Jump to content
tanknet.org

Meanwhile Back In Iraq...


Recommended Posts

They probably have been laying low until the US has by large exited the country. They may have also waited to see how the new Iraq government would play out its early phase while recruiting, networking and planning, and then took action accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder how many examples there are of a 30,000 strong military force -- with afvs and all the trappings -- running away from 800 lightly armed insurgents. Kinda historical, right?

At the very least it is another data point to the effect that trying to make certain people grow a spine if they don't already have one is harder than it was thought to be by those who advocated it, like myself at the time.

It does seem that Napoleon's old maxim about the moral being to the physical as three to one may be a severe underestimation in some neighborhoods. In this case it was about thirtyseven to one.

 

 

--

Soren

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was saying

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/iraq/article4116273.ece

 

Iran has sent special forces and a unit of elite troops to Iraq to bolster floundering efforts by the Iraqi government to halt the advance of militants from an al-Qaeda splinter group.

A 150-man unit of the Quds Force, the elite section of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, has deployed to Iraq, supported by a team of Saberin, Tehran’s equivalent of the SAS. The troops will assist Iraqi forces as they regroup after the catastrophic loss of Mosul

Wow, are the Iranians really that buddy buddy with the Iraqis? There must still be a lot of bad blood ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, are the Iranians really that buddy buddy with the Iraqis? There must still be a lot of bad blood ...

 

 

In the Middle East is not about who you love, its about who you hate more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know, what does it matter? But as far as it might to you, the first link describes how the president's own party in congress was denying the money.

The second link was during the debt ceiling negotiations and wasn't specific to the State Department.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, are the Iranians really that buddy buddy with the Iraqis? There must still be a lot of bad blood ...

 

Bad blood between Shia Iranians and Sunni Iraqis (minority population, think Saddam Hussein). Iran has been friendly toward the new (Shia) Iraqi government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This, in a nutshell sums up the idiocy of US foreign policy:

Can we airdrop Rob Ford into ISIL territory? They seem to be best buddies on the other side of the Iraq-Syria border.

 

Also, another damn good question is: what is the role of Turkey here? Is that the logistics supply base for them? And where they can sell oil they have taken control over?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to give arms to anyone there, give them to the Kurds, after the Israelis they are the closest friends we have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to give arms to anyone there, give them to the Kurds, after the Israelis they are the closest friends we have.

Can't do that as long as US supports the fiction about Iraq being a single state. Arming the peshmerga when they themselves are in an almost open territorial conflict with the Iraqi government would furtherly undermine the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do kinda wonder what would have happened if our policy had been to treat Iraq for what it is -- a Frankenstein country -- and supported some kind of loose federation instead.

 

Or had we just not invaded at all and support Saddam against both the Iranians and Syrian jihadists...quite sure he'd be more than useful right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are reports of mass murder going on in the areas of Iraq now controlled by the ISIL.

 

It is easy to predict that if these reports are accurate, Iran will step in with considerable military force to protect the Shia of Iraq from a massive slaughter perpetrated by Sunni jihadists.

The next question is, what happens next in Afghanistan?

Do we leave on schedule, or do we stay on well past our current departure date for fear there will be a repetition next year, or the year after that, of what is now happening in Iraq?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ISIS fighters patrol on a vehicle in Tikrit

 

One of the biggest headlines in the energy world this year has been the revival of Iraqi oil output. In February, Iraq's production surged to an average of 3.6 million barrels a day – the highest level since 1979, the year Saddam Hussein took power. Since Iraq has the world’s fifth largest proven oil reserves, it has the potential to expand output much further.

But while geology has bestowed gifts on Iraq, political strife has repeatedly taken them away.

The swift collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and other northern towns and the advance of extremist militants toward Baghdad has shaken the country’s stability just as Iraq, now the second largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was starting to bring stability to oil markets.

Oil prices were virtually unchanged on Wednesday, but on Thursday they climbed. The price of Brent crude oil, the international benchmark grade, for delivery in July rose to $112.61 a barrel, up 2.4 percent, on the London-based commodity exchange.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/12/chaos-in-iraq-is-already-sending-oil-prices-higher/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly decimated, likely on retreat.

 

Oh, ISIL or ISIS, whatever you prefer, is not part of Al Quaida.

A difference without distinction, they are a splinter group, and more ruthless. So let's not pretend they should be of no concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, the mission was accomplished in 2003, they so they should be.

