ISIS on the move - Attacking Ramadi

[Gazrok]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/middleeast/iraq-isis/index.html

This containment policy is not working. We need to let our guys do what they need to do, to destroy their ability to wage war.

 

[jimLE]

only if it was right to wipe out the whole city(s) their in..

 

[Gazrok]

Well, we let them take the city. So, this whole containment strategy is not working folks.

Once they are in, you can't take them out without collateral damage. (and they know it, and count on it).

 

[Gazrok]

I just spoke with someone with a bit more intimate knowledge of what's going on over there. Turns out, same thing happened here as has happened all over in Iraq. Even though the military well outnumbered and had better equipment than ISIS, the Iraqi soldiers basically dropped their weapons and ran when faced with ISIS. Apparently, not just Iraq, but this is really common in the Middle East in general. I suspect we'll see SOME mention of this in the coming days, though as usual, they won't call much attention to it.

It's why we can NEVER leave the Middle East, and MUST establish more bases there if we are to protect our own interest...as we certainly cannot rely on our Middle Eastern allies to do so. (especially when they are allies only because we put them in place after ousting the last bad guys....)

 

[Gazrok]

They've taken another city...in Syria.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/middleeast/isis-syria-iraq/index.html

This was (early this morning) on the front page, but quickly was buried in the regional section on CNN's site.
I guess the Administration doesn't want this in our faces.

The more we twiddle our thumbs, the more ground they gain, and more entrenched they become.

And no, I'm not saying to send in ground troops. It really isn't needed. An air campaign WILL work, if they pick the right targets.

 

[Gazrok]

I've been over it and over it in my head, and I'm usually pretty good at analyzing the political endgame....but with ISIS, I'm just not seeing whatever long term strategy the US is playing at. Our actions here simply do not make any political or strategic sense to me.

Some other pawn is not yet in place. It's the only thing that makes any sense. There's a missing piece to this puzzle that hasn't been moved on the board yet.

 

[jontte]

your admin doesn't want to admit that only aerial strikes don't give the results...and I don't wanna be disrespecting to your pres,but he seems unwilling to do anything against his islamic chums..

 

[Gazrok]

Air strikes COULD do it, but only if they pick the right targets. It wouldn't eradicate them (you need boots on the ground for that)...but, it can certainly halt expansion and shrink the area of containment by destroying armor, weapon emplacements, income generators, command and control centers, airfields, etc. (this would effectively limit their supply lines, so shrinking their area of influence)

I get that politically, we NEED ISIS right now....

1) Keeps the situation in Syria hostile enough to prevent the Syrian President's agreement for the Russian Natural Gas pipeline to actually happen.

2) Keeps Arab coalition partners awake at night, and more willing to cooperate rather than see ISIS enter THEIR country.

3) Is building a basis for eventually establishing permanent US bases in Iraq and other neighboring countries (which is the ONLY way to really keep the peace there after this is all over).

Simply put, the Arab coalition partners' troops have always been poorly trained, poorly equipped, and quite honestly, pure cowards...even when they had numbers and equipment advantages. They simply don't want to fight fanatics. They drop their guns and run...and there really isn't anything that will change this.

Mark my words, if we ever truly do want to finish it, we will eventually NEED to put American and European boots on the ground. However, there is a LOT of enemy softening that can be done well in advance of this need, to truly minimize risk and exposure here.

Then, to prevent ISIS from reforming, there will have to be a US/European ongoing and permanent military presence (i.e. bases), or the second we leave, we just open up the same can of worms.

To that end though, we need to be COMPENSATED for doing so. Not just the goodness of our hearts here. No reason to expect us to spend billions so they get all the benefit. No frickin' way.......

That all said, allowing ISIS to continue to expand territory seems counter-productive to our goals. We certainly have the power in the region to prevent it, so why aren't we? The ONLY reason I can fathom is that some players aren't playing ball, so we're letting them see what happens. Only thing I can think of that makes sense.

 

[psalm 7]

We should have built 3 permanit bases in Iraq one in each region . Use them for FOB,s and stationary air craft carriers , Training bases . What ever we wanted to use them for . We have bases in other parts of the World why would we not want bases in the Worlds hot bed ? Isis will be looking at Lebannon soon . Large population of Christians there . Lots of weapos to capture . The Lebonease will not run like the Iraqies do .

 

[jontte]

nope the Lebanese will fight!

saw in a news report,don't know who it was,but it was an US general who said;you can't fight with those iraqis, first sign of problem and they run..

 

[bill harrell]

I've been over it and over it in my head, and I'm usually pretty good at analyzing the political endgame....but with ISIS, I'm just not seeing whatever long term strategy the US is playing at. Our actions here simply do not make any political or strategic sense to me.

