No need to drive them further into Iran's arms. If we have a military presence there that they depend upon for survival, then we have leverage over them. If we don't then the Iranians have the leverage.
I understand that threat, but we should get a permanent base there or we shouldn't bother. The lesson is that they need us to make it and that'll still be the case after ISIS is put down. I wouldn't want to have to leave only to come back to take care of the next ISIS in 2 or 3 years after we are done.
I would have hoped for a permanent base the first time around, but honestly, as long as we have the Kuwaitis eternally in our pockets, it's not really necessary. But it would be helpful. The article mentioned Al Asad. I've never been there, but it sounds promising. I'd want something with lots of storage facilities that we could use to preposition equipment (say, an armored brigade's worth) where we could surge in troops if needed. And air strips, of course. Maintain with rotations of Army and Air Force personnel, wouldn't need that many. But too late now. It ain't happening. Best we can hope for is the opportunity to take down ISIS.
Remember we still have Ali Al Salem, Buehring, and Arifjan in Kuwait. We can do most of what we need to do with that. Not sure why we aren't leveraging it now.
Welcome to Extremistan The threat and promise of the fracturing of the Middle East. ... For example, when looking at the situation in Syria and Iraq, Judeh offers a clear-eyed depiction of the situation on the ground. While explicitly opposing partition of these two countries he notes that in fact, they both have been divided up by circumstances and demographics in a similar way. "In Syria, from the north, down along the Mediterranean coast and all the way to the south you have what you might call Regime-istan. It is controlled by Assad and extends to the Golan Heights because he feels it is convenient to maintain the possibility of provoking or confronting Israel. In the northeast you have an area controlled by Kurds, a Kurdistan. And then in the south you have Sunni-stan, which itself is divided, partially controlled by militants in the east and southeast into what you might call Extremist-stan." "You have a similar thing in Iraq," Judeh observes, "From Baghdad south to the Gulf, you have Shiastan. In the north, Kurdistan. And the rest is divided Sunnistan with Extremist-stan, controlled by ISIS, in the northwest and west, extending from Mosul into Syria." While this fragmentation has come at a huge cost, it has also made it possible to see more clearly who is who, what alliances are possible, and where core challenges lie. For example, there is the collaboration of the United States and the Kurds and the recognition within Baghdad that some concessions to the Kurds will be needed in order to ensure the defeat of IS. Perhaps more importantly, there is the recognition that the Sunni areas -- Sunnistan -- are not monolithic. For now, Extremistan is only part of it. And this drives home a vitally important message: Not only is it is essential to defeat IS and other extremists -- both militarily and by cutting off their sources of funding -- but an organized political alternative to IS must be offered within Sunnistan and as Judeh points out, "this must be linked to effectively empowering Sunnis within the Iraqi political process." Full Story: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/20/welcome_to_extremistan_iraq_islamic_state_sunni_islam_moderates Food for thought. Worth the read.
From the previous article, I wanrt to quote this passage, too: Further, in a remarkable, as yet undocumented, not fully understood development, the mission against is the Islamic State is being undertaken by what might be called the Alliance Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken. It brings together -- with a level of coordination that must be greater than anyone will publicly admit -- the very strangest of battlefield bedfellows: the United States, the Kurds, the Iraqi regime, Iran, Russia, some NATO assistance, and Bashar al-Assad's regime. It has the tacit support of everyone from Israel to (most of) the Gulf Cooperation Council. The perceived level of threat from IS has the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia characterizing it as "enemy number one of Islam." More broadly, worldwide, countries like China, India, and the countries of the European Union recognize this threat. Setting aside the bizarre reality that the Iraqi government, put in place by the United States, is flying Russian-made planes in consultation with Iranian leaders with the support of the United States, the Peshmerga, and the Syrian air force, there is an opportunity for progress against this threat here. I have said it a couple of times already - President Obama has a real and significant opportunity her to do something that is both right and significant. The polls are even behind him - and the support is bipartisan. ISIS is probably the ONLY thing that virtually the entire world agrees roughly on. Will he lead a coalition to dismantle this evil? Or will he chicken out and pass the buck? So far, he is half-a$$ing it. But can you imagine what sort of goodwill we could build by working with all of these actors to defeat a common enemy? Such actions are the foundation of establishing good relations. This holds out the potential to kill a LOT of foreign policy birds with one stone - if only the White House recognizes the opportunity and seizes it. I am not a fan of POTUS, but I would support him 100% in such an effort, and he would win my kudos. Which should be reason enough, eh?
