The US doesn't know who to target in Iraq

We don't have adequate intelligence resources in Iraq. We don't know who all might be cooperating with ISIS and we don't know if our allies might be cooperating with them. Someone in another thread asked, and I was also wondering, "why don't we just carpet bomb them and be done with them", in reference to this picture:



We aren't 100% certain that they are all the enemy.

“We don’t have boots on ground providing intelligence and we don’t have confidence in information that the Iraqi government provides, because they’ve [been] so heavy-handed in the use of force against Sunni villages,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Current and retired American defense and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast that the CIA and the Pentagon are not certain who exactly makes up the forces that have taken so much of Iraq. Moreover, these intelligence and defense officials says that they believe that some of the people fighting with Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are former U.S. allies who could be turned against the hard-core fanatics—if they can be identified.

Source

Hmm to me this seems as if they want boots out there. And are now making and creating things to get that. War=Money, and were pretty deep in debt. And we're the number one spying country (in my opinion) and we can't figure out the bad guys? I highly doubt that

Here is an article worth reading on the possibilities of action from US, it is worth reading for some clarity and insight. Let's hope it is all contained in Iraq with minimal intervention from US /UK.

www.bbc.co.uk...

An impending decision by US President Barack Obama could prove to be a turning point in the way the West approaches the dual conflicts in Iraq and Syria.

As a US Navy aircraft carrier group with dozens of strike aircraft steams northwards up the Gulf and President Obama reviews the military options presented to him by his National Security Council, the US faces a difficult dilemma that could profoundly affect Western nations.

If Washington does not intervene militarily to support the Iraqi government by helping it stem the advance of Isis (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) - the extreme jihadist group now controlling large parts of Iraq and Syria - the US will be accused by some of "weakness in the face of terrorism", "giving up on the Middle East" and of abandoning an ally in whom it has already invested billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in aid, and where more than 4,000 US servicemen and women have lost their lives.

But if the US does decide to intervene militarily, most likely with air strikes or missile strikes against clearly identified Isis positions, then it will change the whole dynamic of this Middle East conflict.

Broadly, there are two ways this will manifest itself:

Global terrorism

If Isis fighters die as a direct result of any future US air or missile strikes, there will inevitably be calls for revenge against the US and its allies, including Britain.

So far, there are no confirmed reports of UK jihadists fighting with Isis in Iraq.

But most of the estimated 400-500 British jihadists who have gone to fight in Syria are with Isis, whose forces straddle both sides of the Syria-Iraq border.

It is only a matter of time before some filter across the increasingly blurred border between Syria and Iraq.

If Isis fighters are "martyred" by US airstrikes then this, at a stroke, brings the US into this wider conflict and makes it an active enemy of Isis.

It takes no great leap of imagination to predict this will increase the threat of terrorist attacks in the West by jihadists returning from the Middle East.

Sectarian tension

Regardless of how any such military intervention is presented by the White House, it will be perceived by many in the Middle East not as the US supporting a legitimate government against a violent insurgency, but as the US joining forces with a Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, allied to Iran, to attack Sunni forces.

Given the enormous sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shias in so many countries across the Middle East, from Lebanon to Bahrain, this perception of US bias, whether or not it has any foundation, comes at a sensitive and dangerous time.

originally posted by: solentsunrise
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Depending on which side you were on, that would be appreciated. Imagine if the south won the American civil war and slaves were never freed. I bet there would be a lot of people alive in America today that would have really appreciated a Chinese carpet bombing. Hands down.

Your analogy fails you when you realize that Iraq is asking for our help right now. Its the right thing to do.

Sounds like this could be a hell of a mess.

originally posted by: Thisbseth
Hmm to me this seems as if they want boots out there. And are now making and creating things to get that.

Well they didn't create Muslim extremists.

I'd start by targeting the men in ski masks waving a black jihadist flag.

I think that's a good place to start.

a reply to: smithjustinb

No but we sure as heck funded it and provided many of them with training through out the years.
We have been involved with almost every "terrorist" group in the ME.
Daily show did a great piece about it tonight, it is not up on the site yet or i would link it

a reply to: smithjustinb

I doubt that there is any reality to the suggestion that the US intelligence community do not know who to target. That being said, it hardly matters whether they know or not, since the habit is to throw massive ordnance at things until silence falls, rather than actually surgically remove actual threats.

