Posted on Apr 19, 2016
10
10
0
Possibly a slightly more balanced view of the story - with some interesting side links (and it's got an link to a quiz to test how much you actually know about Daesh).
PS - Approximately 200 troops does NOT constitute a MAJOR increase in troops. Adding 200 troops to the troops already in Iraq means that the troop strength is being increased by around 5.1%. Describing this as a "major increase" is pure, unadulterated, 100% genuine "hype" of the type generally found at the south end of a north bound horse.
PS - Approximately 200 troops does NOT constitute a MAJOR increase in troops. Adding 200 troops to the troops already in Iraq means that the troop strength is being increased by around 5.1%. Describing this as a "major increase" is pure, unadulterated, 100% genuine "hype" of the type generally found at the south end of a north bound horse.
Why the US is sending more troops and helicopters to Iraq (+video)
Posted from csmonitor.com
Iraq
Politics
Geopolitics / International Relations
ISIS
Deployment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
1
1
0
In such limited numbers it is my belief we are setting them up for failure or worse. Globally we all either respond with a dedicated effort to destroy them or simply give it up. The work load, separation and danger in these limited numbers without the full support network is a recipe for failure and frankly we are now an embarrassment among many of our allies.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO3 Brad Phlipot - PO; The problem is that you cannot destroy an idea (no matter how wrong the idea is).
However, what you CAN do is reduce the number of people who believe the idea to the point where the idea simply disappears on its own. You don't find very many people who believe in "Philostogen" these days, nor do you find very many active worshippers of "Baal".
However, what you CAN do is reduce the number of people who believe the idea to the point where the idea simply disappears on its own. You don't find very many people who believe in "Philostogen" these days, nor do you find very many active worshippers of "Baal".
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
It's difficult to view any personnel increases in a balanced way. The current administration had the benefit of analyzing the mistakes and successes of the last 30 year in dealing with this problem. We tried disengagement after action in Iraq and Afghanistan before with disastrous results. Why did they think this time would be any different? They were handed a situation where they only had to maintain the peace and they wasted it. The tremendous sacrifice by the US military in securing that peace was thrown out the window.
They are now repeating the Clinton mistakes of half measures. When you attack an enemy you do it in an overwhelming way. You don't give them any time to do anything else but fight for survival. You don't just wound them and hope that they go away.
IS doesn't want direct engagement with the US for decades. They want a Caliphate. Once they realize that the US won't let that happen, and that they have nothing to lose, they will throw caution to the wind and we'll have another 9/11 or worse.
They are now repeating the Clinton mistakes of half measures. When you attack an enemy you do it in an overwhelming way. You don't give them any time to do anything else but fight for survival. You don't just wound them and hope that they go away.
IS doesn't want direct engagement with the US for decades. They want a Caliphate. Once they realize that the US won't let that happen, and that they have nothing to lose, they will throw caution to the wind and we'll have another 9/11 or worse.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
COL Ted Mc, thank you for your insight. I wasn't there, neither were any of my friends, thank God. I can only analyze the aggregate of the information that is available to me and try to weed out the blatantly false. Frontline's "Losing Iraq" had a certain ring of truth. It aligned with other information that I had access to. Peace in Iraq has to be looked at in relative terms. For about two years before all hell broke lose again, murders were more common in Chicago than most major Iraqi cities. At least as reported. Perhaps you're right and the perceived relative stability was just an illusion.
But what wasn't an illusion is that instead of promoting and preserving stability in surrounding countries, turbulence was fomented. From Egypt, to Syria, to Libya inexplicable alliances and actions were taken by the US when I would have thought that preserving the status quo would have been desirable. Why set more fires while your trying to get Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized? Why encourage Iranian Shiites to interfere in Iraq when Sunnis are already being ostracized? Did the administration think that they would just lay down and take it?
As for the 0.00083%... You are right, we need to keep things in perspective. However, it bugs me when our president talks in terms of existential threats. That has never been the bar in protecting US lives and interests. I'm not promoting the idea of going nuts over a handful of lost lives. But the US needs to continue to protect lives and interest by any "smart" means necessary. Those who wish to do us harm need to understand that there will be a quick and harsh price to pay. That helps to keep us safe. When we are seen as paper tigers Americans suffer.