Most of them are peaceful. but... Washington (AFP) - Some 12,000 foreign jihadists from 50 countries, including Americans, have gone to fight in Syria since the conflict began, the US State Department said Thursday. http://news.yahoo.com/americans-among-12-000-foreign-fighters-syria-us-225059981.html those muslims will come back, and they will be loud and will want to continue withe their actions! they will try to pasuade others to join them, in their cause.
I agree with this. We should have a clear scope for our efforts there and, IMO, it should be mostly limited to air support, with ground troops to protect our assets at the air bases.
Good article on how by supporting expanded bombings in Iraq you're really just supporting one group of scumbags over another group scumbags. 'Just a few strikes': Iraq militia wants help from old US foe http://news.yahoo.com/just-few-strikes-iraq-militia-wants-help-old-141717981.html Jurf al-Sakhr (Iraq) (AFP) - Iraq's Mahdi Army fought US troops to the death in past years, but now some members of the rebranded Shiite militia say they could do with a little help from their old foe. Jurf al-Sakhr is a sprawling patchwork of orchards and palm groves south of Baghdad irrigated by the Euphrates River, but the beauty of the scenery belies the deadliness of one of Iraq's most relentless battlefields. Positions are hard to hold and weeks of military yo-yo between Islamic State (IS) jihadists and pro-government forces, including the Saraya al-Salam (Peace Brigades), which counts many Mahdi Army members among its fighters, have killed hundreds and produced no victor. A campaign of US air strikes in the north, however, has helped flagging Kurdish troops regroup and allowed them to go on the offensive, whetting the appetite of other anti-IS forces for similar assistance. "I fought the American occupation in 2004 and up to 2006," Saad Thijil, 30, said near a bombed-out building in Jurf al-Sakhr, his rifle strapped behind his back. "Now of course, we need US support, especially their military advisors." "But we don't want any troop presence in Iraq," he added. In 2004, fiery young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr unleashed the Mahdi Army militia against US troops, mainly in the poor Baghdad district of Sadr City and in the holy city of Najaf, farther south. Sadr and his militia played central roles in the wave of sectarian bloodshed that peaked in 2006-2007, but he eventually froze the militia's activities in a move the US credited with sharply reducing violence. When jihadists who had held parts of Syria for months swept across swathes of Iraq in June this year, Sadr announced the formation of the Saraya al-Salam, a group he said would be tasked with defending the holy sites of Shiite Islam. Jurf al-Sakhr is strategically vital because it buffers the holy Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala south of Baghdad from militant-held areas west of the capital. Hassan is a 27-year-old from Baghdad and works as an air marshal on a commercial airline. When he is not flying, he spends a few days as a volunteer with Saraya al-Salam. "Just a few air strikes, you know," he said, puffing on a slim cigarette. "Not too many, we must win this battle by ourselves, but some support would be welcome, especially in this place." Bullets at least did not look to be in short supply as Saraya al-Salam leader Hakim al-Zamili visited the Jurf al-Sakhr front line this week, with some fighters burning off entire ammo belts to greet his convoy. Discipline and sheer determination are some of the factors that have consistently made the IS look like the best fighting force in Iraq over the past two and half months. IS "is strong because they are tough and they believe in a cause," Zamili told some of his field commanders gathered in a local command centre. "The fighters they run up against should also believe in something and be even tougher," said Zamili, who was accused of running a death squad that abducted and executed hundreds of Sunnis between 2005 and 2007. Zamili, now a lawmaker, was cleared in court but as pressure mounts on the US to expand its strikes beyond north Iraq, helping the ex-Mahdi Army does not appear to be high on the list. US President Barack Obama justified launching air strikes earlier this month by pointing to a threat to US personnel in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region and the risk of genocide against minorities. "We don't want the Americans to come back to Iraq, we don't want a new occupation, we just want their support in the form of air strikes," Zamili told AFP as he toured the Jurf al-Sakhr front line. When Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government first requested US air strikes in June to reverse the debacle of disintegrating Iraqi federal forces, David Petraeus, a former commander-in-chief of US-led forces in Iraq, warned against America becoming an "air force for Shiite militias". Some of the most battle-hardened fighters among Saraya al-Salam's disparate ranks were adamant, however, that any battle won with US support would be half lost. "We don't need America. We are brave people, we have enough weapons and experience," said Ali Abu Hassan, who heads an elite unit in the militia. "I consider anyone asking for US air strikes a traitor to Iraq."
