U.S. troops may return to Middle East to train Iraqis

The Pentagon is considering sending U.S. troops back to the Middle East to help train Iraqi forces, defense officials said Friday.

Iraq President Nouri al-Maliki said this week that he would support a new U.S. military training mission for Iraqi counterterrorism troops in neighboring Jordan, marking the first time he has expressed support for such a plan.

Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said Friday in addition to discussions about trainers, the Pentagon is also fast-tracking approval for a shipment of small arms and ammunition to the Iraqi military.

Army Times: Possible Return to Iraq


Well after nearly a decade occupying Iraq, deposing their leadership and trying to bring bring a people out of the stone age the fruits of our blood and labor and money have been lost in a matter of months, snowballing in recent weeks.

I for one am of the opinion that we should acquiesce to the lefts' 'anti-war' (except in the case of Syria) mentality. The ME, regardless of the country in question, has shown time and time again that you can lead a camel to water, but you cannot make it drink.

From what I saw during my time there is that your average citizen couldn't give two dinar about who was in charge. Until there is a cultural 180* the ME will remain a hot-bed for sectarian violence, oppression and human rights violations. The Western world would be wise to just treat that entire section of the globe like SNL's 'Drunk Uncle' character.

Any other vets ever feel like they were extras in a twisted filming of 'Escape From LA' during their time there?

Isn't this how it started waaaay back, when Saddam first got put into power? May as well spin the roulette wheel to decide who those guns will end up killing one day.

The Mideast has this problem. It's in the middle of the desert. And they don't much care what's going on in not the desert.

(Besides hating on your freedom and happiness and all that. Because we know when they first landed in America they said to themselves, "who are these blasphemous peoples that flaunt freedom and why are we not inviting them back to reap our resources so we can crush their freedom that is powered by our oil?")

Or wait…

Dammit I'm all confused because I read history books and followed it up with the news. Idonno which side is up these days.

boncho
Isn't this how it started waaaay back, when Saddam first got put into power? May as well spin the roulette wheel to decide who those guns will end up killing one day.

Actually, there is more to it than just simply that bonch

Saddam was originally a Soviet Puppet once upon a time during the Cold-War that the West later stole from them.

Linky

Soviet-Iraqi cooperation was both close and multi-faceted, and for most of the period it was even officially called a "strategic partnership". In 1967, Iraq signed an agreement with the USSR to supply the nation with oil in exchange for large-scale access to Eastern Bloc arms

In 1972, Egypt ordered the Soviet military personnel in the country to leave and Iraq soon became one of the Soviet Union's closest allies in the Middle East. During this time, the USSR and Iraq had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in which both countries promised to help each other under threat and to avoid entering hostile alliances against one another.

As an American scholar indicated, because of their support of the national-liberation movements, a number of important Third World countries, including Iraq, "declared their friendship for and improved relations with the USSR and sided with it on a number of international problems".

Ever ask yourself how Iraq ended up with so much 'Russian' military scrap metal after both wars?

I'm wondering why it is some places on the planet actually seem to do BETTER and even THRIVE under the boot of an oppressive military dictatorship.

The Iraqis, yes, many hated Saddam, but, all in all, they had water, electricity, and lots of healthy fear of the Government as opposed to fighting each other.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I think that's true to an extent.

Under Saddam's brutal dictatorship all these present factions being supported by Iran and opposed by the Saudi's weren't really able to get a foothold. However, one must remember Iraq was not an open country under his rule and word of anything regarding covert opposition activities to the Ba'ath Party aka Saddam were not publicized...

I can't help but worry if this goes ahead it will be slippery slope similar to vietnam's "military advisors"

Before we invaded iraq the last time, it was far from perfect but in was a functioning country, with running water, elecetricity, schools and a crime rate no worse than the rest of the region. Look at it now though, it never recovered from being bombed back to the stone age, bombings every day, open battles in the street, the whole countries infastucture smashed and a dictator for a president. In the long run iraq looks like its heading towards what afghanistan now is.

We have already done enough damage, we should leave it alone as we will inevitably find a way of making it worse of we do get involved.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I was off in my timeline too, I should have referred to 1984, when relations with the US began again…

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

www2.gwu.edu...

They will train them, and decades to come the US will be at war with them, and they will train other countries as well. No doubt some military forces will train terrorists as well, thanks to the good old USA stupidity. You would of thought after the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the US training the predecessor to the Taliban they would of leant the lessons, but it continues.

reply to post by Lipton


To be fair both America and the United Kingdom pretty much destroyed there standing army in the first place. Its only correct that we attempt to restore there ability to protect and defend themselves. Most especially so considering the geographical location to Iran.

