadn't really set us free. Even if we are "energy independent" for the sake of argument, most of our international trading partners aren't.

My point, and the point I think Chuck alluded to is that isolationism sounds great but has never worked historically. Rome, the British Empire and the US following WW II all maintained order in their time. Things usually go downhill when a superpower can't or WONT fill that role.

[HeloDude]

Who's talking about isolationism (nice straw man)? There are plenty of ways to get oil besides via the Middle East, and who says we won't continue to get some of our oil from some of those nations in the future? As for the prices going up/being in fluctuation when a heavy oil producing country has problems, that's just life in a world market...definitely ways to get through it and survive.

[SuperWSO]

Who's talking about isolationism (nice straw man)?

The first quote I was responding to was...

The world will NOT be more peaceful, but we cannot (peace costs $) continue to be the worlds police...

So if we don't continue to provide security, that would mean we are staying home. Thats not a straw man, thats the definition of isolationism.

Oil was not my main point - My point is that our defense budget works a little like an insurance policy. When everything is going great, all you see is the cost of the insurance/defense budget. Its hard to compare the costs to that of a theoretical accident. Once shit happens, its very easy to go back and determine that deterrent is cheaper than having to build up to fight a war. Oil is always the relevant commodity in the middle east. Free flow of goods through sea lanes is a bigger issue in the Pacific, and especially now with China asserting control over the South China Sea. In the past, US policy would have been to assert our rights to operate in international waters (Gulf of Sidra?) Our current policy seems to be to leave it to the Chinese to work it out with Japan, Viet Nam, the Phillipines and any other interested parties. As I said before, if we leave it to China to provide a solution, I don't think we will be happy with the answer.

[HeloDude]

The first quote I was responding to was...

I read his post for a second time...

So let me get this straight: If you don't want to be the world's police force then you're an isolationist? So if Canada is not using their military to their maximum extent possible are they also considered isolationists? I'm just curious where the limits are.

[SuperWSO]

I read his post for a second time...

So let me get this straight: If you don't want to be the world's police force then you're an isolationist? So if Canada is not using their military to their maximum extent possible are they also considered isolationists? I'm just curious where the limits are.

The difference between us and Canada is that we have been promoting/ensuring world peace since WWII because we can. Canada provides an assist from time to time because that's all they can accomplish with the military they have. Same for every other nation that provides UN troops. They help out at the level they are able. If you haven't noticed the capability differential between us and Canada, I can't help you.

Restating: We maintained a degree of world order and stability from 1945 to 200X (people here will debate the exact date/administration when we stopped trying). Now we don't because we "can't afford 4% GDP for defense. Note this years downhill trend in Libya, Syria, Iraq, South China Sea, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, North Korea, Ukraine, etc.

[AnimalMother]

we have been promoting/ensuring world peace since WWII because we can.

We have?! Guess I must not have been paying attention.

In all seriousness though, I too was inculcated with the notion of America-World Protector throughout my government-sponsored education, but I'm slowly starting to realize that there's a lot more to it once you scratch the surface. History it seems, is not always what it seems...

[waveshaper]

No Danger Pay for SF Headed to Iraq.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/20/no-danger-pay-for-special-forces-headed-to-iraq.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1

[panchbarnes]

Speechless...

What happens when one of these "advisers" gets shot at, or god forbid, is KIA? Would their mission be considered as combat then?

The grunts deserve more respect than this.

Edited June 21, 2014 by PanchBarnes

[Fuzz]

""This is not a combat mission, they are not being sent to participate in combat," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, of the 300 Special Forces troops ordered to Iraq by President Obama on Thursday."

Seems like someone is not understanding of the words "imminent danger".

[17D_guy]

We have?! Guess I must not have been paying attention.

In all seriousness though, I too was inculcated with the notion of America-World Protector throughout my government-sponsored education, but I'm slowly starting to realize that there's a lot more to it once you scratch the surface. History it seems, is not always what it seems...

By all means, elaborate on your new found enlightenment.

[tac airlifter]

No Danger Pay for SF Headed to Iraq.http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/20/no-danger-pay-for-special-forces-headed-to-iraq.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1

Unsat, but standard.

[AnimalMother]

By all means, elaborate on your new found enlightenment.

