US sends more military advisors to Iraq

[webfact]

US sends more military advisors to Iraq

WASHINGTON: -- The US has sent 130 more military advisors to the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says.

The marines and special operations forces will assess the humanitarian situation and will not be engaged in combat, a US defence official said.

The US has been carrying out air strikes against fighters from militant group Islamic State (IS).

IS fighters have forced tens of thousands to flee their homes.

"This is not a combat boots on the ground kind of operation," Mr Hagel said, in remarks made at Camp Pendleton in California.

The "assessment team members" had arrived in the northern city of Irbil and would "give more in-depth assessment of where we can continue to help," he said.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28767183

[bbc]2014-08-13[/bbc]

[soalbundy]

That was what happened in Vietnam, i can see the same outcome as well

[pkspeaker]

yea what a bunch of bullshit the way obama keeps sneaking more troops in, first a few hundred here, then a few hundred there, last month he sent a few hundred to baghdad 'but supposedly we're not getting involved, next thing you know its costing billions and americans are getting killed there everyday like 2003-2010

[Ulysses G.]

We should have never taken all the troops out in the first place, although, on the other hand, the Iraq war was a big mistake. Edited August 13, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[AlexRRR]

This is how you pay and pay and pay till dooms day...........unjust wars just keep on keeping on, if you want to bow to the politicians who are in the hands of big business this is what your going to keep on getting, even a dill could have told these men of steel who went to university that by taking out the warloard and replacing him with a man sympathetic to the Americans was just shifting another crook into the top job.

 

Why in heavens name do we try and instill a political process on uneducated nomads who basically only look up to who ever is the meanest and cruelest cut throat barbarian?

 

We measure by own standards unfortunately the middle east and half of Africa have a different standard to our much loved democracy that the allies seem to want to instill on every one.

 

These endless wars will bankrupt the USA, and all this American meddling particularly in the Middle east and the continued propping of Israel has made the world a powder keg.

 

Dont know why you Americans hang it on Obama, the democrats didnt start this crap, Clinton stopped short of Baghdad then pulled out, the republicans under the Bush's were the ones to INVADE, and how come Bush jr and his merry men were never made to pay for misleading not only the American public but the world at large on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that never existed?

 

And while were at it that global financial crisis that came to life at the end of Bush jr's term off office, very few of the culprits were made to pay.

 

America you are making the rest of us nervous, get out and mind your own business, the latest lot of "terrorist" do not have the man power or the weapons to wage a world war in the name of Islam, there even knocking off there own kind.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2014 by AlexRRR

[chuckd]

Surprised you didn't blame the Bali bombing on the Bush's.

 

 

[icare999]

yea what a bunch of bullshit the way obama keeps sneaking more troops in, first a few hundred here, then a few hundred there, last month he sent a few hundred to baghdad 'but supposedly we're not getting involved, next thing you know its costing billions and americans are getting killed there everyday like 2003-2010

sadly i agree but it would be inhuman not to try and do something to stop the carnage against innocents

 

it wont happen but if only Russia and USA could agree to call iraq a neutral zone and together send enough force to force order or even agree to split country between them selves since it looks likely the was will continue for decades

[Ulysses G.]

Clinton stopped short of Baghdad then pulled out

You don't have a realistic grasp of history, but this stands out. 

[soalbundy]

 

yea what a bunch of bullshit the way obama keeps sneaking more troops in, first a few hundred here, then a few hundred there, last month he sent a few hundred to baghdad 'but supposedly we're not getting involved, next thing you know its costing billions and americans are getting killed there everyday like 2003-2010

sadly i agree but it would be inhuman not to try and do something to stop the carnage against innocents

 

it wont happen but if only Russia and USA could agree to call iraq a neutral zone and together send enough force to force order or even agree to split country between them selves since it looks likely the was will continue for decades

 

Why not leave it up to the Arabs to do something,it's their neck of the woods, they get upset when Palestinians are killed by Israelis but keep quiet about Muslims killing Muslims

