The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[OptimusPrime]

What would you classify as an imminent threat? Should the US be able to defend its overseas interests? Should a nation have interests outside its own borders with regard to self-defense?

Do you believe that the Invasion of Afghanistan was a warranted move, insofar as the original intent to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that supported it?

An imminent threat is what it sounds like. An enemy is in route to attack United States territory. The U.S. shouldn't have overseas interests outside of embassies. We can't afford an empire on which the sun never sets.

Going after Al-Qaeda was fine. Invading and occupying a country that did not attack us was not. Going in there didn't accomplish anything with regards to destroying Al-Qaeda. It did wonders in recruiting for them though. If there was no other option than having troops on the ground, then send it some covert forces, kill as many people responsible for 9/11 as they can, and get the fuck out.

But Al-Qaeda was really incidental to us invading Afghanistan. Our government officials and their buddies make a lot of money on wars, and 9/11 was the perfect event to galvanize the country behind a new conquest.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Totally agree... But what is relevant to this thread is how much the United States should respond to this threat and how much resources we should pour into such an endeavour. Including the time, energy, and focus of the President.

One relevant point is that constitutionally, states have the primary responsibility for the police power. The feds can intervene to a limited extent when there is a civil rights issue, but it really is limited in that regard unless you have state-level defiance of federal law. That was an issue 50 years ago, but nowadays, you're basically seeing rogue individuals and occasionally rogue departments, not rogue states. That really limits the ability of the feds to impact police work on the state/local level beyond what is already done. We can sort of see this in terms of the limited impact the feds had in the Michael Brown case.

In contrast, foreign relations/national security are areas of concern expressly entrusted to the feds, where they have pretty much unlimited power.

In other words, the "walk and chew gum" argument is particularly strong when talking about these two issues specifically.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

However, with that, I totally reject the interventionist policies brought about since the 1950s. I am not for toppling stable governments for those that might be more ideologically favorable...

Unquestionably, there were aspect of our interventions during period that were flawed. But virtually all of them were in execution of a larger geopolitical strategy of containing/defeating communism. And I think that strategy overall likely was the right one. Absent the leadership role we took in that regard, I strongly suspect that Europe and the EU as we know it would not exist, and would have fallen under the sway, if not the outright control, of the Soviet Union. Probably the same with the Mideast,. And Japan, South Korea, and the Philipinnes also may have fallen under the sway of either China or the Soviets in the absence of demonstrated American resolve. We can't know for sure one way or the other, but I think there was a realistic possibility of a much darker world if we'd simply retreated.

 

[OptimusPrime]

Unquestionably, there were aspect of our interventions during period that were flawed. But virtually all of them were in execution of a larger geopolitical strategy of containing/defeating communism. And I think that strategy overall likely was the right one. Absent the leadership role we took in that regard, I strongly suspect that Europe and the EU as we know it would not exist, and would have fallen under the sway, if not the outright control, of the Soviet Union. Probably the same with the Mideast,. And Japan, South Korea, and the Philipinnes also may have fallen under the sway of either China or the Soviets in the absence of demonstrated American resolve. We can't know for sure one way or the other, but I think there was a realistic possibility of a much darker world if we'd simply retreated.

The Soviet Union was destitute. They contained themselves. All the U.S. did was manage to bankrupt themselves while the Soviets did the same.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The Soviet Union was destitute. They contained themselves. All the U.S. did was manage to bankrupt themselves while the Soviets did the same.

They were destitute in the late 80's, after having bankrupted themselves to keep up with the U.S. militarily for decades. But if you assume the scenario that we essentially retreated from the world stage from 1950's forward, they'd have had no real rival at all. Certainly none that would have forced them into large military expenditures financed by a limited Soviet economy. They may well have subverted then supported client states in the ME, gaining control over that enormous wealth that they could have used to bludgeon Western Europe, etc.. And again, we're talking about no restraints on both the Soviet Union and China, with what that may have meant for the entire Far East as well.

I'm not saying all that definitely would have happened, but it's sufficiently plausible and dangerous that I can't fault the various Administrations for deciding it was an unacceptable risk to take.

 

[Soda]

Soda, honestly bro, this is a distraction to the conversation; this isn't EAYOR.

Bro, I stopped including you in my conversation after you called me a racist. So, I'm not going to stop, nor am I concerned.

 

[gourimoko]

Bro, I stopped including you in my conversation after you called me a racist. So, I'm not going to stop, nor am I concerned.

Let me put it more clearly...