Well... This is just peachy: ISIS an 'Incredible' Fighting Force, US Special Ops Sources Say With the Obama White House left reeling from the "savage" slaughter of an American journalist held hostage by ISIS terrorists, military options are being considered against an adversary who officials say is growing in strength and is much more capable than the one faced when the group was called "al Qaeda-Iraq" during the U.S. war from 2003-2011... "These guys aren't just bugging out, they're tactically withdrawing. Very professional, well trained, motivated and equipped. They operate like a state with a military," said one official who tracks ISIS closely. "These aren't the same guys we fought in OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) who would just scatter when you dropped a bomb near them."... "They're incredible fighters. ISIS teams in many places use special operations TTPs," said the second official, who has considerable combat experience, using the military term for "tactics, techniques and procedures." In sobering press conference Friday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said ISIS has shown that it is “as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen.”... “One official told me ‘I am more scared than at any time since 9/11,’” Kean recounted in a recent interview. A spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence defended the intelligence community’s tracking of ISIS, saying officials had “expressed concern” about the threat as far back as last year... In the battle against ISIS, many within American "SOF," a term that comprises operators from all branches of the military and intelligence, are frustrated at being relegated by the President only to enabling U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. They are eager to fight ISIS more directly in combat operations -- even if untethered, meaning unofficially and with little if any U.S. government support, according to some with close ties to the community. "ISIS and their kind must be destroyed," said a senior counterterrorism official after journalist James Foley was beheaded on high-definition ISIS video, echoing strong-worded statements of high-level U.S. officials including Secretary of State John Kerry. But asked when the Obama administration would attempt to confront ISIS, the official declined to answer. Full Story: http://news.yahoo.com/isis-incredible-fighting-force-us-special-ops-sources-183719521--abc-news-topstories.html So. Basically, our intel services been really worried about these guys since last year (although apparently POTUS wasn't), they're far more capable than we'd imagined, our SOF are itching to engage them, but they're not being allowed to. One hand tied behind our backs. We never win wars that way.
Used to be we wanted to bomb them, punish them for using poison gas. That was *so* 2013. Out: bombing the Assad regime. In: acting as the Assad regime's OSR agency. My, what a difference a few beheadings and genocide attempts can make: US giving Syria intelligence on jihadists, say sources The United States has begun reconnaissance flights over Syria and is sharing intelligence about jihadist deployments with Damascus through Iraqi and Russian channels, sources told AFP on Tuesday. "The cooperation has already begun and the United States is giving Damascus information via Baghdad and Moscow," one source close to the issue said on condition of anonymity. Full Story: https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/561546-us-giving-syria-intelligence-on-jihadists-say-sources Makes sense to me. Perhaps if he wanted to bomb the right people a year ago we wouldn't be going through this now?
This article raises some interesting points. The Problem With Bombing ISIS ...Bombing ISIS fighters from the air and arming moderate rebels to attack them from the ground may sound attractive. But not if we can’t really tell them apart. Then there’s America’s second potential ground ally in Syria: Bashar al-Assad. He commands a far more unified and effective fighting force than do the “moderate” Syrian rebels. He’s less of a threat to the United States than is ISIS. And he’s even preferable morally—in a Stalin versus Hitler kind of way. Some current and former British politicians now propose allying with the Syrian regime, at least in order to ensure that if American and British warplanes enter Syria to bomb ISIS, Assad’s anti-missile systems won’t shoot them down. Full Story: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-problem-with-bombing-isis-in-syria/379081/ At this point I am OK with aligning with Assad. If we are going to conduct an air campaign there, then at the least we do NOT want his S300 batteries targeting us (they are very capably AA systems, the best the Russians will sell anyone internationally). The enemy of my enemy is my friend... At least for now. Assad's a POS and his time will come. But there are worse people to deal with, and Assad represents one of the best ways we have right now to kill them. And yeah. I'm basically talking about acting as Assad's air force.
