Like Fallujah before it....

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WarOne**

Oh good. I didn't want to see Clinton get the blame as he gave us Al Gore and by extension, the Internet.

**Mr Morden**

Only one action destabalised the area so much and created a power vacuum, the invasion by the US

I would have thought the Invasion of Kuwait by Sadam did that - provoking the International response and the subsequent wars against Iraq?

**Ketara**

Bullockist wrote:

I think the important factor to think on is would the area be so destabalised that small organised groups could gain significant power before the US invasion?I doubt it. Only one action destabalised the area so much and created a power vacuum, the invasion by the US. Without the power vacuum, ISIL (yes that's its fething name) that was created then it would have been virtually impossible for ISIL to gain traction. What's the lesson for everybody? feth with some countries internal politics and more than likely you will not get the result you want.
Hopefully this is learned before my country gets dragged into ANOTHER pointless war.

I'm afraid it's not so simple. You're assuming that the equation is 'America does not invade Iraq = Saddam Hussein is still in power, and everything would have been identical to the way it was before America invaded'. But that's faulty logic. World events aren't an equation, and you can't judge things in perfect isolation like that.

For example, what if Saddam died of a heart attack a year and a half ago, and the country fell into civil war over the succession? Who's to say that Iran might not have had another war with Iraq in the meanwhile, and won? Perhaps Saddam would have tried launching missiles at Israel again, and had the crap bombed out of him in retaliation as a result?

You can sit there and play Guess Who history all day. But causation is not so easily assessed and pinned down. And nobody on this planet that I know of has the ability to truly see what 'might' have been.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
"You told us to feth off, so we fethed off. Now you feth off."

Can't really say I disagree too much there.

Pretty much where I am too

Automatically Appended Next Post:

-Shrike- wrote:
Note to self: spell Shi'ites with an apostrophe to avoid this situation..:

To avoid the jokes, or the executions?

**Jihadin**

State Department has a hand in it to

**schadenfreude**

WarOne wrote:
So who do we blame for this? Regan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., or Obama?

Clinton is cool so he gets a pass.

Paul Bremer is the man who transformed Iraq into the nation that greeted American troops as liberators into the nation it is today.

Bush appointed the idiot.

**WarOne**

There has to be more history behind the man. What else did he do?

**Kilkrazy**

All this crap started in the Great War.

Unless you want to go back 1,000 years.

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:
All this crap started in the Great War.

Unless you want to go back 1,000 years.

I reckon we can blame it all on King Mesh-ki-ang-gasher myself.

**Ahtman**

This is all due to the end of the Hyborian Age.

**Mr Morden**

Ahtman wrote:
This is all due to the end of the Hyborian Age.

I blame Cthulhu............

**Jihadin**

I blame Western thinking

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
All this crap started in the Great War.

Unless you want to go back 1,000 years.

Its all Alexander's fault.

FYI but I don't think Turkey will allow and independent Kurdestan.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
All this crap started in the Great War.

Well, of course. I can't think of any substantial permanent changes that were wrought by our involvement in the So-So War.

**Jihadin**

Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
All this crap started in the Great War.

Unless you want to go back 1,000 years.

Its all Alexander's fault.

FYI but I don't think Turkey will allow and independent Kurdestan.

If Kurdestan boundaries involve only on Iraq land and not any of Turkeys

**Ahtman**

Source

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An offensive by insurgents that threatens to dismember Iraq seemed to slow on Saturday after days of lightning advances as government forces regained some territory in counter-attacks, easing pressure on the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

As Iraqi officials spoke of wresting back the initiative against Sunni militants, neighboring Shi'ite Iran held out the prospect of working with its longtime U.S. arch-enemy to help restore security in Iraq.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday he was reviewing military options, short of sending troops, to combat the insurgency. The United States ordered an aircraft carrier moved into the Gulf on Saturday, readying it in case Washington decides to pursue a military option after insurgents overran areas in the north and advanced on Baghdad. (Full Story)

Ships like the USS George H.W. Bush, which are equipped with sophisticated anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, are often used to launch airstrikes, conduct surveillance flights, do search, rescue, humanitarian and evacuation missions, and conduct seaborne security operations, a U.S. defense official said.