Stop cluttering the fucking thread. Seriously, you knew exactly what Optimus' point was, he provided not 1 but 8 examples to the support his point and you posted nonsense.

Thanks!

 

[Simon]

What the actual fuck.

 

[OptimusPrime]

On January 20, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and his Iranian counterpart, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, signed an intergovernmental agreement on “long term and multifaceted” military cooperation in Tehran, Iran. It is the first time in 15 years that a Russian defense minister has visited Iran and underlines the growing military and diplomatic ties between both countries united by their joint opposition to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle Eastern region and beyond.

According to Sputnik News, defense minister Hossein Dehghan is quoted as saying that during bilateral discussions, “the importance of the need to develop Russia and Iran’s cooperation in the joint struggle against meddling in the affairs of the region by external forces that are not part of it was framed.” Dehghan noted that they singled out the U.S. policy that “meddles in the domestic affairs of other countries” as a major reason for the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world today.

According to the Associated Press, Dehghan furthermore emphasized that, “Iran and Russia are able to confront the expansionist intervention and greed of the United States through cooperation, synergy and activating strategic potential capacities. … As two neighbors, Iran and Russia have common viewpoints toward political, regional and global issues.”

For example, Russia and Iran are both continuing their support of the Assad regime in Syria.

As of now, there are two major obstacles to deeper Iranian-Russian military cooperation. First, Moscow has to persuade Tehran to withdraw its lawsuit from the OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration Geneva. In 2007, Russia agreed to sell five S-300PMU-1/SA-20 Gargoyle SAM systems (40 launchers) to Iran for $800 million. However, as a consequence of a UN Security Council resolution of June 2010 imposing sanctions — which included a ban on the sale of modern weapons — on Iran over its controversial nuclear program, Russia cancelled the delivery of the missiles and stopped all military-technical cooperation. In return, Iran demanded $4 billion in compensation.

Interestingly, a resolution of this problem appears to be imminent: according to media reports both countries have agreed to settle their differences. No specific details have emerged so far.

Second, full-fledged military cooperation between Iran and Russia can only happen once UN sanctions have been lifted. This largely depends on Tehran’s willingness to reach a mutually acceptable agreement in the P5+1 negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Only then can full-fledged arms sales resume. In October 2011, Russia made its last and so far only public arms sale to Iran in the form of a radar-jamming station. Back in the year 2000, Iran was the fourth largest importer of Russian military equipment placing right after China, India, and the United Arab Emirates, buying 6.1 percent of Russia’s total arms exports. Sputnik News quotes the Center for the Analysis of World Arms Trade in Moscow, which estimated that the Russian defense industry has lost around $13 billion in arms sales due to UN sanctions against Iran.

For now, the military cooperation agreement focuses on deeper cooperation in the field of counter-terrorism, exchanges of military personnel for training purposes, and an increase in the number of reciprocal port visits by the Iranian and Russian navies. Russia’s stance vis-à-vis Iran is intrinsically connected to its relations with the Western world. Should NATO-Russia relations deteriorate further, Moscow will make an even stronger effort to improve ties with Tehran.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/russi...ampaign=buffer

I guess this is as good a place as any to put this. So, the Russo-Iranian alliance supports the Assad regime in Syria. The United States supports the Islamic State in Syria. The United States is also fighting the Islamic State in Syria, as well as the Assad regime. These Russians should understand that we are always one step ahead of them. These old school alliances mean nothing, because we are both the enemy and ally.

 

[Sebastian]

ISIS losing a lot of fighters on the ground. ISIS' appeal to volunteers is losing its shine.


"Washington (CNN)
The coalition fighting ISIS has killed more than 6,000 fighters, including half of the top command of the terror group, U.S. diplomatic officials said Thursday.
The number of fighters killed has not been publicly discussed before but was disclosed by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones, who told Al Arabiya television earlier in the day that an estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed. Jones said the military effort was having a "devastating" impact on ISIS.

The estimate was calculated by U.S. Central Command and finds ISIS fighters have been killed in Iraq and Syria by coalition airstrikes, according to a U.S. military official. CENTCOM has kept a running estimate of fighters killed, but has not made it public. U.S. intelligence estimates that ISIS has a total force of somewhere between 9,000 to 18,000 fighters. However, it is also believed the group can draw on thousands of other fighters whose loyalty shifts and could muster a force upwards of 31,000 total.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, would not confirm the 6,000 deaths estimate, instead saying "thousands" have been killed. On whether the body count is a sign of progress, Hagel said, "It's a measure but I don't think it's the measure."