[simple1]

 

 

yea what a bunch of bullshit the way obama keeps sneaking more troops in, first a few hundred here, then a few hundred there, last month he sent a few hundred to baghdad 'but supposedly we're not getting involved, next thing you know its costing billions and americans are getting killed there everyday like 2003-2010

sadly i agree but it would be inhuman not to try and do something to stop the carnage against innocents

 

it wont happen but if only Russia and USA could agree to call iraq a neutral zone and together send enough force to force order or even agree to split country between them selves since it looks likely the was will continue for decades

 

Why not leave it up to the Arabs to do something,it's their neck of the woods, they get upset when Palestinians are killed by Israelis but keep quiet about Muslims killing Muslims

 

 

Aside from Arab Muslims Islamic State has been murdering Arab Christians, non Muslim Yazidis & attacking Kurds (friendly to the US) who are not Arab. IS have also issued an edict that all females in their territory will forcible be subjected to genital mutilation plus who knows other horrors. I understand that many countries will not provide boots on the ground, but right now any assistance for the Kurds and Iraqis to push back IS is essential to stop the massacre and abuse of innocents. The Iraqi military were denied air to ground attack aircraft by the US, so for the moment nearly 100% reliant on US aircover

[sgtsabai]

While I never supported the "Iraq" war brought to us by a bunch of lying war criminals, it was Bush the elder that left the Kurds in the crap after promising support at the end of his war. At least he knew enough to leave the devil we knew in place rather than replace him with a devil we didn't know. His brain addled "born again" son didn't and succeeded in making a mess, to say it lightly, out of the entire mid-east and a laughing stock of the US. This is indeed a slippery slope, if you think those Marines and other special opps types are just there to sit in a big city, better think again. They can't know what is going on by doing that, they have to travel to the front. My hope is that this is over without the introduction of large combat forces and that the weapons being supplied and "advisors" are enough for the Kurds to turn the tide. Where ever America goes anymore there is nothing but death and destruction left behind and a humiliating defeat.

[Scott]

The Kurds are pretty good at defending their own area.   They know the lay of the land and what is going on better than any of our military ever will.  The US can arm them, help them and give them guidance, but they have been fighting their own battles for a very, very long time.  

[sgtsabai]

Scott, I agree. The Kurds need the help the US promised under Bush the elder. A few advisors and the weapons to go with. They are just outnumbered and out gunned at the time. Hopefully air support, you have to believe those USMC Spec. Ops and the other Spec. Ops troops will be doing the ground support for the air opps, will be a turning point. The Navy is flying the missions, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out who the Spec. Ops. troops are. Bet on this, there will be more "non-combat" advisors, already over 1,000 there now. Where are the mercs? I just hope these troops know at least something about the Kurd culture they are being inserted to, without??????

[Morch]

 

 

 

yea what a bunch of bullshit the way obama keeps sneaking more troops in, first a few hundred here, then a few hundred there, last month he sent a few hundred to baghdad 'but supposedly we're not getting involved, next thing you know its costing billions and americans are getting killed there everyday like 2003-2010

sadly i agree but it would be inhuman not to try and do something to stop the carnage against innocents

 

it wont happen but if only Russia and USA could agree to call iraq a neutral zone and together send enough force to force order or even agree to split country between them selves since it looks likely the was will continue for decades

 

Why not leave it up to the Arabs to do something,it's their neck of the woods, they get upset when Palestinians are killed by Israelis but keep quiet about Muslims killing Muslims

 

 

Aside from Arab Muslims Islamic State has been murdering Arab Christians, non Muslim Yazidis & attacking Kurds (friendly to the US) who are not Arab. IS have also issued an edict that all females in their territory will forcible be subjected to genital mutilation plus who knows other horrors. I understand that many countries will not provide boots on the ground, but right now any assistance for the Kurds and Iraqis to push back IS is essential to stop the massacre and abuse of innocents. The Iraqi military were denied air to ground attack aircraft by the US, so for the moment nearly 100% reliant on US aircover

 

 

More on this:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-bombed-isis-militants-on-august-7-2014-8?utm_source=slate&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=partner
 

[sgtsabai]

A bit more from NY Times. As I said, those USMC and other Spec. Ops. guys weren't sitting in a city. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/world/middleeast/iraq-yazidi-refugees.html

[Thorgal]

The Kurds are pretty good at defending their own area.   They know the lay of the land and what is going on better than any of our military ever will.  The US can arm them, help them and give them guidance, but they have been fighting their own battles for a very, very long time.  