The thing that has been aggravating people since the beginning of the War on Terror, is that for all the intelligence work that has been done, for all the systems which have been developed and deployed (often times in direct contravention of the law in the nations using the systems), the truly effective methods of gaining intelligence on specific situations, has been allowed to fall by the way side, that being infiltration and ground level monitoring of threats.

The idea that it is better to drone a group of fifty people, than to have trained assassins pop the one person in that crowd who is causing the trouble, is fallacious, and has never stood up well to proper scrutiny. I say, if terrorists and nutters need dealing with, then they should be dealt with using the bare minimum of force, a bullet not a bomb, or for personal preference, cold steel rather than hot lead. At least that way you get absolute confirmation of target identity, and a minimal collateral footprint. The reason it is important to be able to confirm the identity of ones target closely, is to prevent the following.

1) It is always possible that powerful figures in militant networks have doubles, or very similar looking relatives, standing in for them in public circumstances, and so a close in identification is a very valuable tool to ensure that your target is removed, and cannot melt into the shadows, only to re-appear at a later date.

2) Collateral damage being minimised removes one of the major factors in the radicalisation of young people, that being the loss of mothers, fathers, brothers and other sundry family members, to arbitrary and totally over the top drone strikes. Take one man in a crowd out, and although people might still be pretty aggrieved, they are not going to be unified in taking up arms.

3) Also, drone strikes are a method which is being used almost exclusively by Western powers in combat, so using a sniper round, or a blade to the neck, is going to mask the identity of the international player that took them down.
Many militant organisations trade with international crime cartels, and dealing with such persons can easily result in becoming dead. Making the method of their removal less specific, means that the death cannot be instantly assumed to be the responsibility of any one nation, opens the suspect pool up massively, and makes it harder for the targets associates to direct their ire.

The other issue that this raises, is the continued funding and supplying of terror networks by western powers. We have to stop our governments from doing this. We have to take control over where things can and cannot be sold to, we have to be able to take control of how our intelligence communities are permitted to act on our behalf, and install harsh penalties for anyone who violates those edicts, either in spirit, or in fact. Essentially, we can take no moral high ground if the people acting on OUR behalf are as corrupt, dangerous, venomous, and dishonourable as the people they claim to want to kill for us. That is the meat and bones of it.

a reply to: smithjustinb



The whole damn thing orchestrated by the US and Israeli intelligent service.

We don't know who all might be cooperating with ISIS and we don't know if our allies might be cooperating with them.




My behind…

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: Thisbseth
Hmm to me this seems as if they want boots out there. And are now making and creating things to get that.

Well they didn't create Muslim extremists.

We didn't?

So we aren't responsible for the training and financing of OBL and Al Qaeda to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan?

We didn't train and finance the rebels in Syria to fight against the Assad regime?

The same "rebels" that are apparently now "invading" Iraq and "threatening" Baghdad?

We don't know who to shoot, yet had no issues in the past drone striking mosques and hospitals? What about the white phosphorous carpet bombing of Fallujah at the onset of the Iraq war? Surely we haven't forgotten that. Or better yet, who gave those Syrian "rebels" the chemical weapons to use on the citizens?

a reply to: smithjustinb

That you know of

You can not carpet bomb them. What you gonna tell all those usa families why their family members are dead? You know cia, nsa, secret service, blackwater (or whatever they are called now)hired guns. Cause i bet you that some how this is a way by powerful people who need to sell guns that is behind this. People who have or could loose usa contracts if the war stop. Remember there is no new war. Russia and China stuck a branch in the spokes of the Iran and Siria afairs. a reply to: smithjustinb

You mean the whole tactic of "Arm everyone and see who shoots back at us" isn't working?

