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.

 Hordini wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.

While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.

It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.

You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.

So you'd rather them attempt it, have it fall through when it inevitably gets left because of the will of the people, and then Sons of Iraq gets repeated? Because that's basically what would happen without some kind of binding legal agreement forcing them to stay there across multiple administrations until the end of the plan. Which would require a plan everyone is happy with. Which etc etc.

I'm really just saying how its a bit silly to say 'well they won't even try' when really any kind of positive outcome would require more than that.

 Hordini wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.

While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.

It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.

You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.

Good. Finally learning the lessons of history about sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

motyak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, do you think it's feasible to commit to the Kurds for like 20 or 30 years? Because, historically, we won't; in my opinion.

I think it's feasible in the sense that we would be capable of doing it if we actually wanted to, but realistically, I doubt the current administration has the will to commit to something like that.

While militarily you may be capable of it as a nation, politically you aren't. No one really is. All that would happen is that they go in with this administration, maybe the next one carries it on, then it starts to become a burden on the people, someone runs on a platform involving 'lets get out of this war, it doesn't really involve us at all anyway, our boys are dying for nothing', they'll get elected and do just that.

It might feel good to say 'well its the current admin's fault that they don't have the will to do it', but really it is irrelevant if it was Obama, Reagan, Nixon or Washington currently in office, your politics being as they are you can't commit somewhere for 30 years. It's the same as budget projections which go 20 years in the future or whatever, 'by 2030 we'll have XYZ'. Yeah, it sounds great, good job. But it is irrelevant because there'll be 4 swaps of power and about 20 budgets between now and then, so you are basically just shouting nice things loudly and hoping no one thinks things through.

You're most likely correct, but with the current administration we're unlikely to even attempt it.

So you'd rather them attempt it, have it fall through when it inevitably gets left because of the will of the people, and then Sons of Iraq gets repeated? Because that's basically what would happen without some kind of binding legal agreement forcing them to stay there across multiple administrations until the end of the plan. Which would require a plan everyone is happy with. Which etc etc.

I'm really just saying how its a bit silly to say 'well they won't even try' when really any kind of positive outcome would require more than that.

Doing nothing obviously isn't working. I don't want to attempt something and have it fall through. I want to attempt something and be more focused on doing the right thing rather than doing what is most politically expedient.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good. Finally learning the lessons of history about sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

My opinion is more along the lines of "you break it, you buy it." We have a responsibility to do the right thing. If we had really learned a lesson we wouldn't have been in such a rush to pull out so completely and irresponsibly, which is why we are in the position we are in now.

We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.

I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.

I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.

 Ouze wrote:
We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.

I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.

I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.

We aren't exactly going to war with nations anymore though. Nothing is that simple, and our primary enemies since 2001 have not been countries, but non-state aligned forces. Our responsibility is to the American people first, that's true. But we can't sit back and ignore things on the global stage. What's in the interest of the American people is America maintaining a position of global leadership and influence - this happens to be better for the world as a whole as well. It's not that America does everything good and is right about everything, because we absolutely do have problems and have made major mistakes, but more that the next closest up-and-coming options (countries like China and Russia) are way worse.

I'm not saying we need to do everything for the Iraqis, but leaving them high and dry the way we did was wrong, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.

Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .

 Ouze wrote:
Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .

Okay, that is fair, you are right about that. However, and I realize this is just my personal opinion, I feel like we could have pushed a little bit harder for a SOFA and probably could have gotten it. But since it wasn't going to be that easy, an opportunity was seen to wash our hands of the situation early, and that is what was done, rather than trying to encourage coming to an agreement on a SOFA.

 Hordini wrote:
That petty officer probably needs to do a bit more homework on the subject. There were more options than just "fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war." Not all of the militias are Al Qaeda affiliates.

There is only one option available to him. Fight who he is told to fight. I suppose a second option would be to find a way to get himself discharged from the Navy, but if he hasn't hit his 20 yet, that might not really seem like an option to him.

Troops don't get to choose who they will or will not fight along side during war.

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
That petty officer probably needs to do a bit more homework on the subject. There were more options than just "fighting for Al Qaeda in a Syrian civil war." Not all of the militias are Al Qaeda affiliates.

There is only one option available to him. Fight who he is told to fight. I suppose a second option would be to find a way to get himself discharged from the Navy, but if he hasn't hit his 20 yet, that might not really seem like an option to him.

Troops don't get to choose who they will or will not fight along side during war.

While you are correct, that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Well, lets not get bogged down in that; I was just using it as an example of how US intervention was a fairly polarizing idea. There definitely was at no point a clear, popular mandate for going into Syria.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.

I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.

I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.

We aren't exactly going to war with nations anymore though. Nothing is that simple, and our primary enemies since 2001 have not been countries, but non-state aligned forces. Our responsibility is to the American people first, that's true. But we can't sit back and ignore things on the global stage. What's in the interest of the American people is America maintaining a position of global leadership and influence - this happens to be better for the world as a whole as well. It's not that America does everything good and is right about everything, because we absolutely do have problems and have made major mistakes, but more that the next closest up-and-coming options (countries like China and Russia) are way worse.