Kurds are separatists for ages. As well in Turkey as in Iraq.

I'm not shure if Turkey will be pleased now that the US is providing support to PKK...a terrorist organization...


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Scott]

The two main factions in Northern Iraq are the KDP and the PUK.   The Turkish Kurds were sort of a separate entity and there was little interaction between the Turkish Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds.   The Turkish Kurds took shelter in Northern Iraq and that was about it.   At least that was the case some years back.  

 

I remember talking to some of my staff about the PKK and their feelings toward the situation in Turkey.   The response was "We have enough problems of our own, we don't want to get involved in Turkey."

 

In order for the Iraqi Kurds to get US backing they will have keep their distance from the PKK.   They have done that in the past and I am pretty sure they will continue to do that.  

 

To be sure, when push came to shove they would chose a Turkish Kurd any day over a Turk, Arab or Persian.  

 

[arjunadawn]

The Kurds are pretty good at defending their own area.   They know the lay of the land and what is going on better than any of our military ever will.  The US can arm them, help them and give them guidance, but they have been fighting their own battles for a very, very long time.  

 

The Kurds are a decidedly different character of man. I have had both Arab and Kurdish students, and also had them at the same time. The US actually has a subtle long history working with the Kurds. I suspect were it not for the bigger players Turkey and Iran we would have assisted them even more to claim a State, rather than provisional autonomy. In Erbil, and ancient tell, continuously occupied perhaps longer than any other city on earth, the US has a compound. It is not secret, and it is hardly defensible. It is constructed right in the middle of the city with large concrete T Walls standing 4 meters high, carving its way through streets, houses, and allies to make a concrete oasis for various state department and "other" agencies. It is designed to prevent attacks of opportunity, or soft target attacks. It is hardly able to withstand a full tactical assault.

 

The US is aware of this and the refugees were also nearby; too much too close to be militarily comfortable. I hardly think the targets chosen would have been solely to save refugees; the catastrophic threat would be Erbil falling. The US has an issue with Kurdish oil wells being sacked, and IS assets moving on Erbil (because the US has purchased Kurdish patience with a number of supporting promises). But overall, Obama has no problem with IS consuming Iraq in civil war. Indeed, IS is singularly jump started by the USA and local Arab partners. It was their unpredicted move north that set us policy afire. Otherwise, Obama could not give a damn about the Yazhi. Obama wants Iraq redrawn along borders of natural selection, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. Watch.

 

EDIT: Regarding sentence two: Kurds are very similar to Europeans. I don't say this to afford them any greater weight or value only that they are generally more friendly and cooperative to others who are different. The Peshmerga have a reputation as being quite reliable, and deadly. Perhaps generations of persecution will do that. In my experiences, I worked with young hardly militarily capable men who were hand selected for their secret service type training. I considered then, if this was their best, how vulnerable they might really be. Nevertheless, I would rather work with this people any day over most other nationalities I have ever worked with.-----The US needs an autonomous Kurdistan in order for their Great Game plan to work.

Edited August 14, 2014 by arjunadawn

[simple1]

 

The Kurds are pretty good at defending their own area.   They know the lay of the land and what is going on better than any of our military ever will.  The US can arm them, help them and give them guidance, but they have been fighting their own battles for a very, very long time.  

 

The Kurds are a decidedly different character of man. I have had both Arab and Kurdish students, and also had them at the same time. The US actually has a subtle long history working with the Kurds. I suspect were it not for the bigger players Turkey and Iran we would have assisted them even more to claim a State, rather than provisional autonomy. In Erbil, and ancient tell, continuously occupied perhaps longer than any other city on earth, the US has a compound. It is not secret, and it is hardly defensible. It is constructed right in the middle of the city with large concrete T Walls standing 4 meters high, carving its way through streets, houses, and allies to make a concrete oasis for various state department and "other" agencies. It is designed to prevent attacks of opportunity, or soft target attacks. It is hardly able to withstand a full tactical assault.

 

The US is aware of this and the refugees were also nearby; too much too close to be militarily comfortable. I hardly think the targets chosen would have been solely to save refugees; the catastrophic threat would be Erbil falling. The US has an issue with Kurdish oil wells being sacked, and IS assets moving on Erbil (because the US has purchased Kurdish patience with a number of supporting promises). But overall, Obama has no problem with IS consuming Iraq in civil war. Indeed, IS is singularly jump started by the USA and local Arab partners. It was their unpredicted move north that set us policy afire. Otherwise, Obama could not give a damn about the Yazhi. Obama wants Iraq redrawn along borders of natural selection, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. Watch.

 

EDIT: Regarding sentence two: Kurds are very similar to Europeans. I don't say this to afford them any greater weight or value only that they are generally more friendly and cooperative to others who are different. The Peshmerga have a reputation as being quite reliable, and deadly. Perhaps generations of persecution will do that. In my experiences, I worked with young hardly militarily capable men who were hand selected for their secret service type training. I considered then, if this was their best, how vulnerable they might really be. Nevertheless, I would rather work with this people any day over most other nationalities I have ever worked with.-----The US needs an autonomous Kurdistan in order for their Great Game plan to work.

 

 

With your background, please outline the US Great Game plan.

 

Thanks...

[sgtsabai]

Has the US had a game plan since the 1950's? Ok then, maybe a game plan that will work? As much as I hate to see the US back in Iraq, if there are any people there that deserve our government's support it is the Kurds.

[arjunadawn]

 

 

The Kurds are pretty good at defending their own area.   They know the lay of the land and what is going on better than any of our military ever will.  The US can arm them, help them and give them guidance, but they have been fighting their own battles for a very, very long time.  

 

The Kurds are a decidedly different character of man. I have had both Arab and Kurdish students, and also had them at the same time. The US actually has a subtle long history working with the Kurds. I suspect were it not for the bigger players Turkey and Iran we would have assisted them even more to claim a State, rather than provisional autonomy. In Erbil, and ancient tell, continuously occupied perhaps longer than any other city on earth, the US has a compound. It is not secret, and it is hardly defensible. It is constructed right in the middle of the city with large concrete T Walls standing 4 meters high, carving its way through streets, houses, and allies to make a concrete oasis for various state department and "other" agencies. It is designed to prevent attacks of opportunity, or soft target attacks. It is hardly able to withstand a full tactical assault.

 

The US is aware of this and the refugees were also nearby; too much too close to be militarily comfortable. I hardly think the targets chosen would have been solely to save refugees; the catastrophic threat would be Erbil falling. The US has an issue with Kurdish oil wells being sacked, and IS assets moving on Erbil (because the US has purchased Kurdish patience with a number of supporting promises). But overall, Obama has no problem with IS consuming Iraq in civil war. Indeed, IS is singularly jump started by the USA and local Arab partners. It was their unpredicted move north that set us policy afire. Otherwise, Obama could not give a damn about the Yazhi. Obama wants Iraq redrawn along borders of natural selection, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. Watch.

 

EDIT: Regarding sentence two: Kurds are very similar to Europeans. I don't say this to afford them any greater weight or value only that they are generally more friendly and cooperative to others who are different. The Peshmerga have a reputation as being quite reliable, and deadly. Perhaps generations of persecution will do that. In my experiences, I worked with young hardly militarily capable men who were hand selected for their secret service type training. I considered then, if this was their best, how vulnerable they might really be. Nevertheless, I would rather work with this people any day over most other nationalities I have ever worked with.-----The US needs an autonomous Kurdistan in order for their Great Game plan to work.

