It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: 275 US forces can deploy to Iraq

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Obama knows darn well the Sunni radical/Fundamentalist ISIS will not be attacking the US Embassy compound there...
or the Maliki gov't in Baghdad

the ISIS will basically lay siege to Baghdad to force the Iraqi puppet regime of the USA to step down/cease all harmful actions against the Sunni population--- and then build up forces on the border with Syria in the Iraqi desert areas...

I think Obama has deduced that this ISIS campaign was hinted about or whispered to him when Saudi Arabia laid-down the gauntlet to him back in that March private meeting with the Saudi Monarch...

with Obama having the inside info... he is comfortable sending only a skeleton group of Embassy defenders (basically a Company of soldiers)

I could be way wrong, but I think the noise & bluster of threats by ISIS to 'take baghdad' is just a diversion meant to scare Iraq & USA into rash action & escalate the incursion (by a supposed Rogue ISIS sect) into Iraq into a full fledged war zone...
which might result in Saudi Arabia publically aligning with AQ in Iraq/ISIS against a former Ally in the USA

Brzezinski is not the only 'chessboard strategist' contesting the Arabian Peninsula
edit on th30140296877416322014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: sandman441

He should send 300 of his political buddies and have them yell, "For Sparta!" a lot.

Cheers - Dave


That is prolly why he picked '275'

Didn't want to remind the Iranians/Persians of what King Leonadis did to them.

Since they have 'boots' on the ground there.
edit on 16-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: marg6043

If it's not to cover American evacuations... it makes no sense at all.


No it's not.

They are Forward Observers/Forward Air Traffic Controllers that will prolly direct air strike targeting,
edit on 16-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
So let do the math, 275, he is sending, this will join the 50 Marines (Mostly embassy protection), and the 160 army, with 100 that will be kept in nearby country, I guess Saudi Arabia.

That will make 485 plus one 100 more.

I can only see nothing but more death of our soldiers with only that many, sorry to say this but unless this forces will be inside the Fortress they call the US embassy is not going to look good, beside that how they are going to provide food and necessities unless the embassy is self sufficient.



If it helps you to worry less, these Sunni fighters, especially their leader would much rather capture American soldiers, or civilian contractors alive, than to kill them on sight.




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername




If it helps you to worry less, these Sunni fighters, especially their leader would much rather capture American soldiers, or civilian contractors alive, than to kill them on sight.


Yeah we negoitate with terrorists now.

Imagine the loot and weapons they could get for just one let alone '275'



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawg61

Why are you thinking that? Because that's exactly what that number of troops is designed to do. Provide back up hold out position while the evacuation takes place. Simple really.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I tell ya what ?

He better have some massive air support backup for that 275.

Aircraft carriers, and drones, and some Ac-130 'Spooky' gun ships with some Apaches from a FOB.

a Strike package ready to go on a moments notice.

You know like do everything he didn't do for Benghazi.
edit on 16-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
They've sent in MARSOC, which is Marine Special Operations Command. It's the Marine Corps version of the Navy Seals. There are a number of ships with Ospreys and fighter jets ready at a moments notice as well. This means that either the 32nd or 33rd MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) is out there, and they have sufficient capabilities for engagement if necessary. Semper Fi brothers



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: sandman441

He should send 300 of his political buddies and have them yell, "For Sparta!" a lot.


Or, "USA! USA! USA!"

Hahahaha.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Typical anti-Obama bullplop.
no matter what he does, you'd attack him anyway

few points, Baghdad has a better defensive force than Mosul, so there are but-loads of troops in Baghdad. Armed and trained and preparing defenses.

I'd say the troops being sent in are to assist evacuation, to assist preparations for defense.

There will be air support like you cant imagine from drones, helicopters, fighters...

No one envisioned Mosul would just give up, this is a lightning fast advance that requires wisdom and thinking, not brash American YEEHAW SHOOT EM UP Texas mentality.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I think we actually have about 535 that should be sent...

Not like they're busy doing anything important anyway.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: sandman441

He should send 300 of his political buddies and have them yell, "For Sparta!" a lot.

Cheers - Dave


Dave, My Friend, Your Right, Why not send Obamas Standing Army?
DHS: America's Standing Army? YUP! Department of Home Land Security has more rounds per person for their weapons
than our Army does according to this article and you all can remember when they were buying every bullet on the shelves.

Stockpiling ammunition. DHS, along with other government agencies, has been stockpiling an alarming amount of ammunition in recent years, which only adds to the discomfort of those already leery of the government. As of 2013, DHS had 260 million rounds of ammo in stock, which averages out to between 1,300 to 1,600 rounds per officer. The US Army, in contrast, has roughly 350 rounds per soldier. DHS has since requisitioned more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, “enough,” concludes Forbes magazine, “to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.”

Linky
By rights, wasn't DHS crated to deter Terrorist and Protect Americas From Acts Of Terror!

Obama has'em, use'em!
Just my Humble Opinion.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Marines are a brotherhood...
So even if it's "only" 275 being sent out...
It's pretty much just a phone call before thousands decide to fight with their brothers!!!

