The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Megathread

[Eddie Teach]

That Valmy, what a cut-up.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Naturally, we're a society of back-seat drivers and armchair quarterbacks. 

But the reason that became a consensus view is that it failed. I don't believe we ever reached a consensus on what in particular should have been done differently. I for one am not convinced the "more troops earlier" strategy would have made a tangible difference. (Mentioning that one cause I think Languish folks were bemoaning that the "Surge" came too late.)

I think the consensus was that the fundamental error was thinking that once we "won" the war, we would not need a significant and pervasive military presence throughout the country for the next year or two to provide security to develop a politically sound Iraqi security environment.

In hindsight, I think you can make a good argument that the lack of security in Iraq was not a matter of opportunity, and hence the idea that surge level of troops maintained consistently would not really have mattered, and at best would simply delay the inevitable reckoning to come. That Iraq itself is a essentially fake construct incapable of coherence absent overt oppression by some strongman. In that case, all this is just inevitable, and the only thing one can do is delay it. However, that argument concludes that even absent the war, what we are seeing now would happen eventually anyway. Saddam cannot stay in power forever, and if Iraq is fundamentally a failed state due to problems not solvable then the war was mis-guided, but ultimately that only hurt the US and our allies - the Iraqis were fucked one way or the other not matter what.

I belieev that is the fundamental problem here. We've been trying to prop up the state of Iraq.  The idea of there being an "Iraq" or an Iraqi national identity doesn't seem to exist on the ground.  It comes down to a juggling act.  We don't have an independent Kurdistan, especially a strong one. We don't want a large Shi'ite Arab population being an Iranian client state.  We don't want a military dictator imposing brutal order at the cost of freedoms.  We don't have our friends in the Gulf destabilized. Success would seem to be finding a gigantic pool of high quality crude oil under Nevada and never going back to the Middle East again.

[CountDeMoney]

The reason we thought it was worth trying was that we didn't understand how nations apart from our own work.

There were people who completely understood, they were just ignored.

Almost every expert I heard thought it was crazy.  I just hoped that the government knew something they didn't.  They failed for precisely the reasons the experts said: the tribal and ethnic situation was not conducive.

Which is why the CIA was punished, and the intelligence burden moved to the Pentagon.  Darth Cheney and Uncle Rummy saw to that.

[mongers]

USAF, more bombing please.



This is the first time I've asked today, right?

[Tonitrus]

USAF, more bombing please.



This is the first time I've asked today, right?

Don't be so pushy...we do what we can. 

[Admiral Yi]

Oz is sending 8 F18s, Canada is sending 50 advisors, UK is sitting this one out at the moment.

[Jacob]

Oz is sending 8 F18s, Canada is sending 50 advisors, UK is sitting this one out at the moment.

What's the US sending?

I know the answer is "most of it", but I haven't followed it closely - what sort of assets are involved right now from the US' side?

[Admiral Yi]

dunno

[Jacob]

dunno

Well that's two of us, then.

[Ed Anger]

Oz is sending 8 F18s, Canada is sending 50 advisors, UK is sitting this one out at the moment.

What's the US sending?

I know the answer is "most of it", but I haven't followed it closely - what sort of assets are involved right now from the US' side?

1 carrier air wing, f15E's from 48TFW. Unknown number of Global Hawk, Preadator and Reaper Drones.

Small number of Apaches at Baghdad airport.

[CountDeMoney]

Oz is sending 8 F18s, Canada is sending 50 advisors, UK is sitting this one out at the moment.

What's the US sending?

I know the answer is "most of it", but I haven't followed it closely - what sort of assets are involved right now from the US' side?

The USS George H.W. Bush has been doing some of the heavy lifting lately.

Kinda ironical how it's the Bush.  Maybe if Junior had read his book about why they didn't go to Baghdad in '91, it wouldn't be cleaning up after him.

[Ed Anger]

I want some hot AC-130 action.

[viper37]

Success would seem to be finding a gigantic pool of high quality crude oil under Nevada and never going back to the Middle East again.

Over the long term, abandoning oil subsidies and not giving the oil industry everything it asks for would be a start.  With that money saved, we invest in clean energy researches.  Over time, it will finish by paying off.  Exploiting oil fields in Canada&USA aren't really reducing our dependance on these countries, there's just no enough extractable oil in any given day for our internal demand.  Reducing demand is the only viable long term goal, imho.

It'll be a long hard ride, but we'll reduce the influence of oil countries politics in the middle east, give them less funds to finance terror groups wich in turn will have less money to operate with since non arabs will be less likely to be in these countries and get kidnapped in exchange for ransom.

[jimmy olsen]

Good

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2014/09/16/ap-sources-us-would-retaliate-against-assad

By JULIE PACE, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States would retaliate against Syrian President Bashar Assad's air defenses if he were to go after American planes launching airstrikes in his country, senior Obama administration officials said Monday.

Officials said the U.S. has a good sense of where the Syrian air defenses, along with their command and control centers, are located. If Assad were to use those capabilities to threaten U.S. forces, it would put his air defenses at risk, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity in order to discuss the administration's thinking on the matter.

President Barack Obama has authorized U.S. airstrikes inside Syria as part of a broad campaign to root out the Islamic State militant group, though no strikes have yet been launched in the country.

Asked Monday about the prospect of striking Assad's regime if his forces were to target Americans, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said there will be "rules of engagement that are related to any military orders the president directs."

"It won't surprise you to know that there are contingencies related to self-defense when it comes to these sorts of rules of engagement," he said.

The mere discussion of launching strikes in Syria has highlighted the complexity of taking U.S. military action inside a country locked in an intractable civil war. The conflict has created odd alliances, with both the U.S. and the Assad regime now fighting the Islamic State militant group.

However, U.S. officials have ruled out direct coordination with Assad and insist that a campaign against the Islamic State will not strengthen the Syrian dictator's hold on power. Obama is seeking congressional authorization to train and arm Western-backed rebels in the country in hopes they can both fight the Islamic State and eventually the Assad regime.

Officials said Obama has been making phone calls in recent days to lawmakers in both parties pressing for them to authorize the train-and-equip mission before lawmakers leave town Friday for an almost-two-month recess in preparation for November's midterm elections.

The rise of the Islamic State group has put Obama on the brink of being drawn into a Syrian conflict he has long sought to avoid. Administration officials have long insisted that one of their concerns with making airstrikes against the Assad regime is the government's formidable air defenses, which could put American forces at risk.

Those air defense capabilities are less prominent in the more desolate stretches of eastern Syria where U.S. warplanes are likely to fly in order to launch airstrikes. However, officials have said air defense systems can be moved and thus must be monitored as the U.S. mission ramps up.

[Jacob]

Probably surprising no-one - leading pundits and experts pushing for American boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq are paid directors and advisers to large private military contractor firms that would stand to gain financially from such a move.

http://www.thenation.com/article/181601/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits#