How Soon Before "Full Scale" Ops Again?

[wmenorr67]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/white-house-expected-to-approve-dod-request-to-double-number-us-soldiers-in/

White House expected to approve DOD request to double number of US soldiers in Iraq

2500 plus troops is a lot of advisors.

[SADShooter]

If this administration has proven anything, it's that they can't ever get enough advice...

[MechAg94]

Honestly, how does everyone here look at this?  Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out?  Just curious about opinions. 

I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another.  I don't trust our current govt to do it right.  If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist?  It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).

[Phyphor]

Honestly, how does everyone here look at this?  Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out?  Just curious about opinions. 

I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another.  I don't trust our current govt to do it right.  If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist?  It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).

I'm quite sick of it myself, actually.

Either pull them out or take the *expletive deleted*ing bindings off.  Tell them "Kill ISIS and break their stuff."
Or bring them home.  Enough of this half-assing the job.

[SADShooter]

I'm quite sick of it myself, actually.

Either pull them out or take the *expletive deleted*ing bindings off.  Tell them "Kill ISIS and break their stuff."
Or bring them home.  Enough of this half-assing the job.

Until/unless we face a pucker factor 11 existential crisis, I'm afraid the half-assery is all we can expect. The people and politicians have no stomach for "total war".

[tokugawa]

Some day we will get a clue.

Do not fight the way your enemy fights best.

[Ron]

Give logistical, material support to the Kurds as well as military intelligence.

Tell Turkey to stuff it if they don't like that.

Get the he!! out of the middle east with a not very subtle message that if we are forced back in to protect our allies/friends we will be pissed and the gloves will be off.

[Tallpine]

If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist? 

There was a govt in Iraq quite capable of fighting stuff like ISIS, that is - until ............ 

[Hawkmoon]

Honestly, how does everyone here look at this?  Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out?  Just curious about opinions. 

I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another.  I don't trust our current govt to do it right.  If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist?  It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).

I am also tired of fighting endless wars. But I look at it through the lens of being a Vietnam veteran. There is no question that ISIS is a serious problem. Beyond that, fundamentally the U.S. is responsible for their existence. If we hadn't meddled in Iraq and Syria, ISIS would probably not exist, and they certainly wouldn't be the regional/world threat that they are now.

There are two ways to not be engaged in an endless war. The first is to turn tail and run -- we did that in Vietnam. The other is to win. The Patton philosophy. I think what's called for against ISIS is a full-out effort to just wipe them off the map. Then we can relax and bring our troops home.

Vietnam began with a few advisors ...

[roo_ster]

"We have the worst ruling class in our history" as Glen Reynolds writes.  They are arrogantly ignorant and not nearly as smart as they think they are.  They will continue to get us involved and screw the pooch until they are removed and not allowed near the levers of power.  I include most Republicans in this group. 

Yes, ISIS is a problem.  No, our ruling class is not capable of solving it.

[TommyGunn]

Honestly, how does everyone here look at this?  Do you want to keep fighting or just get the hell out?  Just curious about opinions.  

I am tired of our soldiers fighting endless overseas wars of one kind or another.  I don't trust our current govt to do it right.  If those govts over there can't defend themselves then do they really deserve to exist?  It isn't like some big foreign power like the Russians are invading (not talking about Ukraine).

I have real mixed feelings.

1.)   We should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.  We did so because we thought that Iraq had WMDs and might give them to Al-Qaeda.  Well, we find out the WMD stuff was overblown (I think Iraq had them and a WMD program but Saddam got rid of it pre-invasion, but let's not get into a debate) and also that whatever ties it had to AQ were largely imaginary and based pretty much on the fact one AQ terr had a broken leg set there.
2.)   OK we went in, deposed Saddam and got rid of his vile murderous sons.  We ought to have stayed there and assured they could handle a force like ISIS.  We broke it and we own it.  Obama was far too anxious to get our guys home.  
3.)  So we left -- what now?   I don't think we're going to do much against ISIS with just air power.   It may hurt them but I think if we REALLY WANT to TKO ISIS, we need our troops back there and doing what Patton's Third Army did to the Nazi soldaten in WW2 to the ISIS army.
However, I do not trust Obama to get it right....so I think maybe we ought perhaps not to.

