Questions for the US Iraq “strategy”

If the Iraqi army is falling apart, WHAT IN THE WORLD IS OBAMA DOING SENDING FIRST, 300 PEOPLE, NOW ALL TOLD 500 TROOPS THERE?

Aren’t they terribly vulnerable?

Who would send 300 to 500 people into such a dangerous environment where the military is falling apart and the government is also weak?

Isn’t that dangerous?

Or are they being set up as lambs for the slaughter?

Or is the US so sure ISIS won’t target them?

If they are so sure they won’t be targeted then is that an indication THE US KNOWS WHAT ISIS IS DOING?

Something here doesn’t add up…

a reply to: Willtell

Let me offer a suggestion.

This move is intended to show that the president is doing something. It may be foolhardy, or useless, or counterproductive, but now he can claim that he did something. I suppose he thinks it will help his reputation, or the Democrats' chances in this fall's election. But I don't see any other purpose.

I'd like to hear someone's thoughts on this, because I'm missing it completely.

a reply to: Willtell

Questions for the US Iraq “strategy”

I don't think "stratagy" is even being considered. As long as Halliburton, KBR, Raytheon, General Dynamics, EADS, Lockeed and United Technologies can keep the war profits rolling in.

Obama is just doing what the PNAC neocons and the Military Industrial complex tell him to do.

War without end....War isn't about ideology, bringing freedom to the oppressed, or politics...war is big business and business is good!

The question to ask yourself is...who makes the materials of war, who profits, and who ultimately pays for it?

a reply to: charles1952

That still doesn’t explain the absurd equation.

IRAQ ARMY FOLDING, they tell us.

Obama sends 500 measly troops in that danger zone

It doesn’t make any sense, unless they know ISIL won’t go after them

Or, even more sinister, they want them to get hurt

It's likely a Marine contingent for security purposes and the eventual removal of AMCITs. The writing is on the wall. Even if Baghdad doesn't fall directly to the ISIS contingent, it won't be able to sustain a working economy in such a high threat environment.

The largest Embassy in the world is in Baghdad and contrary to popular reporting awhile back, that doesn't seem to have changed in any significant way.

Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens June 16, 2014
As a result of ongoing instability and violence in certain areas of Iraq, Embassy Baghdad is reviewing its staffing requirements in consultation with the State Department. Some additional U.S. government security personnel will be added to the staff in Baghdad; other staff will be temporarily relocated – both to our Consulate Generals in Basrah and Erbil and to the Iraq Support Unit in Amman. Overall, a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the Embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission.

Source

The Embassy/State announced that on June 16th, as the media was reporting stories of evacuation on the 15th. Nothing more recent is up to elevate or change the status.

The Embassy does carry this on their page from Obama though, and it was posted there on the 12th of June.

Washington — Calling the situation in Iraq “clearly an emergency situation,” President Obama said June 12 that the Iraqi government will need more help from the United States and the international community to keep jihadists from getting a permanent foothold in the region.

“This is an area that we’ve been watching with a lot of concern, not just over the last couple of days, but over the last several months, and we’ve been in close consultation with the Iraqi government,” the president said after a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the White House.

Source

It shouldn't be as chaotic as it seems, with months of advanced watch closely kept on how things were happening, should it?

Regardless though, the Embassy is a city within a city which literally has it's own Utility generation/supply as I recall reading details about it. The only thing worse than losing it to I.S. would be losing it with American civilians still inside it.

I'm guessing the "prime directive" of any American in Iraq with a gun and command to answer to now is support and defense of the Embassy if evacuation becomes a short term emergency. They still may not have enough, I fear.

ISIS advance had more to with disposition of Iraqi forces than anything. Iraqs forces were disperesed in small units backing up police in counter terror duties so in a conventional attack they would out numbered and over run very quickly. These sorts of things happen. Think of Pearl Harbor where planes were close together to best defend them from a sabatage making them much more vulnerable to conventional air attack. Once a route starts it is hard to stop. However by the time ISIS hit the outskirts of Baghdad the Iraqis had redeployed their forces for a conventional attack ISIS was stopped and the Iraqis have moved to the offensive.

The US role in this is to help Iraq without doing the work for them, else they would end up like the Army of South Vietnam who would simpley avoid combat and wait for the Americans. So the US beyond sending a bunch of hellfire missle (needed or Iraqi offensive operations) the US has send advisors to help the Iraqi get the intel the need (drone support) and plan and coordinate operations. With Shia militias, Iranians and others pouring in to help the one thing Iraq does not need is more manpower. Russian combat aircraft perfect for this type of operation have arrived along with Russian trainers.

To the west The US also wants to send more aid to the FSA so they can put more pressure on ISIS on that front. I would also not be suprised to see Assad and the FSA back off each other and concentrate ISIS in Syria.

To the north are the Kurds will probe ISIS positions looking for an opportunity to expand south. They will not doubt be getting covert US and Turkish support.

To the East is hostile Iran who is supplying special forces to do much the same the US is doing although they will be involved in the fighting.

