At the lowest cost in blood and treasure we can achieve.  We need to improve our method, in these regions...obviously.  Pulling out before the job is done doesn't save a dime or a pint of blood, it just floats the bill a few years down the road.  It's not a coincidence that we're back in Iraq.

Why they can't spend too much time worrying about the Kurds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41270791

Quote:Iraq: At least 60 die in twin attacks near Nasiriya

Quote:At least 60 people have been killed in two attacks in southern Iraq, police and health officials say.
A suicide bomber detonated a vest and gunmen opened fire inside a restaurant near Nasiriya, capital of Dhiqar province, security sources said.
Soon afterwards, a car bomb exploded at a nearby checkpoint.
So-called Islamic State said it carried out the attacks. Shia Muslim pilgrims including Iranians were killed by the suspected militants.

(September 16, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Khemikal Wrote: At the lowest cost in blood and treasure we can achieve.  We need to improve our method, in these regions...obviously.  Pulling out before the job is done doesn't save a dime or a pint of blood, it just floats the bill a few years down the road.  It's not a coincidence that we're back in Iraq.

Well, that presumes that we will go back in. We aren't, however, "back in Iraq". We never left the place. Yes, we've seen casualties go down very much.

I suspect that whenever we actually leave, it's going to go right to shit again, given the synthetic nature of its founding. We're even seeing that right now with the Kurds moving forward on their referendum even as Baghdad threatens action in the event it passes -- and that's with us there. We're about to be in a position where we will either abandon the government so many GIs died in the process of creating, or playing support in a shooting war with the only ethnic group that has co-operated with us.

How to Win Friends and Influence People©, am I right?

(September 16, 2017 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 12:54 pm)Khemikal Wrote: At the lowest cost in blood and treasure we can achieve.  We need to improve our method, in these regions...obviously.  Pulling out before the job is done doesn't save a dime or a pint of blood, it just floats the bill a few years down the road.  It's not a coincidence that we're back in Iraq.

Well, that presumes that we will go back in. We aren't, however, "back in Iraq". We never left the place. Yes, we've seen casualties go down very much.

I was referring to Iraq 1 and 2.  That we would end up going back in, if we left now, seems likely in light of the fact that we're already -on- that merry go round. If we cut and never came back, and we could do that - then we'd simply be failing those people and shirking whatever responsibility we have for their situation anyway.

Quote:I suspect that whenever we actually leave, it's going to go right to shit again, given the synthetic nature of its founding. We're even seeing that right now with the Kurds moving forward on their referendum even as Baghdad threatens action in the event it passes -- and that's with us there. We're about to be in a position where we will either abandon the government so many GIs died in the process of creating, or playing support in a shooting war with the only ethnic group that has co-operated with us.

We have to help both parties reach a different solution.  

Quote:How to Win Friends and Influence People©, am I right?

LOL, pretty much...but with bullets and dead people all over the floor.

(September 16, 2017 at 9:23 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 8:13 am)A Theist Wrote: The world is too intertwined with alliances, trading partners, international agreements and the like. What affects one affects all to the good or to the bad. We can hardly stay out of anything without breaking alliances and agreements. Isolation from the world around us wouldn't work to our benefit.

We do not have any alliance which compels our intervention in Syria. We do have one with Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, but absent those agreements, there's little of interest for us.

We do have alliances and business interests and trade with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, UAE who are at odds with the Bashar regime and its ally Iran. Could be that the U.S. and our mid east allies believe that it's in ours and theirs best interest to be there given Iran's and Syria's aggressive pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons, not to mention Syria using those chemical weapons against its own people.

No.  It's about oil.

(September 16, 2017 at 7:31 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 9:23 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: We do not have any alliance which compels our intervention in Syria. We do have one with Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, but absent those agreements, there's little of interest for us.

We do have alliances and business interests and trade with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, UAE who are at odds with the Bashar regime and its ally Iran. Could be that the U.S. and our mid east allies believe that it's in ours and theirs best interest to be there given Iran's and Syria's aggressive pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons, not to mention Syria using those chemical weapons against its own people.

Syria ain't pursuing anything but survival now, and that's been the case for the last six years. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (they already have chemical weapons, by the by) is not going to be slowed by engaging a regiment or two of the Revolutionary Guards in Syria; they have signalled recently that with our new sanctions Trump signed off on, they're going full-bore down that path.

Saudi is already too busy in Yemen to project force into Syria, rendering them irrelevant militarily. They do fund some rebels, to be sure, but clearly by their own operations they've shown that Syria is of lower priority. They, alongside the UAE, are also involved in a tense stand-off with Qatar as well. Our alliance with them is not worth much. We buy little oil from them any more and it is they who are on the hook to replace armaments stocks and combat losses.