Some other pawn is not yet in place. It's the only thing that makes any sense. There's a missing piece to this puzzle that hasn't been moved on the board yet.

I'm not seeing it either. I look and play out the scenarios every conceivable way I can contrive and ...no go.it is like an intentional loss . I don't know ....he must have been that kid in school eating crayons and paste we all made fun of

 

[Brent S]

Air strikes COULD do it, but only if they pick the right targets. It wouldn't eradicate them (you need boots on the ground for that)...but, it can certainly halt expansion and shrink the area of containment by destroying armor, weapon emplacements, income generators, command and control centers, airfields, etc. (this would effectively limit their supply lines, so shrinking their area of influence)

I get that politically, we NEED ISIS right now....

1) Keeps the situation in Syria hostile enough to prevent the Syrian President's agreement for the Russian Natural Gas pipeline to actually happen.

2) Keeps Arab coalition partners awake at night, and more willing to cooperate rather than see ISIS enter THEIR country.

3) Is building a basis for eventually establishing permanent US bases in Iraq and other neighboring countries (which is the ONLY way to really keep the peace there after this is all over).

Simply put, the Arab coalition partners' troops have always been poorly trained, poorly equipped, and quite honestly, pure cowards...even when they had numbers and equipment advantages. They simply don't want to fight fanatics. They drop their guns and run...and there really isn't anything that will change this.

Mark my words, if we ever truly do want to finish it, we will eventually NEED to put American and European boots on the ground. However, there is a LOT of enemy softening that can be done well in advance of this need, to truly minimize risk and exposure here.

Then, to prevent ISIS from reforming, there will have to be a US/European ongoing and permanent military presence (i.e. bases), or the second we leave, we just open up the same can of worms.

To that end though, we need to be COMPENSATED for doing so. Not just the goodness of our hearts here. No reason to expect us to spend billions so they get all the benefit. No frickin' way.......

That all said, allowing ISIS to continue to expand territory seems counter-productive to our goals. We certainly have the power in the region to prevent it, so why aren't we? The ONLY reason I can fathom is that some players aren't playing ball, so we're letting them see what happens. Only thing I can think of that makes sense.

I think you're on the right track with us wanting our Arab 'friends' needing to feel the heat before we come to the rescue. I know the American people are tired of all the costs of war, but I think there's more to it than that keeping us less involved. We are probably waiting for our 'allies' to come begging for help and more willing to concede to whatever it is we think we want.
I am only sure of one thing here. Whatever morons that think removing foreign leaders and leaving chaos is a good thing should be shot. I still can't believe we want Assad out. When are we going to learn to stay the heck out of others countries buisness. I have no problem when the country is killing or warring with innocents, but just because we don't like their ideology? I've said before that I don't think Husain was the best humitarian around, but Iraq was a whole lot better off with him than they have been since we removed him.

 

[psalm 7]

We dont stay out of other Countries buisness because they do not stay out of ours . People forget that Sadam was on the short list when he was trying to shoot down U.S and alli planes before WMD's were ever mentioned . The same WMD's that he used on the Kurds and was found in war heads during the war and now in Assads hands and Isis suposedly overtaking areas that have some of Sadamms nerve gas stock pile . Sadamm got what he got but we should have made ourself at home and moved in . One tactic we used in Faluga , Ramadi was over night build bases in the city , Jahdist wake up and are facing a U.S operation base in their back yard . That draws the bad guys out to fight . Thats what we should have done on a Country wide grand scale and stayed there .

 

[Gazrok]

Saddam got it because he was trying to bring down the US Petro Dollar. We want Assad because he agreed to let the Russians put in a natural gas pipeline (same reason Russia took the Ukraine). Any other reasons given are just smokescreens. We pretty much baited Saddam into going into Kuwait, and he took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Brent S]

Saddam got it because he was trying to bring down the US Petro Dollar. We want Assad because he agreed to let the Russians put in a natural gas pipeline (same reason Russia took the Ukraine). Any other reasons given are just smokescreens. We pretty much baited Saddam into going into Kuwait, and he took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but there's no doubt that the powers that be do all kinds of things that are never brought out in the daylight. It amuses me that the president gets the blame or credit for most things. I don't think he's the driving force behind most things, but is just a figure head to distract the public. There are lots of people that have been in power for a long time, the president is just 8 yrs at the most.

 

[Gazrok]

Despite what folks think, the US is not in the business of world policeman. If we get involved, you can be sure there is a vital interest there somewhere that has a financial/power basis. Wars aren't fought over ideas....they are fought over control of resources. An idea associated with a war, is simply a smokescreen to galvanize the people behind you.

Even the fanatics behind ISIS...their goal is to expand their power base and control the resources of the Middle East. No doubt, they'll use their ideology to recruit the weak-minded, but their goal is certainly controlling these resources.