Thousands of Iraqis responded to a call by the country's most influential Shi'ite cleric to take up arms and defend the country against the insurgency, led by the Sunni militant Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

In a visit to the city of Samarra, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki vowed to rout the insurgents, whose onslaught has put the future of Iraq as a unitary state in question and raised the specter of sectarian conflict.

The militant gains have alarmed Maliki's Shi'ite supporters in both Iran and the United States, which helped bring him to power after invading the country and toppling former Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.

...

IRAQI ARMY COUNTER-ATTACKS

Security sources said Iraqi troops attacked an ISIL formation in the town of al-Mutasim, 22 km (14 miles) southeast of Samarra, driving militants into the surrounding desert on Saturday.

The army also reasserted control over the small town of Ishaqi, southeast of Samarra, to secure a road that links the city to Baghdad and the cities of Tikrit and Mosul farther north.

Troops backed by the Shi'ite Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia helped retake the town of Muqdadiya northeast of Baghdad, and ISIL was dislodged from Dhuluiya after three hours of fighting with tribesmen, local police and residents, a tribal leader said.

In Udhaim, 90 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, Asaib and police fought militants who earlier occupied the local municipal building, an official there told Reuters, and they directed mortar fire at the government protection force of the Baiji oil refinery, Iraq's largest.

Masked jihadists under the black flag of ISIL aim to revive a medieval caliphate that would span a fragmenting Iraq and Syria, redrawing borders set by European colonial powers a century ago and menacing neighbors like Iran and Turkey.

Obama cautioned on Friday that any U.S. intervention must be accompanied by an Iraqi government effort to bridge divisions between Shi'ite and Sunni communities.

Just bits and pieces of longer article.

**Supertony51**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
I'm saying, this, for the the blood, sweat and tears we spent in this war, was bugging out like that the smart thing to do? You'd think the commanders on the ground can give the politicians what it would take to gracefully exit Iraq and give the Iraqis a fighting chance to survive on their own. Was the question even asked?

Lets say you go to a casino, and make a bet, and lose. Now you're down $10. You better keep betting, forever, while you still have money, because they more you bet - and the more you lose - the more invested you are in not having all of your time and money having gone to waste if you walk out a loser.

At some point you need to cut your losses. Iraq would be screwed up if we stayed there another 5 or even probably 10 years.

So far as "was the question even asked", of course it was asked and it's a silly partisan move to even pretend it couldn't have been. This President and any other President would prefer a clear victory versus walking away to a huge disaster. However, at some point you have to weigh the lives of the US troops yet to arrive in country against the sacrifices that came before them.

I spent a good portion of my adult life in that shithole, and im not in the least bit suprised that this is happening.

Anyway, best Idea would have been to work out an Agreement with Kuwait to host a rotating combat brigade to handle stuff like this as it happend in Iraq....but nope guess the Administration is content in letting the whole thing fall apart.

**Jihadin**

Iraq said no to SOFA and extension so I much rather be best friends with Kuwait and Qatar

**whembly**

Jesus...

ISIS is executing Shi'ite...

I won't post the pics... but, they're here.

I can't but help to be seeing this as similar to the holocaust, German soldiers massacring Jews anyone in their path for world dominance. God have mercy.

**AgeOfEgos**

If ISIS gets control of the country, they will make Saddam look benevolent. They're one step above cavemen, the main difference being they have more advanced weaponry. It's a perfect storm of dogmatic faith and poverty, where every 20 year old male is given a rifle and told he's special. Those photographs are very disturbing Whembly (but I believe they should be viewed so the world understands the monsters Iraq is confronting), I appreciate you not posting them here--and to anyone else in the thread, please do not hotlink to them. I normally do not advocate violence but I admit after reading over the past few days and viewing the suffering these bastards are dealing out--I'm for sending in the planes/helicopters. It's not Rwanda yet but I have a feeling it could be.

I think it's rather critical, given the demographics of Iraq, that we prevent ISIS from establishing control. Hell, 50% of the country is under the age of 23 IIRC and almost 90% of that age distribution is literate. That's a good sign, provided they do not grow up in a society where the curriculum centers around Islamic fundamentalism.

**d-usa**

It's a double edges sword for me.

On one hand it seems like we should help, because Iraq doesn't appear to be able to deal with them.

