Iraq: Out of the desert into Mosul (closed)

[TheCurmudgeon]

The situation between Red China and Japan stands on its own. All this stuff happens to be happening at the same time.

We are all bound to wait and see at least until the beginning of 2017. The current administration will do nothing but wait and see.

My point is nothing but thinking and figuring can be done until then and I would be pleased if you professional soldier guys started contemplating.

I disagree with your base assumption that the current administration will do nothing. I actually believe the current administration is acting far more prudently than the previous administrations that, arguably, are directly responsible for ISIS having a slice of Iraq.

Most of us are always contiplating what can be done. That is not the real question. The question is what SHOULD be done. We can kill AQ or Taliban leadership with drones. The question is, should we? What is the result? Who comes next? Is that better, or worse, than the previous option?

At this point a number of entities that I would like to see weakened are fighting amongst themselves. While I am obviously interested in the situation, I do not see any reason to alter the dynamics, particularly if we really want a long-term presence in Iraq. My guess is that we will use Drones. I sincerely hope that we do not get involved at all at this point.

Yes, this is a bit of a game of chicken, but I am still in favor of watching things unfold for a bit longer before taking any action.

I am still of the opinion that it is easy to lead a jihad, it is harder to govern a large territory. That we can do more to weaken ISIS by letting them try to hold and govern a swath of Syria/Iraq than we can by giving them the moral victory of being engaged directly by the Great Satin (ops, wrong group).

Particularly when the stories leak out of how life really is in an ISIS controlled area. My guess is that fewer people in the Levant will be interested in coming under their control once they see how they actually rule.

[OUTLAW 09]

I disagree with your base assumption that the current administration will do nothing. I actually believe the current administration is acting far more prudently than the previous administrations that, arguably, are directly responsible for ISIS having a slice of Iraq.

Most of us are always contiplating what can be done. That is not the real question. The question is what SHOULD be done. We can kill AQ or Taliban leadership with drones. The question is, should we? What is the result? Who comes next? Is that better, or worse, than the previous option?

At this point a number of entities that I would like to see weakened are fighting amongst themselves. While I am obviously interested in the situation, I do not see any reason to alter the dynamics, particularly if we really want a long-term presence in Iraq.

Yes, this is a bit of a game of chicken, but I am still in favor of watching things unfold for a bit longer before taking any action.

We lost our ability to "influence" Iraq with the 2005 national elections--when 60% of the country is Shia, the Shia won the election, and their neighbors Iran and Syria are Shia---where is there a snow balls chance in heaven in "influencing".

Example---we fly our entire drone fleet and park it over Iraq---we decimate ISIS and the other Sunni tribes, but who in the end gains--Malaki who is "our true friend" while the Iranian Republican Guard troops and SF troops sent by Iran to help him to remain where--in and near Baghdad---what happens then to "influence"?

After 4.7K KIAs, thousands of WIAs, 34B in equipment and training and trillions in rebuilding efforts if that does not gain us any "influence" then it is time to go home for good and let the three ethnic entities settle the problem themselves.

At some point they will and yes Russia and Iran will come out smelling like roses and the oil flowing will go to China and Russia even though those in the Bush second administration did promise us the American taxpayer that hey the Iraqi oil would pay for our trillions we spent. Yeah right?......that happened with that idea? Maybe the paintings of our previous President if sold at auction might cover some of the VA hospital costs.

[ganulv]

We lost our ability to "influence" Iraq with the 2005 national elections--when 60% of the country is Shia, the Shia won the election, and their neighbors Iran and Syria are Shia---where is there a snow balls chance in heaven in "influencing".

The Syrian government is in Alawite hands, but 3/4 of the Syrian population is Sunni.

[OUTLAW 09]

The Syrian government is in Alawite hands, but 3/4 of the Syrian population is Sunni.

The country is still the last time I checked 13 June 2014 it is still in the hands of Shia (Alawite's are a sub Shia grouping) with Iranian and Russian support---correct?

[carl]

I disagree with your base assumption that the current administration will do nothing. I actually believe the current administration is acting far more prudently than the previous administrations that, arguably, are directly responsible for ISIS having a slice of Iraq.

Over the next 2.5 years we will see what will happen. I judge that whatever comes along, this administration will react with prolix inaction. I figure all the Putins, takfiri and Red Chinese killers of the world judge the same.

Most of us are always contiplating what can be done. That is not the real question. The question is what SHOULD be done. We can kill AQ or Taliban leadership with drones. The question is, should we? What is the result? Who comes next? Is that better, or worse, than the previous option?

Could or should, I don't care what you chose to call it. I would be pleased if you guys start thinking hard about how things will look in 2017, because nothing much will be done by us till then. Answer all those questions you posed.

Your opinion of the efficacy of drones in killing leadership is wildly optimistic I think. In Iraq for example, how are we going to find the targets? Before the end of 2011 we had multitudes of people on the ground working closely with multitudes of Iraqis to find targets. That structure isn't there now. Besides the ISIS captured helos and AAA which means no Pred ops. Reapers might do ok but again how will they find targets? MO and the current AQ top guy still live on year after year.

At this point a number of entities that I would like to see weakened are fighting amongst themselves. While I am obviously interested in the situation, I do not see any reason to alter the dynamics, particularly if we really want a long-term presence in Iraq. My guess is that we will use Drones. I sincerely hope that we do not get involved at all at this point.

One of those sides is going to win, or both sides will come to an accommodation. That accommodation may be a de-facto takfiri killer state encompassing part of Syria and Iraq. Do we want that? You don't see any reason to alter the dynamics. That's fine, for now. But how about in 6 months, a year?

We can fly drones around but they won't have a clue what to shoot at.

Yes, this is a bit of a game of chicken, but I am still in favor of watching things unfold for a bit longer before taking any action.

Fair enough. How much longer? What kind of action? It will be 2017 before anything can be done, what will be needed then?

I am still of the opinion that it is easy to lead a jihad, it is harder to govern a large territory. That we can do more to weaken ISIS by letting them try to hold and govern a swath of Syria/Iraq than we can by giving them the moral victory of being engaged directly by the Great Satin (ops, wrong group).

Particularly when the stories leak out of how life really is in an ISIS controlled area. My guess is that fewer people in the Levant will be interested in coming under their control once they see how they actually rule.

You underestimate the power of well run police states to establish power and endure. They kill enough people and suddenly life under them isn't so bad anymore. History is filled with examples of long lived regimes whose people lived really stinko lives.