Obama is an incompetent coward who came into office with ZERO foreign policy experience. Him and his administration leading any type of war will be an utter disaster for our military and troops being put in harm's way. He needs to find his balls, man up and be a leader. Part of being a leader is making a decision, one that many Americans may not agree with but that our leader knows deep down is right in the end and will be right for the future. Americans are like little children sometime. Just because we feel a certain way doesn't make it right in the world. Our government is privy to threats and danger we have no idea about. I'm sure Obama will pander to the liberal progressive agenda. I've always said getting into another with him in office will be scary. And this may be it. We've got a lot going on right now on the world stage……..Ukraine and Russia, Iraq, North Korea, border issues etc.

a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

This mess was the fault of the conservatives before obama. Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
The are the ones with the ties of funding these groups and training them.
Obama has just been drone striking them his whole presidency....
Oh and the fault of Saudi, but the good olé USA would never dare go after Saudi.
Shoot weren't the majority of the 19 from Saudi? ??

What I'm reading in this is, "Well, really, we'd like to shoot ALL of them."

2nd.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
We didn't train and finance the rebels in Syria to fight against the Assad regime?

The same "rebels" that are apparently now "invading" Iraq and "threatening" Baghdad?

No, not the same rebels at all....

Honestly, people round here love to over simplify a complex and messy situation in order to fit their narrow minded paradigm...

The West has been financing rebels in Syria and even more so recently in order to combat ISIS, not financing ISIS themselves. There is more than one rebel movement in Syria!

As Western leaders publicly push the Syrian regime and the opposition to the Geneva II peace conference that begins Wednesday Washington has also been quietly supporting moves by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to give weapons and cash to rebel groups to fight al-Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) in Syria.

One source said the US was itself handing out millions of dollars to rebel groups best equipped to take on the extremists while another confirmed America was providing non-lethal aid.

The development marks a new phase in the conflict, with international backers working directly with rebel commanders to target al-Qaeda cells, who are seen as a major threat by Western intelligence agencies.

"Everyone is offering us funding to fight them," said one commander in a rebel group affiliated to the Western-backed Supreme Military Council. "We used to have no weapons with which to fight the regime, but now the stocks are full."

Linky

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
We didn't train and finance the rebels in Syria to fight against the Assad regime?

The same "rebels" that are apparently now "invading" Iraq and "threatening" Baghdad?

No, not the same rebels at all....

Honestly, people round here love to over simplify a complex and messy situation in order to fit their narrow minded paradigm...

The West has been financing rebels in Syria and even more so recently in order to combat ISIS, not financing ISIS themselves. There is more than one rebel movement in Syria!

As Western leaders publicly push the Syrian regime and the opposition to the Geneva II peace conference that begins Wednesday Washington has also been quietly supporting moves by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to give weapons and cash to rebel groups to fight al-Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) in Syria.

One source said the US was itself handing out millions of dollars to rebel groups best equipped to take on the extremists while another confirmed America was providing non-lethal aid.

The development marks a new phase in the conflict, with international backers working directly with rebel commanders to target al-Qaeda cells, who are seen as a major threat by Western intelligence agencies.

"Everyone is offering us funding to fight them," said one commander in a rebel group affiliated to the Western-backed Supreme Military Council. "We used to have no weapons with which to fight the regime, but now the stocks are full."

Linky

< br />
Yes recently have continued to finance the FSA who are now warring with the splinter group ISIS which appear to actually be AQ group Al Nusra. Here's an interesting article that reflects the peculiar behavior of ISIS.

The infighting between several foreign sponsored jihadist insurgency groups in northern and eastern Syria is sold by some as a fight of the "moderate" Free Syrian Army against the al-Qaeda affiliate ISIS. But this does not seem to be the reality. While there is some showing of the FSA flag over conquered ISIS territory this is likely just a fake to hide the real group behind the fighting, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhad al Nusra and a new, probably fictitious, Army of the Mujahideen.

Whether this infighting between the two al-Qaeda affiliates Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS is about, money or other issues, is not yet clear. ISIS seems not be putting up a real fight but is mostly just retreating when challenged. Something is fishy in this. Whatever it may be it is for now good news for the Syrian government. It may even open a chance to kick those fake "revolutionaries" out of Aleppo.

Link

So it appears at one point the were considered an affiliate and worked with the FSA and are comprised of "foreign" jihadists whereas the FSA are comprised of primarily Syrians.