"I was in a war where we did body counts and we lost that one," Hagel said, referring to his service in Vietnam.

Until now, the Pentagon has stayed away discussing the matter, other than to estimate that thousands of fighters may have been killed. Speaking to reporters Thursday, Rear Admiral John Kirby was adamant that the US is not keeping a "body count," and said it would be wrong to state that there is such a count. He called it a 'tally" and said the notion of a body count suggests Vietnam War era statistics. In that war the Pentagon offered body counts as a measure of its success against the Viet Cong. Kirby said the tally was not aimed at showing any metric of success against ISIS.

All of this comes after Iraq has criticized the U.S. for not doing enough to help their fight against ISIS. The U.S. has long said airstrikes are aimed at degrading ISIS as a threat, but would not by themselves get rid of the organization.
Secretary of State Kerry, speaking to reporters in London, echoed the U.S. ambassador in saying the strikes have "halted" ISIS momentum, and reclaimed "more than 700 square kilometers" from ISIS in Iraq.
In Iraq, airstrikes around Mosul have been stepped up significantly in support of Peshmerga fighters on the advance in the region. The effort now is to cut a key ISIS supply line into Mosul, a US military official said.
The official stressed the US cannot confirm the exact number but has based its calculation based on pilot reports, and other intelligence gathered about a target before and after a strike."

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/us-officials-say-6000-isis-fighters-killed-in-battles/

 

[Marcus]

The Kurds are whippin that ass (along with some help from coalition "advisors," of course). Good to see someone in that region taking a stand.

I wonder how this supposed operation this summer to retake Mosul is going to work out. There's going to be a nine brigade Iraqi army trained for it (numbering about 45,000 troops), and ISIS forces in Mosul are projected to be under 10,000. There's even speculation that the citizens of Mosul would step in and help the army retake the city if they felt that victory was attainable. Right now the Kurds have it surrounded, making it difficult for ISIS to reinforce and resupply the city.

It wouldn't necessarily be a death blow, but it would certainly be devastating to lose their capital city.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The Kurds are whippin that ass (along with some help from coalition "advisors," of course). Good to see someone in that region taking a stand.

I wonder how this supposed operation this summer to retake Mosul is going to work out. There's going to be a nine brigade Iraqi army trained for it (numbering about 45,000 troops), and ISIS forces in Mosul are projected to be under 10,000. There's even speculation that the citizens of Mosul would step in and help the army retake the city if they felt that victory was attainable. Right now the Kurds have it surrounded, making it difficult for ISIS to reinforce and resupply the city.

It wouldn't necessarily be a death blow, but it would certainly be devastating to lose their capital city.

Absolutely. But urban fighting is much less susceptible to air strikes -- it's why air strikes are a good tool for halting an advance, but not a very good one for reversing it. It's just easier to use air power effectively against troops attaching in the open than those hunkered down defense.

If there is a battle for Mosul, it'll be a great bellweather for how well the new Iraqi Army is doing, because urban warfare is about as nasty as it gets.

 

[macbdog]

The US General helping out there has pretty much said that the Iraqi government has to be the one to retake Mosul and that US combat help beyond training will not be provided. The Iraqis have an air force that we supplied- time to learn how to use it. No point in our forces retaking the city for the 3rd time in 11 years. Retaking Mosul is on the government there.

 

[Marcus]

Absolutely. But urban fighting is much less susceptible to air strikes -- it's why air strikes are a good tool for halting an advance, but not a very good one for reversing it. It's just easier to use air power effectively against troops attaching in the open than those hunkered down defense.

If there is a battle for Mosul, it'll be a great bellweather for how well the new Iraqi Army is doing, because urban warfare is about as nasty as it gets.

On top of that, you also have to factor in the huge civilian presence they have in Mosul. They're forbidden by ISIS to even leave the city.

However the coalition, Iraqi army, and whoever else chooses to proceed, they're going to be doing it with the utmost caution. They need to keep the civilian collateral damage as under control as possible, even for such a large scale operation.

Me personally? I'd send in special forces to soften them up and at least attempt to rally some kind of citizens' resistance, maybe a few days ahead of the main attacking body. At the very least, hit a few strategic targets and undermine the integrity of ISIS within the city's borders.

 

[Marcus]

Forgot to add to my previous post, but there also HAS to be an after-action plan for when they retake Mosul. The last time they took Mosul, it became a free-for-all because of the power void left there. Whether it's going to belong to the government, the Kurds, some combination of the two, whatever, they need to agree on it before they ever set foot inside the city.