Jordan we should continue to aid, no doubt. A semi-moderate Arab regime there is a toehold. We can do that without getting further into the Syrian conflict, though.

Israel can take care of itself.

As for the Assad regime using chemical weapons against its own people, of course that's awful. But how would the injection of a few American troops ameliorate that? Bear in mind, we can't really go in whole-hog; readiness levels, equipment standards, and other foreign commitments mean that a full-scale invasion of Syria is unrealistic. Is it sad he's a dick? Of course. But that is not what our political and military leaders are charged with. They are charged with advancing American interests.

---

(September 16, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I was referring to Iraq 1 and 2.  That we would end up going back in, if we left now, seems likely in light of the fact that we're already -on- that merry go round.  If we cut and never came back, and we could do that - then we'd simply be failing those people and shirking whatever responsibility we have for their situation anyway.  

Apologies for my misunderstanding, then. I see the two wars as pretty separate; the first fought to maintain a Kuwaiti presence in the oil markets (and ensuring low fuel prices here), the second being the tail wagging the dog. We've been at this second iteration for 14 years.

It's odd you'd say that "we'd be failing those people", though, when earlier in this thread you alluded to the fact -- and it is a fact -- that our country does not own all the blame for the shitstorm that is the Middle East.

It's a fair point you're making about shirking in one sense, but on the other hand, going back to your allusions regarding responsibility, at some point don't the people there have to decide to not kill each other over sectarianism and so on?

(September 16, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We have to help both parties reach a different solution.  

When folks don't want to listen, all the talking in the world won't do shit. You and I both know that they have to decide to stop killing each other over what group allegiance they hold, but the thing is, does our presence there advance that cause ... or does it simply give them a convenient target on which they can hone their skills so that when the fighting becomes infighting again -- as it surely will -- they will simply be more experienced?

(September 16, 2017 at 4:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: LOL, pretty much...but with bullets and dead people all over the floor.

In that case, let the flyboys handle business, and let's keep you grunts safe. We can airdrop lots of shit ... MK84s, Snakeyes, MOABs, food parcels ...

Someone needs to tell this moron he doesn't have any force.  The Kurds will kick his ass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/world...ubz=0&_r=0

Quote:Iraq Leader Says He Will Use Force if Kurdish Referendum Turns Violent

Maybe the WLB will send him a tweet?

(September 16, 2017 at 8:05 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Apologies for my misunderstanding, then. I see the two wars as pretty separate; the first fought to maintain a Kuwaiti presence in the oil markets (and ensuring low fuel prices here), the second being the tail wagging the dog. We've been at this second iteration for 14 years.

Our involvement in 1 put us in a situation where we were both committed -and- could be gamed in our commitment by a small portion of our own government - and that lead to 2.

Quote:It's odd you'd say that "we'd be failing those people", though, when earlier in this thread you alluded to the fact -- and it is a fact -- that our country does not own all the blame for the shitstorm that is the Middle East.

Why would that be odd?  We don't have to shoulder full responsibility, but we do have to shoulder some responsibility.  

Quote:It's a fair point you're making about shirking in one sense, but on the other hand, going back to your allusions regarding responsibility, at some point don't the people there have to decide to not kill each other over sectarianism and so on?

OFC.  

Quote:When folks don't want to listen, all the talking in the world won't do shit. You and I both know that they have to decide to stop killing each other over what group allegiance they hold, but the thing is, does our presence there advance that cause ... or does it simply give them a convenient target on which they can hone their skills so that when the fighting becomes infighting again  -- as it surely will -- they will simply be more experienced?

People getting routinely shot at are broadly open to suggestions as to how to end that, in my experience.  Sure, they might end up doing shitty things to each other if we refuse to leave.  Imagine what they would do to each other if we did.

Quote:In that case, let the flyboys handle business, and let's keep you grunts safe. We can airdrop lots of shit ... MK84s, Snakeyes, MOABs, food parcels ...

That -absolutely- doesn't work from a peacekeeping standpoint.  It's dehumanizing, and the locals don't build trust and relationships with the pilot/drone.  It's a good way to win a war, if you have the cash.....but it's a terrible way to build a nation. The latter is more like high risk community policing than warfighting. Imagine how americans would respond if the police were lobbing missiles through their kitchen windows with drones....all in the name of peace and order. I doubt they'd get much peace and order out of that, or much public sympathy.

That's why there's all the chatter about building a "new army" to match the changing conditions on the ground. The way we used to operate, and the euipment we used...meant to fight an all out conventional war with the soviets.......it;s not really useful in the sorts of engagements we've been getting ourselves into. The all out war mindset breeds terrorists and insurgents. The equipment isn't really designed to -handle- terrorists and insurgents.