All this may, IMHO, come back to haunt us.   Potential future enemies are beginning to see us as a "paper tiger."  Putin is making aggressive moves -- we all know about this.  China is developing a modernized military force and is making noises about Taiwan and other islands it thinks it ought to possess.
And they have no reason whatever to think America, despite her military and her nuclear missiles has the gumption and stamina to fight a long war and get it right.
Uh, "history check:" isn't that what the Japanese thought about our country, more or less, pre World War Two? ? ? ? ?  

I just hope history doesn't repeat ..... but I have bad feelings about the future .....

[Fitz]

I really feel like we created ISIS, and should be responsible for wiping them out.

I also feel like our politicians and public lack the testicular fortitude to DO WHAT IS NECESSARY to accomplish that.

So, I dunno man.

If i had confidence that we'd be truly UNLEASHED, i'd be all for another full scale invasion.

But when i had to defend my guys from investigation for KILLING THE ENEMY WRONG, that's how you know something is *expletive deleted*ed.

[MechAg94]

Thanks Fitz.  That fits what I was thinking.  Done right, I could live with continuing.  That won't happen so it is better not to start. 

[White Horseradish]

 We ought to have stayed there and assured they could handle a force like ISIS.  

That would mean either staying permanently or installing another Saddam. No matter when the US left, some bunch would have risen to fill the void, unless there was another strong arm to keep them in check.

[TommyGunn]

That would mean either staying permanently or installing another Saddam. No matter when the US left, some bunch would have risen to fill the void, unless there was another strong arm to keep them in check.

"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak.  A great deal of blame must also go to the leadership we left in power; many of Iraq's better generals were discharged as they were not "sufficiently loyal" to the leadership or belonged to a different sect. That condition ought not have been tolerated by us.
Do you think soldiers fight well only when there's a dictator in charge?  Was FDR a dictator of America during WW2?
Also note your statement is self-contradictory; What you said in red is contradicted by what's in blue.  What I've suggested is, essentially, what's in blue.   The "other strong arm" should have been the Iraqi Military.
You are not alone in expressing that idea which only makes it more frustrating.
  
 

[Fitz]

"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak.  A great deal of blame must also go to the leadership we left in power; many of Iraq's better generals were discharged as they were not "sufficiently loyal" to the leadership or belonged to a different sect. That condition ought not have been tolerated by us.
Do you think soldiers fight well only when there's a dictator in charge?  Was FDR a dictator of America during WW2?
Also note your statement is self-contradictory; What you said in red is contradicted by what's in blue.  What I've suggested is, essentially, what's in blue.   The "other strong arm" should have been the Iraqi Military.
You are not alone in expressing that idea which only makes it more frustrating.
  
 

Not exactly.


IRAQI soldiers only fight well when there's a dictator in charge.

IRAQI soldiers are weak, and operate efficiently only when they are in complete fear.

IRAQI soldiers only operate efficiently when they know that the people they're charged to serve and protect are completely loyal to the brutal power that saddam and his sons wielded.

Many of Iraqi's "better generals" were not allowed to serve because they were in service of Saddam before. And this was something we did.

[White Horseradish]

"Some bunch" might have come along, but if the Iraqi military had been properly trained, properly equiped then they would have been able to nip ISIS in the bud, so to speak.  

No amount of training and equipment would make any Middle Eastern military worth a damn (except Israel). Do you not know any history? Those people have been completely worthless on the battlefield since it was about horse and sword. Their idea of marksmanship is to fire "where Allah wills it", manuals are useless because the lower ranks are illiterate and the officers consider manuals beneath them.

A great deal of blame must also go to the leadership we left in power; many of Iraq's better generals were discharged as they were not "sufficiently loyal" to the leadership or belonged to a different sect. That condition ought not have been tolerated by us.

There was no other condition to choose. This is how things are in the Middle East.

Do you think soldiers fight well only when there's a dictator in charge?  Was FDR a dictator of America during WW2?