I'm not saying we need to do everything for the Iraqis, but leaving them high and dry the way we did was wrong, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.

You really believe that we did not go to war with Iraq?

I really want to see some of those arseholes who were on the television prior to the Iraq invasion come out and say "Hey, you know what, it turns out we were totally wrong. Sorry!"

What a total clusterfeth of a situation.

 Ouze wrote:
Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .

Points to History.


Actually, the US has really left the Kurds to swing in the breeze on occasion.

I have to point out that sometimes the interests of the American people and the wishes of the American people are two different (occasionally opposite) things.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
We have a responsibility to do the right thing for the American people. Big chunks of the world are going to be relatively gakky places regardless of how many American kids we send to get blown up or how much of our treasury we empty, because the people that live there have gakky ideologies. I'm not an expert on history but I don't believe it's typically incumbent on the winning nation to rebuild the losing nation after a war.

I only support combat operations to the point that ISIL doesn't pose a threat to the American people, as Al Qaeda eventually became.

I'm way more interested in rebuilding Detroit than I am Baghdad.

We aren't exactly going to war with nations anymore though. Nothing is that simple, and our primary enemies since 2001 have not been countries, but non-state aligned forces. Our responsibility is to the American people first, that's true. But we can't sit back and ignore things on the global stage. What's in the interest of the American people is America maintaining a position of global leadership and influence - this happens to be better for the world as a whole as well. It's not that America does everything good and is right about everything, because we absolutely do have problems and have made major mistakes, but more that the next closest up-and-coming options (countries like China and Russia) are way worse.

I'm not saying we need to do everything for the Iraqis, but leaving them high and dry the way we did was wrong, and we're reaping the consequences of that now.

You really believe that we did not go to war with Iraq?

We were at war with Iraq for a little over a month (basically during the invasion). After that we were battling an insurgency and sectarian violence, but we weren't at war with Iraq as a nation after Saddam was out of power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Whoa whoa - we didn't leave them high and dry. They refused to sign the SOFA which required us to remove troops, otherwise I'm sure we'd still have at least some presence there now. .

Points to History.


Actually, the US has really left the Kurds to swing in the breeze on occasion.

I have to point out that sometimes the interests of the American people and the wishes of the American people are two different (occasionally opposite) things.

Exactly.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/isis-beheads-american-journalist-steven-sotloff-group-says

Apparently these melonfething gakheads have now beheaded a second American freelance journalist, and are threatening to execute a British captive if the US doesn't stop its air strikes.

All I can say is, why aren't we turning their main stronghold(s) into the world's largest man made firestorm yet?

Because... the Obama administration is paralyzed at the moment.

For good reasons too... there appears to be "no good answers".

If you bomb the shizzle out of ISIS, you're empowering Assad/Syria and Iran. If we maintain status quo with some drones here and there... you're empowering ISIS.

*shrug*

No good solutions really. Except maybe... maybe... open up an air base in Kurds territory to run sorties and arm the Kurds to the teeth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh...

ISIS won the coin toss and elected to receive:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Hey guys, remember what when we armed the Sons of Iraq? Whatever happened to those guys?

Another result of our completely hands off policy. They were primarily Sunnis. Once we left the Sunnis were pushed out of a lot of positions, like the Iraqi government and military officer corps (which is a big reason the Iraqi army is not an effective fighting force at this point).

The Maliki gov't had agreed to include them in certain things and to take over the payments we were making to keep them (at best) on the side of the Iraqi Gov't or at least neutral (not helping the AQI types or otherwise supporting anti Gov't of Iraq militias), he reneged on both those. They quit getting paid, and were mostly excluded from or diminished in Iraqi politics and oil funds caused them to not be too happy or supportive of Maliki and crew. When the opportunity to either passively, or in some cases actively, support (or at least tolerate) anti Maliki/anti-Shia forces in the form of ISIS/ISIL/IS some of them jumped on it.

So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.

CNN is saying a new video from ISIS just came in...

They beheaded the 2nd American prisoner that they have and are threatening to do the same to a Brit captive of theirs. I'm at work so will have to link to the article when I get home.

I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

 Frazzled wrote:
So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.

Not necessarily, first, the Sunni tribes making up the SOI were never Maliki's best allies, and second, they are not necessarily lopping heads, they just are not attempting to hinder those that are for the most part. Sure, some of them may have actively joined ISIS, but a lot more is a 'sure, screw Maliki, his gov't, and the camels they rode in on'.

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.

Not necessarily, first, the Sunni tribes making up the SOI were never Maliki's best allies, and second, they are not necessarily lopping heads, they just are not attempting to hinder those that are for the most part. Sure, some of them may have actively joined ISIS, but a lot more is a 'sure, screw Maliki, his gov't, and the camels they rode in on'.