Oil needs to be defended, "They" know this! LoL

This is a stupid idea. Stupid, moronic, buffoonish, brainless, short sighted, suicidal, political, and ..oh, yeah, did I mention DUMB?!?!

WHY for so...WHY WHY WHY...must we send average trainers at best (The BEST aren't going to a war zone for any price to get shot trying to train someone else's cops or soldiers) to train the future of another nation that, frankly, HATES us at this stage by a larger % than doesn't, in my view. WHY????

We have a BIG BIG desert state. 80% owned by the Federal Government. That desert state has MANY areas in it that would not realistically allow for someone getting to the outside world alive, on foot. Too far, too hostile and I've personally been across that desert in all different directions over the years to say it with certainty.

This should have been done in 2003...but we need to make a big training complex in Nevada, somewhere out in the middle of the test ranges (Non-radioactive ones would be nice, I suppose) and create the biggest, best and most effective Law Enforcement/Military training center the world has ever seen before. (We ALREADY spend enough cash to build several of them....wasting it for nothing over there)

Put those guys through 16 weeks WITH ZERO threat of being blown up in their own barracks or bunks and ZERO chance of quitting or just going over the wall one night to vanish back into the local areas of Iraq or Afghanistan and we MIGHT turn out some damn fine officers and enlisted for the nations we destroyed military forces in.

We can't leave them defenseless when WE caused that situation to exist ...then just send a sorry note when they get over-run and brutally conquered. We can't, in my opinion, EVER go BACK. So.. Split the difference..... Give the best and brightest which can be found ...a 4 month vacation in sunny Nevada, USA ...never to see more than sand and training, but it beats Tango-Land with bombs blowing every day while trying to learn something in a class room, eh?

*We could even re-use the facility for other things in the future...

As long as our policies remain reactive instead of proactive we will be on the losing end of any foreign policy issue.

It appears as if this administration only does something when it looks like it may damage them politically, here at home.

They could care less of the sacrifice of our troops, the deaths of countless Iraqis.

How it looks on the nightly news is more important to them.

They do not want training they want someone else to come in and do the dirty work for them. The times I didn't feel like I was about to get shot in the back by a "trainee" I felt I was babysitting a bunch of adult children. Took almost a week to show them how to do PT properly, let them sort themselves out.

Since the Iraqi Gov't said "NO" to any type of Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), I say screw 'em. They can bang on the door all they want screaming for help. Sooner or later, one side will win and then we can deal with that side...whether for good or bad.

We've been there before. Desert Storm (Fool me once, shame on you)

And we returned. OIF (Fool me twice, shame on me)

For once I am happy to be so broken that I cannot be recalled. I've had my fill of that place.

I wonder how many lobbyist groups are pushing for this to line their pockets with cash? You know somebody stands to gain financially.
I once dated a girl whose ex-husband was an FBI agent. She told me he was preparing to go to Iraq to train police officers and was going to be paid I believe 30k a month. Thats a lot of money.
I think maybe send in the French Foreign Legion to provide security while we train officers in the desert like somebody suggested.

Isnt sending troops to "train" tend to be how the USA normaly starts its messes? *cough* Vietnam *cough*

Obama just had to pull our troops out of there... Didn't matter if the job was done or not. You can debate wether we should or shouldn't have been there, that's irrelevant because we were there. He has just set up a scenario where the next president will send troops back in and be called a warmonger like bush was.

AliceBleachWhite
I'm wondering why it is some places on the planet actually seem to do BETTER and even THRIVE under the boot of an oppressive military dictatorship.

The Iraqis, yes, many hated Saddam, but, all in all, they had water, electricity, and lots of healthy fear of the Government as opposed to fighting each other.

edit on 1/19/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

I suppose you could say Germany was improved by hitler. Some might disagree.

reply to post by Lipton


There is nothing we can do to teach these people anything, this civil war has gone on for thousands of years and will not end tell one side or the other is gone.

The idea of killing more American 20 year olds thinking we will change a thing is as bad as getting involved in the beginning thinking we would make a difference.

reply to post by Hoosierdaddy71


Obama may be twiddling his thumbs here, but the situation is spinning out of control on his watch. I'm sure that he is not to happy about that. Chances are that even if he does try to send in advisors in force, that he will hear an earful from everybody, just like Syria.

That would lower his polling numbers even more which we all know he does not like.

He would be wise to shy away from this one from a political viewpoint. Otherwise, he would be showing his base that the DNC is no better than the GOP. Two sides of the same coin that people are starting to realize, but this would speed up the process.

Before America and the Allies got involved in Iraq II everyth....oh why even bother!!