Iraq is not America. Afghanistan is not America. Nowhere in the Middle East is America. Neither is ME Germany or Japan. Would you get this through your head already?  There is no loyalty to country over there. Loyalty is to family, tribe, religion, in that order. Country is probably not even on that list for those people. Iraq was Saddam's family beating the crap out of all the other families. That's it. It was never a real country, and there is no reason to expect it to stay cohesive after taking out the strong arm.

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

[Fitz]

Seriously, why is this so hard to understand?

because, to accept that is to accept *gasp* that the problems in the ME can't be blamed on obama pulling out early, or policy decisions. (with maybe the exception of a failure to use a 'turn them to ash' policy)

[Tallpine]

because, to accept that is to accept *gasp* that the problems in the ME can't be blamed on obama pulling out early, or policy decisions. (with maybe the exception of a failure to use a 'turn them to ash' policy)

I don't blame Obama; I blame Bush.

However, he dithered around and kept us over there spending money and losing lives several more years on something already proven to be a losing proposition.  Then he goes and gets us involved in more foreign fighting - all this from a "Peace President" 

[Hawkmoon]

If i had confidence that we'd be truly UNLEASHED, i'd be all for another full scale invasion.

But when i had to defend my guys from investigation for KILLING THE ENEMY WRONG, that's how you know something is *expletive deleted*ed.

All too true. That's what we faced in Vietnam -- ridiculous rules of engagement -- and that's why we lost (even though the official line is that we didn't "lose," we just withdrew). I think in one of his western novels (probably many of them) Louis L'Amour had his protagonist say, "If you're going to talk, talk. If you're going to shoot, shoot." ISIS is not interested in talking with us infidels, and they couldn't be trusted if they would talk because their religion teaches that it's morally acceptable to lie to infidels. That leaves only one option -- shoot.

So we should shoot. But not restrict the "shooting" to lobbing a few bombs at them from "coalition" aircraft. What's needed is basically a reboot of D-Day. Just do it, and get it over with.

[Boomhauer]

All too true. That's what we faced in Vietnam -- ridiculous rules of engagement -- and that's why we lost (even though the official line is that we didn't "lose," we just withdrew). I think in one of his western novels (probably many of them) Louis L'Amour had his protagonist say, "If you're going to talk, talk. If you're going to shoot, shoot." ISIS is not interested in talking with us infidels, and they couldn't be trusted if they would talk because their religion teaches that it's morally acceptable to lie to infidels. That leaves only one option -- shoot.

So we should shoot. But not restrict the "shooting" to lobbing a few bombs at them from "coalition" aircraft. What's needed is basically a reboot of D-Day. Just do it, and get it over with.

But, but, but, but, HEARTS AND MINDS! WE GOTTA HAVE LIMITED CONFLICT! ROE TO GIVE THE ENEMY A CHANCE!

It's what happens when you let bleeding heart liberals, "office manager" generals, and college "whiz kid" advisers run a war. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, it's all the *expletive deleted*ing same.

[TommyGunn]

Not exactly.


IRAQI soldiers only fight well when there's a dictator in charge.

IRAQI soldiers are weak, and operate efficiently only when they are in complete fear.

IRAQI soldiers only operate efficiently when they know that the people they're charged to serve and protect are completely loyal to the brutal power that saddam and his sons wielded.

Many of Iraqi's "better generals" were not allowed to serve because they were in service of Saddam before. And this was something we did.

because, to accept that is to accept *gasp* that the problems in the ME can't be blamed on obama pulling out early, or policy decisions. (with maybe the exception of a failure to use a 'turn them to ash' policy)

What is all this bigotry against Iraqi soldiers?  Do you guys think they're subhuman apes or something?
They can be properly trained and properly trained and properly motivated.  Maybe we're too dumb to figure out how -- which is not surprising if we think because they're mideasterners they're not worth a damned.

Iraq is not America. Afghanistan is not America. Nowhere in the Middle East is America. Neither is ME Germany or Japan. Would you get this through your head already?

 
OK you convinced me they're all subhuman idiots who can only fight for meanies with bushy black mustaches.

