Mosul has fallen

[T.Lex]

Tune in for this week's episode of Amateur Hour in Foreign Policy, where we learn that only days after stating forcefully that we will not deploy US troops to Iraq to fight ISIS, Obama decides that we will. But not very many. Less than 300. And only to protect US personnel and the embassy. Because several thousand terrorists won't bother our embassy if they see a couple hundred SF operators.

Obama announces US troops WILL be sent to Iraq to protect American embassy | Mail Online

Because all the best foreign policy decisions are made based on Hollywood movies - 300 and Lone Survivor.

 

[KG1]

I think I'm gonna join the peacefull jihad movement. The evil bloodthirsty Americans are too violent for me.

 

[Birds Away]

Didn't we learn from Panama about deploying SF en masse? More does not always equal better.

 

[T.Lex]

Didn't we learn from Panama about deploying SF en masse? More does not always equal better.

Agree that more does not always equal better. They are different things.

It depends on what you want to accomplish.

In this situation, with the risk of fending off a large-scale, motivated group of attackers, I think more is a better option.

The guys in Benghazi were very skilled. They were "better" than the vast majority of our military. There just wasn't enough of them.

ETA:

I just figured it out. Obama is doing this because he cares about the troops he's sending over there. He cares so much for their long term well-being that he's doing his best to make sure any survivors get a best-selling book and movie deal after their ordeal is done.

 

[Birds Away]

SF operators are trained to work in small teams. Putting 300 of them together doesn't play to their strengths and actually can cause some confusion. Better to have 300 regular ground pounders who have trained together. Then add a couple of teams of SF guys for specific missions.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

SF operators are trained to work in small teams. Putting 300 of them together doesn't play to their strengths and actually can cause some confusion. Better to have 300 regular ground pounders who have trained together. Then add a couple of teams of SF guys for specific missions.

Agree. That's what Rangers or Marines are for.

 

[Birds Away]

Agree. That's what Rangers or Marines are for.

Exactly. The SEALS took a lot of unnecessary casualties in Panama.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Exactly. The SEALS took a lot of unnecessary casualties in Panama.

There are other reasons too - there aren't a lot of them (comparatively). That's why losing 30 of them in one crash in 2011, in support of one fire fight, was a bad idea. Why lose several surgical teams when a fleet of mechanics is what you need.

 

[Birds Away]

Sounds like this is a protection detail. Not really a job for SF. Give me 300 Marines, close air support and maybe some arty and, given the self-imposed restrictions, that's about as good as you can do.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Sounds like this is a protection detail. Not really a job for SF. Give me 300 Marines, close air support and maybe some arty and, given the self-imposed restrictions, that's about as good as you can do.

Hey! Good point! Are we relaxing the ROE? Can soldiers soldier now?

 

[Birds Away]

Hey! Good point! Are we relaxing the ROE? Can soldiers soldier now?

Probably not. I am very concerned about the well-being of the guys being sent. I don't see how they can succeed.

 

[T.Lex]

Probably not. I am very concerned about the well-being of the guys being sent. I don't see how they can succeed.

Exactly my view, too.

This is a horrible idea. Either evacuate the embassy and US personnel (a la Saigon) or commit to defending Baghdad and send in airborne or Marines. But don't do things half-way.

ETA:

This is a symptom of the problem with Obama foreign policy - lack of priorities. (The primary problem is lack of principles.)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...western-powers-it-used-to-vilify-9541891.html

Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said that whatever form diplomatic discussions with Iran may take there was no prospect of direct co-operation between Iranian and US forces in Iraq.
While the White House has spoken openly about coming to the aid of the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to repel the advance of the Isis rebel fighters, it appears to have set a clear condition that he must first begin a political transition that would lead to the inclusion of Sunni and Kurd elements in central government.

First, if Iran gets involved in "our" side, in Iraq, then I hope to God there is direct cooperation. Otherwise, we'll end up shooting at each other.

Second, we have internal political preconditions for Maliki (inclusion of minority elements in the gov't) before we'll commit to defending Baghdad from Islamist militants? That doesn't make ANY kind of sense. In essence, we'd rather see Iraq fall to even MORE extremist, exclusionary forces than the petty tyrant Maliki.

Just. Plain. Goofy.

 

[T.Lex]

BBC OpEd calling Iraq's current gov't basically over.

BBC News - Iraq's central government suffers mortal blow

The best-case scenario for Iraq is devolution of power from the centre in Baghdad to local Shia, Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurdish communities; the worst is splintering of the country to three separate entities.

Also helps explain how ISIS gets such local assistance

Having taken ownership of the country after the US occupation and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Shia leadership has treated Sunni Arabs like second-class citizens and has equated its numerical majority with a licence to monopolise power.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

BBC OpEd calling Iraq's current gov't basically over.

BBC News - Iraq's central government suffers mortal blow



Also helps explain how ISIS gets such local assistance

Those crazy Sunnis know how to hold a grudge.

 

[Birds Away]

Those crazy Sunnis know how to hold a grudge.

Funny, I can remember when they were the "good" ones.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like ISIS is winning the twitter wars, too.

https://news.vice.com/article/isis-...total-social-media-pros?utm_source=vicenewsfb

 

[Kirk Freeman]

FYI, if anyone is interested, today on NPR's Diane Rehm Show there was a story about how agitprop was used to destroy an enemy's will to fight by undermining his religion on the use of Doctor Zhivago and it use against the USSR by MI6 and the CIA.

Even if you are not a regular listener it is a wonderful insight into how agitprop was used to bring down the largest terroristic group in human history, the USSR. I recommend it.

Peter Finn and Petra Couvee: "The Zhivago Affair: The Kremlin, The CIA, And The Battle Over A Forbidden Book" | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR

For further information on how agitprop can change religions:

MI6's input: How MI6 helped CIA to bring Doctor Zhivago in from cold for Russians | Books | The Guardian


CIA files on literary agitprop: Doctor Zhivago | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

 

[aaron580]

Looks like ISIS is winning the twitter wars, too.

https://news.vice.com/article/isis-...total-social-media-pros?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Twitter….the next battle ground? Do Twitter campaigns actually do something? I have yet to see...

 

[mrjarrell]

Twitter….the next battle ground? Do Twitter campaigns actually do something? I have yet to see...

Don't know, but social media plays a part in everything these days. And, according to some posters, it ain't news if there aren't tweets on it.

 

[T.Lex]

FYI, if anyone is interested, today on NPR's Diane Rehm Show there was a story about how agitprop was used to destroy an enemy's will to fight by undermining his religion on the use of Doctor Zhivago and it use against the USSR by MI6 and the CIA.

Well, agitprop (I know it well) is like air power. Yeah, it is a great tool, but it only gets you part way there.

And, I must disagree with your characterization of the USSR's 'religion.' It wasn't nearly as ingrained or extreme as what we're dealing with regarding Islamofascists. Plus, USSR's literacy rate was 90%+ (by their count). I daresay that Islamic fanatic literacy rate isn't that high.