Jump to content

Meanwhile Back In Iraq...


Recommended Posts

NATO mission in Iraq that started in 2018 with 500 personnel to increase to 4000 personnel.

Quote

 

WASHINGTON – NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced Thursday that the 30-member alliance will expand its security training mission in Iraq in order to prevent the war-torn country from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists.

"The size of our mission will increase from 500 personnel to around 4,000 and training activities will now include more Iraqi security institutions and areas beyond Baghdad," Stoltenberg told reporters at the conclusion of a two-day virtual NATO defense ministers meeting.

...

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/18/nato-expands-mission-in-iraq-on-the-heels-of-deadly-rocket-attack.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is good news.

The US has been going the slow but steady route, turning foes into friends in the ME region, helping them to gain security, rebuild, stabilize, and modernize.

But a core issue that threatens such gains is sheer incompetence in the militaries of said countries.

Sending trainers and advisers would be relatively easy on the budget of NATO, compared with combat units, and may yield greater results in the long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leo Niehorster said:

In theory, yes. But who will protect these trainers and advisors from the crazies?

They will go light, but not unequipped at all. 

Those 2 Iron Dome batteries could come in handy, once they're operational. Other assets exist in the region for quick response should they face more than the occasional rockets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Can you define the threat that they could not defend themselves from?

Blue on blue from their trainees, IEDs to and from their training areas, rocket/mortar attacks on their well known bases, sniper fire on said bases etc. All of the above happened dozens of times.

if several hundred thousand combat troops could not stop that, some trainers will?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mistral said:

Blue on blue from their trainees, IEDs to and from their training areas, rocket/mortar attacks on their well known bases, sniper fire on said bases etc. All of the above happened dozens of times.

if several hundred thousand combat troops could not stop that, some trainers will?

Then they don't need an armored division to guard them. Ride in MRAPs and get a few Dragoons units to escort them.

What the hell is this defeatist attitude? 

I did my service too, you know. I had 2 options: Do it right and benefit from it at least as much as the army benefited from having me, or be just an average joe. 

And the only way to get the first option is to adopt a very simple mindset: Shit at work and get shit done.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

There is a good article on this on the drive.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39527/everything-new-we-just-learned-about-the-iranian-missile-attack-on-al-asad-air-base

60 Minutes" has now revealed that the U.S. government also had additional indications well before the missiles began raining down that strikes were coming from monitoring Iranian purchases of commercial satellite imagery of Al Asad. U.S. Marine Corps General Frank McKenzie, head of CENTCOM, said he waited until intelligence told him the Iranians had downloaded their last commercial image of the base for the day before beginning evacuations and the movement of equipment. In doing so, they severely disrupted the effectiveness of the Iranian attack and likely saved many lives and lots of equipment in the process.

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

said he waited until intelligence told him the Iranians had downloaded their last commercial image of the base for the day before beginning evacuations and the movement of equipment.

So what Iran have to do to oust the USA from Iraq is just purchasing commercial sat pictures of the inhabited areas...

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Adam Peter said:

So what Iran have to do to oust the USA from Iraq is just purchasing commercial sat pictures of the inhabited areas...

Yes. They did just that and now American forces are no more in Iraq. Definitely not a single soldier, let alone base. The Al Asad airbase, without a doubt, no longer exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, we were so much closer to a war then was advertised. Seeing the footage and the damage, it seems like an absolute statistical anomaly that no one was killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TDS again.

I cut your hand any you slap me few times. Who got better?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Josh said:

Wow, we were so much closer to a war then was advertised. Seeing the footage and the damage, it seems like an absolute statistical anomaly that no one was killed.

What really stood out is how unprepared the defenders seemed.  They had no air defenses against the threat, their bunker network was Titanic levels of inadequate housing to cover existing numbers, they relied on known Hussein era bunkers that a hypersonic missile could easily have shredded, and all the trucks with people in them sitting out in the desert only a short distance from the airbase seemed like something that should not be repeated.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it have helped you to recognise someone taking the piss, if I put a smiley after it? :)

That said,no, I don't think he would have hit back. It would have meant going back on the ending the endless wars narrative. The narrative that nobody was wounded, when they clearly were, illustrates he was trying to sidestep the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Would it have helped you to recognise someone taking the piss, if I put a smiley after it? :)

That said,no, I don't think he would have hit back. It would have meant going back on the ending the endless wars narrative. The narrative that nobody was wounded, when they clearly were, illustrates he was trying to sidestep the issue.

I think if there were fatalities, Trump would have had to commit to some retaliatory action. Popular opinion and the legistlature would have demanded it, and I think after some hesitation he would have green lit something (there were established plans ahead of time, all he'd have to do is authorize one).

 

But yes, the level of the Iranian strike really put Trump between Iraq and a hard place. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

What really stood out is how unprepared the defenders seemed.  They had no air defenses against the threat, their bunker network was Titanic levels of inadequate housing to cover existing numbers, they relied on known Hussein era bunkers that a hypersonic missile could easily have shredded, and all the trucks with people in them sitting out in the desert only a short distance from the airbase seemed like something that should not be repeated.

Most specifically, why were MIM-104s in the KSA but not in Iraq?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...