So what the US doing is just what it should be doing. Providing what the Iraqis need to take the fight to ISIS and making sure ISIS is fighting on every front. Meanwhile of course the US has forces in position to to back up Iraq if needed.

So Iraq is capable of doing what the need to do with force but, the best way to cause a complete collapse of ISIS would be a true unity goverment that would end Sunni support for ISIS.

So everybody chill out with the doom and gloom. It will not be quick or pretty but, ISIS will now slowy be rolled back.

a reply to: MrSpad

Baghdad Bob also noted the U.S. Forces were nowhere remotely close to Baghdad .......as the engines of M1 MBT's could be faintly heard while the initial "Thunder Runs" were occurring to test the streets for entering further.

That isn't a place in the world I've really seen a history to trust reports from, either coming locally or from (perhaps especially from) our own side.

Truth is said to be the first casualty of war, and it died there over 20 years ago. I hope you're right, but gut feeling says the situation is fluid right now, mistakes by either side could still decide critical contests which determine the outcome.

Mr Murphy is still capable of making an appearance to laugh from either line, and throw it all into a fur ball.

a reply to: Willtell

This so reminds me of the movie 300.

Its my thinking that the US Embassy city is not a target of the Islamic State
nor is Baghdad, for the moment... the Caliphate needs to consolidate its northern land holdings to secure the oil wells in the Kurd areas...

eastern Iraq with its wells and predominantly Shia populations can be on hold until the newly declared caliphate has some stability...only after that status will "Islamic State" contend with the Shia led Iraqi govt

besides an immediate attack on Shia dominated eastern-Iraq and Baghdad will only cause Iran to enter into the fray right now

Saudi Arabia, in my line of thought, is guaranteeing the USA that a pillaged/stripped down Iraq will remain a nation-state along side the caliphate (for the present time)...at least until the Saudi bosses finally throe the USA under-the-bus, destroy the petro-dollar/global reserve currency & join the BRICSS monetary system in 2015-2016 at the latest


the caliphate (formerly ISIS is the war proxy puppet of the Saudi regime...& not so much USA/CIA controlled as many here believe)

a reply to: Willtell

You first have to realize what isUS, I mean ISIS, is.

They are on off-shoot of Al-CIAeda, being openly visited by McCain and funded/armed/trained by Obama (the Obama administration, now wanting to give them another $500 million).

So, like the rest of the Middle East, they pose no real threat, especially not to us. The reason why they can move around so freely/easily is because the entire region has essentially been disarmed. Think of it as a giant "gun free zone".

Much like the FBI aiding and abetting the majority of "terror plots" here in the US, the Moslems in the ME would be helpless without US/outside help.

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

Create the problem: ISIS. Have the war mongering media call for an invasion: reaction. Re-invade Iraq: (predetermined) solution.

ISIS is a joke. The reason why they arent being stopped is because the rest of the ME is a BIGGER joke.

So 300 or 500 US troops are not in harm's way (although it wouldnt be the first time US lives have been sacrificed to further an agenda). 50 marines could stop this comedy, but they wont. That would defeat the purpose.

Whats the purpose? Fear mongering used to take our rights "for our own safety". Military war profiteering. A constant excuse to maintain our foreign empire etc.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: MrSpad

Baghdad Bob also noted the U.S. Forces were nowhere remotely close to Baghdad .......as the engines of M1 MBT's could be faintly heard while the initial "Thunder Runs" were occurring to test the streets for entering further.

That isn't a place in the world I've really seen a history to trust reports from, either coming locally or from (perhaps especially from) our own side.

Truth is said to be the first casualty of war, and it died there over 20 years ago. I hope you're right, but gut feeling says the situation is fluid right now, mistakes by either side could still decide critical contests which determine the outcome.

Mr Murphy is still capable of making an appearance to laugh from either line, and throw it all into a fur ball.

Well nobody is claiming to be in or trying to take Baghdad. Right now both sides are giving different stories about how far the Iraqi counter attack has gotten in Tikrit. So what does that tells us? That their is indeed an Iraqi offensive in Tikrit. That ISIS advance has been halted and that point up for debate is how far into Tikrit Iraqi forces have gotten. As momentum moves to Iraqi forces and the more advances they make the less the Iraqi PM will consider stepping down and creating a unity goverment which is the less bloody solution to the problem. Watching what he does on that subject will also give clues as to how well his forces are doing. A week ago he was considering it, right now he is not.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Brilliant summary, pity can only give one star.

The strategy is "We have egg on our face". So we have to give a token nod by sending some military and try to transfer the "blame" to the Iraqi government somehow while attempting to disappear into the shadows. That, is the strat.

Should have never ever been there in the first place. Occupation is foolhardy, which is why we normally prop up dictators like Sadam (until they get the big head). And lastly the bread you throw out on the water comes back to you.

As long as it went well the mindless masses of most Americans were cheerleaders. If it goes horribly south then the mindless masses of Americans are going to want somebody to blame, and they will probably heap that onto the wrong person or peoples.