"Iraq is not America"  WOW what a earth-shattereing revelation.
"Afghanistan is not America."  Again, earth-shattering.
Curiosly you bring up Germany.  THEY are neither America or mideast; the German Whermacht fought like Tasmanian Devils on speed in WW2.  Yet their soldiers in the mideast are strangely reluctant to engage in firefights .... atleast in comparison to their WW2 forebears.
  The French, OTOH, have a bad reputation for ..."dropping their rifles" (shall we say) largely from WW2 are in fact being far more aggressive in their mideast roles than the Germans.
Things change.
And the Iraqis can change.  Perhaps they don't want to, perhaps we're too dumb, as I say, to figure out how to convince them (the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am of this ) but all I've read here is largely a bunch of racist claptrap that should have been tossed into a garbage pail when we got rid of Jim Crow.
 

[MechAg94]

No one said they were subhuman.  They just don't have the same motivations or ideas of honor and courage that we do.  They look at that stuff differently.  You can see parallels in some of the ancient history when they were fighting the Greeks and others. 

I don't think that will change without cultural change which our current leadership has no interest or will to do. 

[TommyGunn]

No one said they were subhuman.  They just don't have the same motivations or ideas of honor and courage that we do.  They look at that stuff differently.  You can see parallels in some of the ancient history when they were fighting the Greeks and others.  

I don't think that will change without cultural change which our current leadership has no interest or will to do.  

The people who make up ISIS are of the same ilk and have 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the same genetics and they are having no trouble conquering, fighting and killing, notwithstanding the fact that we westerners take enormous exception to how they do it and to whom they're doing.  "Ideas" of honor and courage are concepts and can be instilled, and should have been.

How did Patton inspire the Third Army?  Do you think all the little virginal kiddies who showed up in boot camp had had a in depth background on honor, courage, and going through the enemy like "**** through a goose"  instilled in their IDs by their parents?

[White Horseradish]

What is all this bigotry against Iraqi soldiers?  Do you guys think they're subhuman apes or something?

No. We know that they come from a vastly different cultural background. This influences how they think and how they do things. This is a fact.

They can be properly trained and properly trained and properly motivated.  Maybe we're too dumb to figure out how -- which is not surprising if we think because they're mideasterners they're not worth a damned.
 

Nobody managed to do it yet. The English failed, the Russians failed, everyone ever failed. 

OK you convinced me they're all subhuman idiots who can only fight for meanies with bushy black mustaches.

Do you have some sort of difficulty in understanding the written word? Nobody was trying to convince you of that.

Curiosly you bring up Germany.  THEY are neither America or mideast; the German Whermacht fought like Tasmanian Devils on speed in WW2.  Yet their soldiers in the mideast are strangely reluctant to engage in firefights .... atleast in comparison to their WW2 forebears.
  The French, OTOH, have a bad reputation for ..."dropping their rifles" (shall we say) largely from WW2 are in fact being far more aggressive in their mideast roles than the Germans.
Things change.

Once again, you might want to look into this thing called "history". The French soldier has rarely been the problem, but France has been cursed with deficient leadership pretty much since Napoleon. France also has always been rather aggressive in colonial wars. The rifle-dropping is a myth born of ignorance.

You might also notice that the Germans of today are a couple of generations removed from Wehrmacht. A couple of generations brought up bathed in shame over what their fathers and grandfathers did.

And the Iraqis can change.  Perhaps they don't want to, perhaps we're too dumb, as I say, to figure out how to convince them (the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am of this ) but all I've read here is largely a bunch of racist claptrap that should have been tossed into a garbage pail when we got rid of Jim Crow.
 

Sure they can. However, this change needs to be a cultural shift on the scale greater than that of the Germans. This can only be achieved by having the carriers of oldthink dying and the new generations being brought up in the way you wish them to be. There are only two ways to do this - wait for old age to do it's thing, like Moses did, or dig some big graves, like Lenin/Stalin/Mao and the rest of that crowd, all the while indoctrinating the young. Are you advocating for the US to do the Moses thing and lead Iraquis for 40 years? Or the Mao thing and have some long marches?