But what wasn't an illusion is that instead of promoting and preserving stability in surrounding countries, turbulence was fomented. From Egypt, to Syria, to Libya inexplicable alliances and actions were taken by the US when I would have thought that preserving the status quo would have been desirable. Why set more fires while your trying to get Iraq and Afghanistan stabilized? Why encourage Iranian Shiites to interfere in Iraq when Sunnis are already being ostracized? Did the administration think that they would just lay down and take it?
As for the 0.00083%... You are right, we need to keep things in perspective. However, it bugs me when our president talks in terms of existential threats. That has never been the bar in protecting US lives and interests. I'm not promoting the idea of going nuts over a handful of lost lives. But the US needs to continue to protect lives and interest by any "smart" means necessary. Those who wish to do us harm need to understand that there will be a quick and harsh price to pay. That helps to keep us safe. When we are seen as paper tigers Americans suffer.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Mark Ramos - Sergeant; The "paper tiger" analogy isn't quite correct because the "paper tiger" has NO ability to do actual harm.
Even though "bear" is usually used to describe the Russians, in many ways that is appropriate for the US as well - big, apparently bumbling, and capable of doing one heck of a lot of harm if it actually attacks.
On the other hand ever the Grizzly Bear gives the Wolverine a wide berth when possible.
Even though "bear" is usually used to describe the Russians, in many ways that is appropriate for the US as well - big, apparently bumbling, and capable of doing one heck of a lot of harm if it actually attacks.
On the other hand ever the Grizzly Bear gives the Wolverine a wide berth when possible.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
COL Ted Mc, It was a reference to how the US is seen when our response is weak. After the misguided half measure in Somalia bin Laden saw US soldiers as "paper tigers". We all know that was a miscalculation; but it's an example of how perceived weakness translates into instability and danger for US interests.
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
http://www.meforum.org/435/usama-bin-ladin-american-soldiers-are-paper-tigers
Usama bin Ladin: "American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers"
Usama bin Ladin: "American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers" :: Middle East Quarterly
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Mark Ramos - Sergeant; Don't take any comment by anyone that is to the effect that the United States of America CANNOT do any damage to them seriously.
A statement to the effect that the US doesn't have the resolve (at the government level) to do them any damage is something else again.
Bears are experienced enough to avoid wolverines and to take them seriously if they cannot avoid them, tigers aren't.
A statement to the effect that the US doesn't have the resolve (at the government level) to do them any damage is something else again.
Bears are experienced enough to avoid wolverines and to take them seriously if they cannot avoid them, tigers aren't.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Here's a thought that may sound old fashioned or possibly "unrelated" to the action being taken.
Small unit tactics could be considered petty and insignificant in the total scheme of battle and war. Ever wonder why some fail more than others? Sometimes small minds and gigantic egos get the best operation wiped out. A few years ago, a senior military officer told a top administration official, " Keep your f.....g mouth shut". I was alone when I read this or someone close may have thought I had won the lottery. I yelled, " bout time " and clapped for a minute. I had seen this often since September 11, 2001 and finally blew a gasket. Awwwww Little's over-reacting again!! If over-reacting will save a life, save a squad, a team or 200 Iraq bound troops, I'll run my mouth until the realization that there is a most reverent comsec time to understand that " loose lips sink ships. Good friend of mine named " Pinball " from Smoke Bomb Hill would go ballistic if he read where the most minor violation of that code caused the least bit of loss for any military unit. Can't say as I blame him , can you?