Iraq should have been dealt with by Marines, SEALs & SAS troops from the beginning!!!

Armed forces are no tactical match for insurgents who do not strategise...
and it's no wonder that this was more like Vietnam than WWII...

Marines and the likes think outside the box, prepared for anything...
Normal troops, no disrespect intended, are all about strategy!!!


Let the Marines deal with this sh#t heap...
For the civilians sake!!!


Peace Iraq!!!
Peace everybody!!!
edit on 17-6-2014 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61
Why am I think these troops would be covering the evacuation of any remaining Americans left at the embassy when Bagdad falls? I hope that doesn't happen but it would be wise to be prepared for the possibility.



That's the impression I am getting. They are destined for the US Embassy in Baghdad and are to assist in removing US citizens from harms way.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I am going to assume (which might be a mistake) that the pres consulted with the military to determine the number to send for whatever this mission is. Hopefully he isn't just pulling a number out and saying let's do it.

At this point, logic seems to have evaporated. Congress doesn't seem to remember what they voted for, who signed what, what different administrations did and what their actual stance on policy is.

Clowns is too nice a word for them.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
At about a price tag of 1 trillion, I think we got ripped off on this Iraq deal.


Maybe Iran will finally get to annex Iraq.


The companies like Haliburton who made so much money off of Iraq are probably the only people happy about the situation in general. But that particular company has no ties with the politicians who pushed for the war to begin with. Wait. Anyway, Obama inherited this mess but some are still making out like he started this whole thing. Here is what I think should be done: give those still in Iraq a chance to pull out, send a few hundred troops to ensure they have the opportunity to get out safely, contracts or no contracts, and they can either take the help or not. If they choose not to leave then it is no longer on the US government. The situation has changed, and therefore I would think that any contract I signed for performing services in Iraq is null and void. It is a different type of warzone now.

Honestly, I would have ensured that any contract I signed to go into a war zone would have stipulated that I was leaving if the US pulled out before the contract was up. The writing was on the wall in Iraq. It was known what would happen when the US left. Like I said in another thread, the US military could not totally eradicate an insurgency, so what made anyone think that the Iraqi military could after the US pulled out? US military > Iraqi military. Even if the backbone of these insurgents was broken, it was only a matter of time before they reformed, refinanced, and re-equipped. The naivety is astounding to me. We are not talking about a conventional enemy. We are talking about zealots who will not stop until either the job is done or they're all dead. But they will never be all dead, because there will constantly be an influx of new recruits. Common sense in my opinion.

So at this point it doesn't really matter whose fault it was, as it has occurred...it is in the past. The question is what to do about it. I imagine Obama is a bit perplexed over the entire situation. This is to be expected when you inherit problems so complex. And things are very complex in this situation. You cannot please the entire US population, and no matter what one does a large percentage of people will disagree. That doesn't mean they're right, because the half that agree might be right. The point is that Obama is facing a problem. What should he do? I gave my opinion, which was that sending in troops to help pull out remaining Americans is the way to go. I mentioned before that I do not necessarily agree or disagree with another large scale operation in Iraq.

I also said that I believed intervention in Iraq now makes much more sense than it did when Bush went in there. So it seems quite hypocritical for someone who supported the second Iraqi intervention by Bush Jr. to complain about Obama launching a third Iraqi intervention. Just par for the course considering the administration knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to begin with. And they knew Hussein wasn't that stupid. He wanted to retain power, and he knew that he could not give the US an excuse to intervene in Iraq. And he did not in that regard. It was a conflict of interest if ever there was a conflict of interest. And I remember how when Obama was first elected that so many people were talking about his Muslim ties and yada yada, yet he has had how many Muslims killed? Doesn't seem like something a devout Muslim would do. But that is the nature of such arguments. When they fail another one is picked up and run with.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
WTF?
he sending them to die?
maybe so he can claim revenge?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus



But that particular company has no ties with the politicians who pushed for the war to begin with


Only Cheny (recent ex head guy) and a large number of politicians holding stock.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Talk about selective hearing.


...But that particular company has no ties with the politicians who pushed for the war to begin with. Wait. Anyway...



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Marines are a brotherhood...
So even if it's "only" 275 being sent out...
It's pretty much just a phone call before thousands decide to fight with their brothers!!!

Iraq should have been dealt with by Marines, SEALs & SAS troops from the beginning!!!

Armed forces are no tactical match for insurgents who do not strategise...
and it's no wonder that this was more like Vietnam than WWII...

Marines and the likes think outside the box, prepared for anything...
Normal troops, no disrespect intended, are all about strategy!!!


Let the Marines deal with this sh#t heap...
For the civilians sake!!!


Peace Iraq!!!
Peace everybody!!!


First post I read in this thread that actually makes sense.
Send in special forces (SAS/ACE etc.) to do the high value sh!t with special operations forces (like rangers & recon) taking the supporting role.
A few hundred operators along with one or 2000 support would suffice instead of flooding Iraq with tens or hundreds of thousands of troops, mercs, armored vehicles, heli's and planes.

IT--
edit on 23-6-2014 by edog11 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join