If I believed your solicitation to be genuine, I'd consider expending some more effort. But, I'll offer a few of my recents insights: I'm always surprised at how little faith we tend to have in our political "leaders," but how much faith we seem to put in their decisions (i.e. foreign policy), especially along party lines. Our Air Force "leaders" can't even manage the force structure, why would anyone think that their civilian superiors can successfully execute, well, anything really? JQP was recently quoted in one thread here, something along the lines of "why do they [senior leaders] do this? Because they can." Positions of power and authority are unconscionably corrupting, no one is completely immune-no one. Furthermore, I have found that those individuals who most actively seek such positions, are generally the least capable of faithfully executing the authority of their position. The results, more often than not, are disastrous. I finally decided that many of the foundational verisimilitudes on which I was raised were worth a second, more objective look. I started reading more, watching TV less (or not at all), and ignoring the meaningless political smoke and mirrors that seem to consume our country's citizens. The subsequent clairvoyance has been, well, just that.

One of my favorite "proverbs," courtesy of Porter S. "There is no such thing as teaching, only learning." Only you can actually decide when you're ready to start learning.

[Grady]

By all means, elaborate on your new found enlightenment.

If you really want to understand the why behind the American hegemony, I suggest reading about the following:

Post WWII Breton woods agreement

Nixon taking the US off the gold standard and floating the dollar post Vietnam.

Kissinger's petrodollar cycle arrangement with the Saudis.

[waveshaper]

""This is not a combat mission, they are not being sent to participate in combat," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, of the 300 Special Forces troops ordered to Iraq by President Obama on Thursday."

Seems like someone is not understanding of the words "imminent danger".

Imminent Danger Pay is back on for Iraq; Lt Cmdr clarifies policy.

Excerpt from article; Special Forces troops heading to Iraq to advise the Iraqi security forces will receive combat pay

and also have immunity from local law, Pentagon officials said.

"Imminent Danger Pay is, and will be, in effect for service members deployed to Iraq," Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a

Pentagon spokesman, said in an e-mail statement Saturday.

The statement followed a briefing Friday by Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, at which he was asked

about danger pay for the Special Forces in Iraq and initially responded that "Our combat mission in Iraq ended in 2011.

This is not a combat mission."

Same article with some creative editing; http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/20/no-danger-pay-for-special-forces-headed-to-iraq.html?comp=700001075741&rank=6

[theSituation]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28033684

Ugh...

[SuperWSO]

Found a good article today that addresses some of the points we were discussing here recently.

Obama Needs to Find His Inner Cold Warrior

[Vice]

Iraq receives Russian fighter jets to fight rebels

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28077273

Iraq says it has received the first batch of fighter jets it ordered from Russia to help it as it fights an offensive by Sunni rebels. The defence ministry said five Sukhoi Su-25 attack aircraft would enter service in "three to four days". The insurgents control large swathes of the north and west after a string of attacks over the past three weeks.

On Saturday, the government said it had retaken the northern city of Tikrit, but rebels dispute this.

Recapturing Tikrit is a tantalising prospect for Iraq, as the BBC's Paul Adams reportsState television said 60 militants had been killed and that preparations were now being made to move north towards rebel-held Mosul.The rebels confirmed there had been heavy fighting in the city they took on 11 June, but implied the attack had failed, saying they were pursuing what was left of the army offensive.US dronesIraq's ministry of defence said the deal with Russia "was aimed at increasing the firepower of the air force and the rest of the armed forces in order to fight terrorism". Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, told the BBC last week that his government had signed a deal with Russia and Belarus to supply jet fighters. The deals are reportedly worth up to $500m (£293m). A Russian expert, quoted by Lenta.ru news agency, said that six Sukhoi SU-30 jets had been sent to Iraq, but this has not yet been confirmed.

Several air strikes were also reported on the rebel-held second city of Mosul Iraq's air force has struggled to impose itself against the militants, led by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis). Reports say the air force has run out of certain air-to-ground missiles. Iraqi military sources have said the offensive on Tikrit - the mainly Sunni hometown of former leader Saddam Hussein - is being co-ordinated with American military advisers. However, although the US has confirmed it is flying armed drones in Iraq to protect US personnel on the ground, US officials say the 300 military personnel they sent to aid the government are not directly involved in the hostilities. Meanwhile, Iraq's most influential Shia cleric has called for a prime minister to be appointed by Tuesday to try to defuse the country's political crisis. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani said key positions should be agreed before the new parliament meets then. Pressure has been building for a national unity government. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki wants a third term, though correspondents say he is seen by many as having precipitated the crisis through sectarian policies that have pushed Iraq's Sunni minority into the hands of Isis extremists.