Small unit tactics could be considered petty and insignificant in the total scheme of battle and war. Ever wonder why some fail more than others? Sometimes small minds and gigantic egos get the best operation wiped out. A few years ago, a senior military officer told a top administration official, " Keep your f.....g mouth shut". I was alone when I read this or someone close may have thought I had won the lottery. I yelled, " bout time " and clapped for a minute. I had seen this often since September 11, 2001 and finally blew a gasket. Awwwww Little's over-reacting again!! If over-reacting will save a life, save a squad, a team or 200 Iraq bound troops, I'll run my mouth until the realization that there is a most reverent comsec time to understand that " loose lips sink ships. Good friend of mine named " Pinball " from Smoke Bomb Hill would go ballistic if he read where the most minor violation of that code caused the least bit of loss for any military unit. Can't say as I blame him , can you?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 (Join to see) - PO; If you are suggesting that the ROE needs to have a bit of "operational slack" built in, then I agree with you.
In the type of war that the US and its (actual) allies are engaged, "Small Unit Tactics" are of PRIMARY importance. (Admittedly I may be using a slightly broader definition of "small unit" than you were originally thinking of.) This is NOT a "Generals' War", this is a war against small units, locally led, with high INITIAL morale and (in general) low INITIAL fighting skills. The MILITARY conflict can be won at the Platoon, Company, and Battalion level. The civil conflict can't.
Not only that, but the mind-set required to win the civil conflict is NOT the same mind-set that is required to win the military conflict.
However, if over-reacting will LOSE a life, save a squad, a team or 200 Iraq bound troops, then everyone had better learn NOT to "overreact" when there is no actual tactical/strategic benefit to be gained from it.
In the type of war that the US and its (actual) allies are engaged, "Small Unit Tactics" are of PRIMARY importance. (Admittedly I may be using a slightly broader definition of "small unit" than you were originally thinking of.) This is NOT a "Generals' War", this is a war against small units, locally led, with high INITIAL morale and (in general) low INITIAL fighting skills. The MILITARY conflict can be won at the Platoon, Company, and Battalion level. The civil conflict can't.
Not only that, but the mind-set required to win the civil conflict is NOT the same mind-set that is required to win the military conflict.
However, if over-reacting will LOSE a life, save a squad, a team or 200 Iraq bound troops, then everyone had better learn NOT to "overreact" when there is no actual tactical/strategic benefit to be gained from it.
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Ted, the thrust of the comment was aimed primarily at " the openness with which we broadcast our troops movements. As for ROE, The only people who should be privy to that are the "flagpole and the bush" I have family who were at JASOC and SOCOM and I didn't actually know that until they returned. Not to disparage our Combat Arms at all, but years ago I was thinking( still dangerous today) ; we have the FINEST Special Ops and the use of them would be productive like no other. In reality, I don't know how prolific they are used, but I strongly recommend their talents.
Wouldn't it be superb if we could actually gage, to the T, the "down side" or the "up side" of OPSEC and COMSEC?
Why is it necessary, other than keeping those in the NTK realm, appraised of every damn movement we make, to talk so easily about troop movements, how many dies today. As for the civilian versus combat conflict. I do not support the " caution " in the op order that states " Only move 3 miles into enemy territory, as beyond that point is sacred religious ground". Thats where your enemy will set up his mortars, or big guns.
Judging the advantage of strategic or tactical actions would be better determined by those who have seen similar actions result in negative'/positive actions. When a civilian ties the hands of the combatant, and the combat leaders have to give up any advantage gained due to the ties, how is the negative effect graded? If OPSEC and COMSEC were of no use, then why bother to form an opinion.
Wouldn't it be superb if we could actually gage, to the T, the "down side" or the "up side" of OPSEC and COMSEC?
Why is it necessary, other than keeping those in the NTK realm, appraised of every damn movement we make, to talk so easily about troop movements, how many dies today. As for the civilian versus combat conflict. I do not support the " caution " in the op order that states " Only move 3 miles into enemy territory, as beyond that point is sacred religious ground". Thats where your enemy will set up his mortars, or big guns.
Judging the advantage of strategic or tactical actions would be better determined by those who have seen similar actions result in negative'/positive actions. When a civilian ties the hands of the combatant, and the combat leaders have to give up any advantage gained due to the ties, how is the negative effect graded? If OPSEC and COMSEC were of no use, then why bother to form an opinion.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google