I think one of the biggest mistakes of the Obama Admin. was insisting unequivocally that Assad had to go. There was a compelling interest in getting rid of Assad's chemical weapons, which has now been accomplished, but tying that to regime change was a bigger problem given the complexities of the situation that we now see. It's possible that ISIS could be the factor that leads to some sort of peace between most of the differing parties but that will be difficult if the official policy is that Assad has to go. As far as Assad's AA capability they are formidable but since the US would be targeting areas that aren't under Assad's control they aren't likely going to be an issue. Further the US doesn't have to be Assad's air force to carry out air strikes. Assad can just turn a blind eye to US involvement or raise token rhetorical resistance. This doesn't have to be an enemy of my enemy is my friend but that enemy of my enemy is worse so I'm just going to ignore my enemy for now.
We have spent billions and billions arming and training selected regional powers to react to exactly this type of event. There is no winning position here, we should step back and either get results from the money we spent or learn not to spend it that way anymore. If Kuwait, Saudi, Turkey or a country we have formal relations with or defense treaties with is directly threatened, that's another issue.
There is a term that is generally applied to gambling, but should be memorized by all the people who advocate further involvement in Iraq. Stop throwing good money after bad.
Of course it was. We were focused on the wrong a$$hole. The whole "red line" thing was dumb, dumb, dumb. And completely avoidable. Assad has never been a threat to us. On the other hand, the Islamists are a threat to everyone. Several of us pointed out - all along - that the so-called "moderates" are nothing of the sort. They are for the most part Muslim Brotherhood fighters who aren't quite as bat$hit crazy as the ISIS people are, but in the end they all want the same thing. It was always a dumb idea to go after Assad and support the "moderates". At the beginning of the conflict - say, first 3-5 months - there were forces there who were actually fairly moderate, but we obviously missed that window. It didn't take long for the Islamists to steal the show. Did you see this yet? Syrian Rebels Seize Border Crossing With Israel Syrian rebels, including fighters from an al-Qaida-linked group, seized control of a frontier crossing with Israel in the Golan Heights on Wednesday after heavy clashes with President Bashar Assad's forces, activists and rebels said. The capture of the post along Syria's de facto border in the Golan held more symbolic value than strategic, but rebels said it would provide relief to nearby villages that were under siege by government troops. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said an array of rebel fighters, including from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, took the crossing after heavy fighting that left at least 20 Syrian soldiers and an unknown number of rebels dead. Full Story: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israeli-officer-wounded-fire-syria-25141007#.U_32Lqc6w8w.twitter Note that the supposedly "moderate" FSA that we want to back just conducted a joint operation with the Al-Qaeda wing in Syria, the Nusra Front. And next: Syria conflict: UN peacekeepers held in Golan Heights Forty-three UN peacekeepers are being held by an "armed group" in the Syrian Golan Heights, a UN spokesperson says. The UN Disengagement Observer Force (Undof) personnel, from Fiji, were detained near Quneitra, during fighting between rebels and government forces... Activists said the rebels included members of the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. Full Story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28972436 This is really pushing up on Israel's doorstep now. That is NOT a good development, and the so-called "moderates" aren't acting all that moderate right now. There really aren't any "good guys" left in syria to support. although I am sure that Kerry will find a few to give weapons to anyway. It seems to be a pet project of his. I don't think Assad would mess with us, and I won't hold my breath for Kerry to hop over there and have a strategy meeting with him (but... sadly enough I could see something like that happening - Kerry is an unimaginable tool when it comes to photo ops and "bridge-building"). Don't need to. So I'd tend to agree.