 

 

With your background, please outline the US Great Game plan.

 

Thanks...

Roughly, the current US strategy is based in large part on the Brookings Inst. Which Path to Persia. This concept of a String of Pearls is not a new military concept and it is also practiced in other dimensions of life. The principle is to avoid direct confrontation and change the nature of the targeted players by virtue of changing the environment in which the target exists. Utilizing peripheral State and other players, the landscape of the regional world is changes necessitating a change by the target. Example: Iran having a contiguous land swath from Tehran to the sea (excluding a Sunni section of Iraq) presents a significant threat to Arab allies, the US, and needed to be dealt with. Thus the proxy war in Syria. This effort complicated Iran's hegemony, fractured traditional allies such as Hamas and their paymasters, and occupied Hezbollah. Fracturing enables greater pressure and control of the regional players and increases the positions in which the US can forward place military and economic assets= to encircle Iran- see Afghanistan and separatist efforts for Balochistan. As Iraq quickly slid into the Iranian sphere a previous plan to "Balkanize" Iraq has apparently been put on the table again and this calls for three areas of Sunni, Shi, and Kurdish. It was toward this end that I suspect weapons were being funneled from Lybia to Syria to arm IS. The US must have known that they would eventually turn on Iraq as they were primarily within Iraq at the time. IS was created as a proxy tool to Assad/Russia and with secondary utility being actioned today in Iraq. I hold the Ukraine debacle is partially related to the Syrian issue but the US lost control and it quickly degraded into its primary foci- monetary loans and natural resources for Europe. I am not alone in these observations and some of them are clearly policy.

 

A String of Pearls, if I recall correctly, is actually a Chinese military/political strategy term. Ironically the US "pivot to Asia" policy is described also as a string of pearls. I surmise this underlying policy being used repeatedly reflects a conceptual change where the US feels it amasses greater military/frontal territory, great economic front, and great diplomatic front, by devolving power broadly across several regional allies, oppose to a few aircraft carriers off the coast. This policy can be seen playing out in Australia and certainly in Thailand were rumors persisted that the US wished to lease/re lease, or otherwise maintain an forward airbase in the North (I think it was). I suspect Thailand is dubious. Thailand's great history reflects considerable wisdom regarding entangling alliance and while the US was demonstrably present in Thailand in the past 50 years Thailand also had a clear national imperative. The US String of Pearls strategy might not likely rise to Thailand's best interest, unless considerably made more palatable. These two theaters are clearly employing a similar conceptual military/diplomatic framework.

 

Therefore, I suggest, the US actions in Kurdistan do not reflect an immediate policy shift of the US rather a "nudging" of their jihadi army back to the mission- sectarian strife. Had the US been remotely serious they would have also provided coordinated air-support, under the cover of helping the Yashis, to retake the dam area around Mosul.

[simple1]

 

 

 

The Kurds are pretty good at defending their own area.   They know the lay of the land and what is going on better than any of our military ever will.  The US can arm them, help them and give them guidance, but they have been fighting their own battles for a very, very long time.  

 

The Kurds are a decidedly different character of man. I have had both Arab and Kurdish students, and also had them at the same time. The US actually has a subtle long history working with the Kurds. I suspect were it not for the bigger players Turkey and Iran we would have assisted them even more to claim a State, rather than provisional autonomy. In Erbil, and ancient tell, continuously occupied perhaps longer than any other city on earth, the US has a compound. It is not secret, and it is hardly defensible. It is constructed right in the middle of the city with large concrete T Walls standing 4 meters high, carving its way through streets, houses, and allies to make a concrete oasis for various state department and "other" agencies. It is designed to prevent attacks of opportunity, or soft target attacks. It is hardly able to withstand a full tactical assault.

