US general: Ground troops option if anti-IS strategy fails

[BATHIK]

declare arbitrarily and to pronounce summarily I somehow fail to think geostrategically.

..

The mission I support has my support because it is..

Were you rapping, by any chance?

[Publicus]

declare arbitrarily and to pronounce summarily I somehow fail to think geostrategically.

..

The mission I support has my support because it is..

Were you rapping, by any chance?

[katana]

The media has been hyping this all day. What he said was that if he felt it was necessary to have advisers accompany the Iraqi and Kurdish troops in battle to advise them, he would go back to the President and make that request. He didn't say that we are sending troops to fight on the ground. He didn't even say he was thinking of it at all at the present time.

The Vietnam War started like that with American advisers initially but eventually US troops were in action and it dragged on from the 1960s for many years to 1975.

[Pakboong]

I am becoming more and more of the opinion that being at war produces much more pure profit than going and returning but the superficial evidence suggests otherwise.

[ABCer]

<snip> "... cherry pick my post to ignore a central statement in it..." #29

<snip> " The mission I support has my support because it is an inclusive strategic coalition of more than 40 diverse nations to include ME Muslim nations and which extends beyond strictly military means. " #29

<snip> " I'm afraid that whatever insidious purposes you like to try to cook up, petty and pernicious right-left political divisions are out of place in this broadly international campaign. " #29

<snip> " It could seem that you and I are on some measure of a common ground. " #30

Dear Publicus,

* You can support whatever has your support.

* Accusing me of 'cherry picking' your posts is not polite. Besides, there are no 'cherries' in your ramblings.

* Accusing me of 'cooking up insidious purposes' is baseless apart from being grammatically senseless.

* 'Petty and pernitious right-left political divisions' - smells of disdain, insult and patronizing.

Somehow I am not happy with your proclamations. You sound like an overly convinced person who knows the spelling and words, but fails to string them up into coherent ideas.

By overly convinced I mean fanatical. And I am not sure you bring advantage to the side you think you are on.

As to the 'central statement' in your post - the proud coalition of 40 in this 'broadly International campaign' - don't count your chicken prematurely.

I said it before and repeat: We are not talking on the same level.

Maybe I am standing on the ground and you are flying high amidst the clouds.

Or maybe you are standing firmly embedded in the bog of 40 unwilling combatants and I am talking high idealistic concepts.

The fact remains: Never assume we are on the same level.

Oh, yes! Please cherry pick your words when answering my posts. For your own good.

[hawker9000]

The media has been hyping this all day. What he said was that if he felt it was necessary to have advisers accompany the Iraqi and Kurdish troops in battle to advise them, he would go back to the President and make that request. He didn't say that we are sending troops to fight on the ground. He didn't even say he was thinking of it at all at the present time.

The Vietnam War started like that with American advisers initially but eventually US troops were in action and it dragged on from the 1960s for many years to 1975.

I'm not sure one example proves the rule, however it's pretty obvious that boots on the ground are going to be required. The question is, whose boots?! Do we really trust the FSA, the Kurds, the Iraqi Army, or any of the other "interested parties" over there enough to arm them? Now THAT'S a road we've definitely been down before. And we face this dilemma because of Obama's summary withdrawal, against the best military advice, from Iraq. (Guess that "sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq" ain't so sovereign, stable & self-reliant, eh Barack?) Not to mention his total lack of credibility. Potential coalition partners trust him enough to "get free stuff" from the U.S. if it's handed to them, and maybe enough to sign a few checks themselves (it's just oil money, FPS) but enough to commit to joint military action, based on U.S. promises of support?? Saudi Arabia is going to do what, give us a training base we can use? Woohoo. Qatar? UAE? Egypt? Jordan? Even the UK? ISIL is probably busy building bomb shelters, but air power alone, as important as it is, is simply NOT going to extinguish them. I really think Obama might actually be planning to stick to his Advisors, All Advisors, and Nothing But Advisors plan. It's his way of kicking the can down the road until he leaves office. There'll probably be a fair few more headless westerners by then, but unless muslims start blowing up golf courses, it'll be business as usual at the White House.

[Credo]

The Kurds are pretty trustworthy. They are surrounded by enemies. They are not liked by the Arabs, the Persians or the Turks. There interest is in their survival and the survival of their homeland. They aren't going to be doing much of a double-cross, at least in the short-term.

ISIS will not be subdued by the west. It has to be a Muslim-based coalition that ultimately takes them out. The west just brings a whole lot of baggage to the conflict.

The west can give support, logistics, air cover etc., to those doing the fighting, but if they don't have the will to fight the battle, it can't be won by the West.

[ABCer]

hawker9000, I like your last two posts #28 and #36.

Pardon me for a joke, but you sound like a case of "a clever head given to a stupid man".

Perhaps you are being careful of moderation policies and not without reason.

The big problem is NOBODY can say what they think nowadays. Let's wait and see. This may change one day.

But we will see many more headless people before it happens.

Sorry, cannot say much more.

[BATHIK]

I heard IS is selling their oil via Kurds to the tune of several million dollars per day despite being officially at war with them.

Do all those Muslim countries in the region want to actually occupy what is now IS caliphate? Are they committed to building a unified Iraq as it was under Saddam? I think not, it would be something totally new for them, in at least recent history.

Can IS and Shias in Baghdad be reconciled after all that happened? I don't think so, it's too late for that.

It looks like it's either total extermination or letting IS have their state and hope it's not overrun by radicals.

Russians tried both approaches in Chechnya but only the military one proved viable. Still, in the end they left Chechnes to govern themselves with a large degree of autonomy and generous subsidies from Moscow. I think aspirations of Sunni Iraqis need to be similarly accommodated. If possible, within the borders of Iraq but if not they had to be let go.

[Publicus]

<snip> "... cherry pick my post to ignore a central statement in it..." #29

<snip> " The mission I support has my support because it is an inclusive strategic coalition of more than 40 diverse nations to include ME Muslim nations and which extends beyond strictly military means. " #29

<snip> " I'm afraid that whatever insidious purposes you like to try to cook up, petty and pernicious right-left political divisions are out of place in this broadly international campaign. " #29

<snip> " It could seem that you and I are on some measure of a common ground. " #30

Dear Publicus,

* You can support whatever has your support.

* Accusing me of 'cherry picking' your posts is not polite. Besides, there are no 'cherries' in your ramblings.

* Accusing me of 'cooking up insidious purposes' is baseless apart from being grammatically senseless.

* 'Petty and pernitious right-left political divisions' - smells of disdain, insult and patronizing.

Somehow I am not happy with your proclamations. You sound like an overly convinced person who knows the spelling and words, but fails to string them up into coherent ideas.

By overly convinced I mean fanatical. And I am not sure you bring advantage to the side you think you are on.

As to the 'central statement' in your post - the proud coalition of 40 in this 'broadly International campaign' - don't count your chicken prematurely.

I said it before and repeat: We are not talking on the same level.

Maybe I am standing on the ground and you are flying high amidst the clouds.

Or maybe you are standing firmly embedded in the bog of 40 unwilling combatants and I am talking high idealistic concepts.

The fact remains: Never assume we are on the same level.

Oh, yes! Please cherry pick your words when answering my posts. For your own good.