 

 

 

And the US Military marched out of Iraq in 2010 a victorious army that, with a concerted effort in 2009 and 2010, left Iraq safe, secure, and stable.

 

The money quote from The Veep.

 

 

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
Edited by DKTanker
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS has a ton of motivation and morale. Wheras the Iraqi army has little unless the fight is in their neighborhood. The problem is, by the time the fight gets to your neighborhood, it's not going to resemble your neighborhood anyway. No matter if you win.

 

Such is the way of sectarian violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where am I going wrong in thinking that isis have overplayed their hand, and will be reduced to the level of other groups "short" time?

They have run up against the kurds, and iraqi defences, with help, should hold in Shia areas. Prevent them from moving Around freely with airpower, SF etc. And then start to reduce the pockets Where they choose to stand. They are quite low on personell, this looks to me like they just overreached.

The iranians will probably jump at the chance to overtly engage isis as this will also help their "Syrian front"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally defeating them is probably difficult, but they should be able to reduce the problem. All the press they have gotten have at least guaranteed american drones. Keeping them from rolling up 800 guys in pickups, or freely moving from Syria to iraq should do a lot.

I think Iran will be more than willing to commit to this fight, and the turks are also less than pleased.

How will this affect the supply situation in Syria?

Saudi sponsored TOWs hitting iraqi abrams would not be ideal for anyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they will probably stop them, but defeating the problem is another matter. About the only ones who seem willing to take them on in a fight are the Kurds, and they probably are going to want something for the favour.

 

 

Honestly, I think the Kurds are just happy to use this as an opportunity to take Kirkuk. They probably aren't too interested in starting a real war with ISIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/29/remarks-john-o-brennan-assistant-president-homeland-security-and-counter

 

Since taking office, President Obama has worked to restore a positive vision of American leadership in the world—leadership defined, not by the threats and dangers that we will oppose, but by the security, opportunity and dignity that America advances in partnership with people around the world. This has enhanced our national security in many areas against many threats.

 

Its not clear to me how recent events maintain this positive vision of American leadership.

 

Meanwhile, President Obama has placed the United States on the right side of history, pledging our support for the political and economic reforms and universal human rights that people in the region are demanding.

 

Orly?

 

When we fail to abide by our values, we play right into the hands of al-Qa’ida, which falsely tries to portray us as a people of hypocrisy and decadence. Conversely, when we uphold these values it sends a message to the people around the world that it is America—not al-Qa’ida—that represents opportunity, dignity, and justice. In other words, living our values helps keep us safe.

 

And anybody who disagrees will be subject to an IRS audit.

 

Our strategy is also shaped by a deeper understanding of al-Qa’ida’s goals, strategy, and tactics. I’m not talking about al-Qa’ida’s grandiose vision of global domination through a violent Islamic caliphate. That vision is absurd, and we are not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen. We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they are.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but AQ types capturing Baghdad would be a pretty significant milestone in establishing a pseudo-caliphate, given regional history.

 

Once again, Central Intelligence (or at least the top echelons who are allowed to visit the WH) are caught flat-footed. I wish the CIA would publish odds on racehorses and football games, so I could bet the other way and retire early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally defeating them is probably difficult, but they should be able to reduce the problem. All the press they have gotten have at least guaranteed american drones. Keeping them from rolling up 800 guys in pickups, or freely moving from Syria to iraq should do a lot.

In an ideal world, Obama's gambit of B-2s to forward basing in Europe would have been in response to Iraqi developments. A few carpet-bombings of the bad guys may have softened them up to the point where the Iraqi army felt confident they could clean up the remainder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the national security advisor is now usually a political appointee. I think that changed from someone who had come up the line in the CIA and intelligence to being appointees in the Carter administration, and its interesting to note the amount of intelligence failures that have occurred since then. For all its flaws the CIA prior to that point was pretty good at spotting trends. I don't suppose its entirely a coincidence.

Whether DNI is a political appointee or a "maverick" is possibly a distinction without a difference. Neither the Senate & House Intel committees nor the WH would accept a DNI who wasn't "in the Amen pew" on foreign policy matters relative to the prevailing DC mythology.

 

Which is why I think the CIA top brass was caught pants-down on the Soviet collapse. The consensus view in DC must have been that socialism was pretty effective and efficient, thus Russian claims of economic stats were believable, thus the Soviet empire was hale and hearty into the 1980s. Anyone in the CIA who posited that the Soviet economy was shite would have been laughed out of the conference room, career-limiting move, up until the Wall got knocked over (thanks to David Hasselhoff, PBTG).

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...