Mosul has fallen

[T.Lex]

Looks like we're going to start air strikes, at the Iraqi's request.
BBC News - Iraq formally asks US to launch air strikes against rebels

Interesting cross link to an assessment of ISIS' Annual Report. (Yes, they apparently have a well developed structure and have adopted some Six Sigma/LEAN metrics to assess efficiency and effectiveness of things like suicide attacks.)*
ISIS Annual Reports Reveal a Metrics-Driven Military Command | Institute for the Study of War
Click the "Download PDF" link to the assessment of the report.

*Ok, maybe not exactly Six Sigma/LEAN, but I lol'd a little at such an idea. Some elements of organization are common, regardless of the type/goal of the organization.

 

[mrjarrell]

It wouldn't surprise me if Obama went with airstrikes. His pet think tank, (run by former best buddy Podesta) is yammering about doing it, so I have no doubts that he'll listen to them.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, air strikes are an easy option. Unless and until we lose one.

To me, the bigger question is why it didn't happen BEFORE they got to Mosul or the outskirts of Baghdad. That suggests a serious intel failure.

But, that isn't totally on Obama. The Iraqi gov't hasn't exactly handled their end of this very smoothly, either.

 

[mrjarrell]

Frankly, I'm all for leaving the Iraqis on their own for this. Win or lose. Let the Iranians, Gulf States, Saudi's and Turks do the dirty work. They have the most to gain from it. We have nothing to gain from it.

 

[T.Lex]

They have the most to gain from it. We have nothing to gain from it.

I don't necessarily disagree. Where I differ is the other side of the equation - we have MUCH to lose if a triple-split Iraq includes an Islamofascist oil-wealthy nation-state.

It would have resources the Taliban/OBL never dreamed of.

Also, my bigger issue is the foreign policy travesty. This did not have to happen. Hard for me to get past that.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like the Iraqi citizenry is joining the twitter wars and pointing out, correctly from what I've read, that it's not a sectarian things (yet) but the MSM wants it to be. ISIS has been executing sunni clerics in Mosul. That seems like the act of a terrorist org not a sunni org.

Iraqis worldwide say #No2ISIS

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, I've checked out some of the pro-ISIS twitterers and blogs. Interestingly, they also suggest there have been massacres by Shi'a groups of Sunnis as they retreat. Of course, no real way to confirm that, but it does change the dynamic a bit; shifts it back to being more sectarian.

I think it is hard to label ISIS. I mean, parts of their activities would fit "terrorism" (however you want to define it). But, they've also shifted into more a regular paramilitary role - more like the Viet Cong or the Palestinian groups.

Either way, they are dangerous. Not like the Maverick kind, either.

 

[AA&E]

It's hard to tell. When the US moved in it was all over the TV before forces even left Kuwait. Convoys were seen leaving Iraq for Syria, Iraqi leaders fled as well, when the US arrived in Baghdad it's Govt and Military compounds were a ghost town. We will never know what left before our troops arrived aside from knowing it did not contain viable nuclear material.

Saddam bragged about having a functioning Nuke program, in reality the major facilities of his were bombed to dust early on. Iraq did in fact have chemical weapons and the means to produce them, or are we going to ignore the gassing of the Kurds and act like it never happened?

I agree with your first point about not knowing what left before we got there. And all these weapons that are suddenly turning up and being used in Syria could have Iraqi origins.

There have long been accusations in the international community the gassing of the Kurds was conducted utilizing US supplied chemical weapons. Saddam was our guy in the middle east in that timeframe and we gladly supplied him with all the tools of the trade to terrorize the Iranians. If I have to give Obama credit for one thing it was not supplying the revolutionary forces in Syria with weapons. Our government has done this repeatedly throughout history and it has CONSISTENTLY come back to bite us in the ass time and again.

 

[AA&E]

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.

I saw a figure of 275 troops. Seriously? What will that accomplish?

 

[AA&E]

Frankly, I'm all for leaving the Iraqis on their own for this. Win or lose. Let the Iranians, Gulf States, Saudi's and Turks do the dirty work. They have the most to gain from it. We have nothing to gain from it.

Unfortunately, I disagree with this. What we stand to lose is this nation becoming one that welcomes this type of fanatisism and provides a staging area to promote, recruit, and train future generation of terrorists that will cause us harm. That said I am content with one tactical nuke being dropped in a strategic location and turning the whole Fing place into a big sheet of glass.

 

[mrjarrell]

Then why not check your rifles and head on over there? I'm sure one of the defending militias or their army would welcome your assistance as a new recruit.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Petraeus is against air strikes: David Petraeus: U.S. Can't Be Air Force for Iraq's Militias - NBC News

 

[rambone]

I am content with one tactical nuke being dropped in a strategic location and turning the whole Fing place into a big sheet of glass.

If one of those ISIS / ISIL guys Tweeted about lopping off someone's head with a sword, we'd be wetting our panties for weeks. Every talking-head would make sure that Americans heard about how blood-thirsty and fanatical those evildoers are.

If they Tweeted about attacking the USA.... holy mother of God. We would never hear the end of it.

But if Americans sit around casually calling for a nuclear holocaust.... no big deal. I lost count of how many times I've read "turn them into glass" on this one website alone.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's not genocide when your side does it, rambone.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Apparently someone needs to learn the phrase "empty threat".

Just frustration. The same people who quip turn 'em to glass would never agree to actually do it. Not if it were seriously considered.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Maybe a # and a red line will stop the baddies.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Obama: No troops/combat: Obama: U.S. Prepared to Take 'Targeted' Action in Iraq - NBC News

This whole situation didn't have to happen and Iraq wouldn't be falling apart if we'd done a good job diplomatically (Joe? Where are you Joe? Has anyone seen Joe? Isn't this his thing?).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

George W. Bush is responsible for the weather.

Barack Obama is responsible for his tee times.

 

[T.Lex]

Again, I'm confused by the policy decisions.

Are Islamic militants bad? I mean, if ISIS were attacking our good friend Saudi Arabia, would we just watch? (Granted, SA has our F-15s but they also opted for the Typhoon as an upgrade, so maybe we just let them stew?)

Frankly, if I'm SA or Kuwait, I'm spitting bricks watching us do nothing.

And regime change? Now? Gotta give Obama credit for using the most possible leverage at the worst possible time.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

George W. Bush is responsible for the weather.

Barack Obama is responsible for his tee times.

Only 2% of our petroleum comes from the persian gulf region (How much petroleum does the United States import and from where? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)) I'm not worried about oil. But, a good tee time? That's hard to get.