Deploying Apaches To Mosul Brings Real Risk Of A Ground Fight

I agree sir. But as the article states what happens if one gets shot down. Another "blackhawk down" scenario? Is this the politicians way of getting boots on ground? Like you said sir, what is the desired end state.

Hezbollah, the same group suspected of killing our 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers in Beirut in 1983 now has, for the time being, functioning M1a1 Abrams tanks that were acquired by the Iraqi Army. I bet their support platoon mechanics are getting killed off so who knows how long they will work. We should have given a terms of use agreement to the Iraqis to avoid giving our tanks to our sworn enemy, Hezbollah, and a beyatch of Iran.

The book about Vietnam, Strategy of Defeat discussed the folly of air power alone to win in Vietnam.

I agree they can help LTC Stephen F. but is the risk worth the reward. With the known knowledge of the terrorists having the capabilities to bring down an aircraft makes the decision very difficult I am sure. We don't need Mosul being like Mogadisu.

SGT Jonathon Caldwell - I doubt they would be using Blackhawks in urban areas. We have learned a lot since Operation Restore Hope and Mogadishu, Somalia.
The A-10s and Apaches would have a freer reign of operations that they did under the restrictions in Operation Restore Hope which is why snipers were critical to that operation.

I agree sir there is no clear end state to the decision.