On the other hand, the fact that Iraq is fethed up enough to let this happen in the first place while also being completely powerless to do anything about it makes me think that there is nothing existing there to prevent the next group from rising up as soon as we are done and it makes me think that helping now would just end in a neverending cycle of "bomb, leave, bomb, leave, bomb, leave".

So do we let the place burn itself now or later?

**djones520**

The question isn't will it burn itself. These guys have made it absolutely clear that their end state is to attack us. They are our enemies. If they take control of that nation, we've got another Afghanistan Pre-9/11 right there, except this time they'll have readily exploitable resources (oil) to fund their war against us.

And we also know that Afghanistan will not be long in following down this road. We left Iraq with a capable military. It's not our fault their President dismantled it after we left. Afghanistan doesn't even have that right now...

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
The question isn't will it burn itself. These guys have made it absolutely clear that their end state is to attack us. They are our enemies. If they take control of that nation, we've got another Afghanistan Pre-9/11 right there, except this time they'll have readily exploitable resources (oil) to fund their war against us.

And we also know that Afghanistan will not be long in following down this road. We left Iraq with a capable military. It's not our fault their President dismantled it after we left. Afghanistan doesn't even have that right now...

But if we intervene, does that make their military more capable, does it make their President more pro-US and less anti-whatever the hell he is now?

I think that's where Obama is coming from when he basically says "Give us any reason to think that the same gak won't happen again if we bail you out now. If you can't then you are on your own."

**Ahtman**

If anyone reads the article I posted Iraq is finally starting to make some headway in slowing the advance and the US has sent carriers to the area.

**Jihadin**

They rolled in Forced and stopped. They did not do a sweeping advance forward.

They should have kept freaking going till they hit a MLR

Edit

One US aircraft gets nailed by a SAM then its propaganda time for ISIS

**Ahtman**

Jihadin wrote:
One US aircraft gets nailed by a SAM then its propaganda time for ISIS

I imagine hitting an aircraft carrier with a surface to air missile would be newsworthy.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
djones520 wrote:
The question isn't will it burn itself. These guys have made it absolutely clear that their end state is to attack us. They are our enemies. If they take control of that nation, we've got another Afghanistan Pre-9/11 right there, except this time they'll have readily exploitable resources (oil) to fund their war against us.

And we also know that Afghanistan will not be long in following down this road. We left Iraq with a capable military. It's not our fault their President dismantled it after we left. Afghanistan doesn't even have that right now...

But if we intervene, does that make their military more capable, does it make their President more pro-US and less anti-whatever the hell he is now?

I think that's where Obama is coming from when he basically says "Give us any reason to think that the same gak won't happen again if we bail you out now. If you can't then you are on your own."

We set conditions to the intervention. "This time, don't remove the only competent people you have running your military." This should not require anything close to what we did before. ISIS hold is tenuous, as Ahtman is pointing out.

In my eyes though, we need to show the world (and Iran) that we WILL support Iraq. While we may have left them to stand on their own two feet, we shouldn't abandon them if they stumble. Not after everything we did to the nation. If we step in, help them stomp ISIS, we show other groups that Iraq won't be an easy ride. We show them that we'll be there to step in Afghanistan as well.

**d-usa**

Yeah, there should definetly be some serious conditions to make sure this doesn't happen again.

No "thanx , bye, get out" from Iraq if they want our help.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
Yeah, there should definetly be some serious conditions to make sure this doesn't happen again.

No "thanx , bye, get out" from Iraq if they want our help.

Hey... when it all comes down to it, we just need to blame Joe Biden for it.

What did people expect when he went onto national TV spouting off about how Iraq was going to be the greatest success story of this administration. I mean come on, it's impossible for the guy to be right, so he basically fethed the country right there.

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Yeah, there should definetly be some serious conditions to make sure this doesn't happen again.

No "thanx , bye, get out" from Iraq if they want our help.

Hey... when it all comes down to it, we just need to blame Joe Biden for it.

What did people expect when he went onto national TV spouting off about how Iraq was going to be the greatest success story of this administration. I mean come on, it's impossible for the guy to be right, so he basically fethed the country right there.

So Biden saying something is the political equivalent of hiring Sean Bean and and thinking that character is going to stay alive?