 

The US is aware of this and the refugees were also nearby; too much too close to be militarily comfortable. I hardly think the targets chosen would have been solely to save refugees; the catastrophic threat would be Erbil falling. The US has an issue with Kurdish oil wells being sacked, and IS assets moving on Erbil (because the US has purchased Kurdish patience with a number of supporting promises). But overall, Obama has no problem with IS consuming Iraq in civil war. Indeed, IS is singularly jump started by the USA and local Arab partners. It was their unpredicted move north that set us policy afire. Otherwise, Obama could not give a damn about the Yazhi. Obama wants Iraq redrawn along borders of natural selection, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. Watch.

 

EDIT: Regarding sentence two: Kurds are very similar to Europeans. I don't say this to afford them any greater weight or value only that they are generally more friendly and cooperative to others who are different. The Peshmerga have a reputation as being quite reliable, and deadly. Perhaps generations of persecution will do that. In my experiences, I worked with young hardly militarily capable men who were hand selected for their secret service type training. I considered then, if this was their best, how vulnerable they might really be. Nevertheless, I would rather work with this people any day over most other nationalities I have ever worked with.-----The US needs an autonomous Kurdistan in order for their Great Game plan to work.

 

 

With your background, please outline the US Great Game plan.

 

Thanks...

Roughly, the current US strategy is based in large part on the Brookings Inst. Which Path to Persia. This concept of a String of Pearls is not a new military concept and it is also practiced in other dimensions of life. The principle is to avoid direct confrontation and change the nature of the targeted players by virtue of changing the environment in which the target exists. Utilizing peripheral State and other players, the landscape of the regional world is changes necessitating a change by the target. Example: Iran having a contiguous land swath from Tehran to the sea (excluding a Sunni section of Iraq) presents a significant threat to Arab allies, the US, and needed to be dealt with. Thus the proxy war in Syria. This effort complicated Iran's hegemony, fractured traditional allies such as Hamas and their paymasters, and occupied Hezbollah. Fracturing enables greater pressure and control of the regional players and increases the positions in which the US can forward place military and economic assets= to encircle Iran- see Afghanistan and separatist efforts for Balochistan. As Iraq quickly slid into the Iranian sphere a previous plan to "Balkanize" Iraq has apparently been put on the table again and this calls for three areas of Sunni, Shi, and Kurdish. It was toward this end that I suspect weapons were being funneled from Lybia to Syria to arm IS. The US must have known that they would eventually turn on Iraq as they were primarily within Iraq at the time. IS was created as a proxy tool to Assad/Russia and with secondary utility being actioned today in Iraq. I hold the Ukraine debacle is partially related to the Syrian issue but the US lost control and it quickly degraded into its primary foci- monetary loans and natural resources for Europe. I am not alone in these observations and some of them are clearly policy.

 

A String of Pearls, if I recall correctly, is actually a Chinese military/political strategy term. Ironically the US "pivot to Asia" policy is described also as a string of pearls. I surmise this underlying policy being used repeatedly reflects a conceptual change where the US feels it amasses greater military/frontal territory, great economic front, and great diplomatic front, by devolving power broadly across several regional allies, oppose to a few aircraft carriers off the coast. This policy can be seen playing out in Australia and certainly in Thailand were rumors persisted that the US wished to lease/re lease, or otherwise maintain an forward airbase in the North (I think it was). I suspect Thailand is dubious. Thailand's great history reflects considerable wisdom regarding entangling alliance and while the US was demonstrably present in Thailand in the past 50 years Thailand also had a clear national imperative. The US String of Pearls strategy might not likely rise to Thailand's best interest, unless considerably made more palatable. These two theaters are clearly employing a similar conceptual military/diplomatic framework.

 

Therefore, I suggest, the US actions in Kurdistan do not reflect an immediate policy shift of the US rather a "nudging" of their jihadi army back to the mission- sectarian strife. Had the US been remotely serious they would have also provided coordinated air-support, under the cover of helping the Yashis, to retake the dam area around Mosul.

 

 

Do you also study content from the likes of Rand / SIAC and others?
 

Edited August 14, 2014 by simple1