Maliki is gone though...

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

No, but...

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

Equating an act of terrorism to a mugging is bad. Don't do it.

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

They allegedly did it in answer to US bombing, which would pretty much fit my definition of Act of War. So, yeah, in this case I would call it an Act of War, though from an enemy using asymmetric warfare against us.

The real questions in my mind are:

Other than retribution (for which I would personally support very targeted strikes and even 'boots on the ground' raids) what the heck is our national strategy for the region (to include goals and objectives), how does a couple journalists getting capped really affect that? Note that ISIS/ISIL/IS taking over towns and slaughtering hundreds to thousands of other folks didn't seem to merit more than strikes with the stated goal of 'protecting US personnel at our Iraqi embassy and consulate and where we have minimum risk aiding the humanitarian crisis'.

Do ISIS show intent and capability to strike actual US interests either home or abroad, and if so, what targets must go BOOM to destroy the capability and or change the intent?

What elements of national power (the whole DIME construct) can and should be used to further our national goals and objectives for the region and what strategies encompassing all of them would give us the best chance at achieving those goals and objectives (and this should go WAY beyond ISIS).

There are more. My opinion is Doing Something because Beheading! may be silly unless it either complements a much broader regional strategy or at least does not hinder a comprehensive regional strategy. And I want our national leaders to explain the whole deal to We the People.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.

Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So your best allies, if they aren't paid, are going to start beheading people? SOunds like a great country.

Not necessarily, first, the Sunni tribes making up the SOI were never Maliki's best allies, and second, they are not necessarily lopping heads, they just are not attempting to hinder those that are for the most part. Sure, some of them may have actively joined ISIS, but a lot more is a 'sure, screw Maliki, his gov't, and the camels they rode in on'.

Maliki is gone though...

He was not when the SOI guys and other Sunnis let ISIS in. And the new gov't has taken what actions to bring the Sunnis back into the fold?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.

Well... I'm sure if we wanted to, we could "Declare War" on a specific group, ie like we did with Al Queda. We just didn't formally "Declared War" via the constitution... just it was "authorized" by Congress.

I'm just trying to grasp the dfferences though...

If some group/state starts killing American citizen to "terrorize" at the US. Is that casus belli enough to go full-on engagements?

Or, should this be treated like a normal murder crime (ie, FBI investigates)???

EDIT: CptJake answered the call.

He was not when the SOI guys and other Sunnis let ISIS in. And the new gov't has taken what actions to bring the Sunnis back into the fold?

Why should they? If Sunnis want an independent "Sunnistan" ok. Not seeing how that relates to mass beheadings, crucifictions, etc. etc. Not seeing either the Kurds or the Shiites doing that.

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

They allegedly did it in answer to US bombing, which would pretty much fit my definition of Act of War. So, yeah, in this case I would call it an Act of War, though from an enemy using asymmetric warfare against us.

The real questions in my mind are:

Other than retribution (for which I would personally support very targeted strikes and even 'boots on the ground' raids) what the heck is our national strategy for the region (to include goals and objectives), how does a couple journalists getting capped really affect that? Note that ISIS/ISIL/IS taking over towns and slaughtering hundreds to thousands of other folks didn't seem to merit more than strikes with the stated goal of 'protecting US personnel at our Iraqi embassy and consulate and where we have minimum risk aiding the humanitarian crisis'.

Do ISIS show intent and capability to strike actual US interests either home or abroad, and if so, what targets must go BOOM to destroy the capability and or change the intent?

What elements of national power (the whole DIME construct) can and should be used to further our national goals and objectives for the region and what strategies encompassing all of them would give us the best chance at achieving those goals and objectives (and this should go WAY beyond ISIS).

There are more. My opinion is Doing Something because Beheading! may be silly unless it either complements a much broader regional strategy or at least does not hinder a comprehensive regional strategy. And I want our national leaders to explain the whole deal to We the People.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.

Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.

That was a bit of sloppy wording on my part, what I meant was that it's not as clear-cut whom to fight as with a nation-state.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I keep seeing/reading that this should be considered as an "Act of War".

Should it?

Is this different than, a journalist was killed in a mugging in... say Moscow?

In addition, an act of war by whom? I'm pretty sure the US doesn't recognize the IS as a sovereign state.

Well, I'm of the opinion that ISIS/IS wants to call themselves a "sovereign state" so we should treat these acts as though they were done by the government of France, or Germany, or the UK.

 CptJake wrote:


Non-state actors can't be involved in a war? That surprises me.

Me too.

I suppose it's a case of 'reality vs law' under the law, they're not supposed to be able to. In reality, it happens pretty much every war.



Personal opinion:

This is one of those cases where 'nation building'; is going to be required for any meaningful victory. Neither Assad nor Isis should be allowed to stay, but it's going to take careful planning to do it in a way that does not make things even worse.