Fuzz Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 https://www.navytimes.com/article/20140117/NEWS/301170009?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter "The Pentagon is considering sending U.S. troops back to the Middle East to help train Iraqi forces, defense officials said Friday."
disgruntledemployee Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 It's their country now, they can do what ever they want with it. If they don't like terrorists taking a city, then they'll go kick ass. If they tolerate it, now we know how much they care. If we even hint at bailing them out, then will always seek to have us bail them out. Time to stand like a man or cower like sheep. It's fucking pathetic that our military leaders are even putting intent on newspaper to bail them out. Out 9
ElLoco Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 It's their country now, they can do what ever they want with it. If they don't like terrorists taking a city, then they'll go kick ass. If they tolerate it, now we know how much they care. If we even hint at bailing them out, then will always seek to have us bail them out. Time to stand like a man or cower like sheep. It's ######ing pathetic that our military leaders are even putting intent on newspaper to bail them out. Out 2 x1000
F16Deuce Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 It's their country now, they can do what ever they want with it. If they don't like terrorists taking a city, then they'll go kick ass. If they tolerate it, now we know how much they care. If we even hint at bailing them out, then will always seek to have us bail them out. Time to stand like a man or cower like sheep. It's fucking pathetic that our military leaders are even putting intent on newspaper to bail them out. Out Well said, couldn't agree more. 1
Fuzz Posted January 19, 2014 Author Posted January 19, 2014 Pretty much summed up my thoughts when I was reading the article.
Crewdog135 Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 And they wonder why we're beating down the TERA/VSP door...
Spinner Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 And they wonder why we're beating down the TERA/VSP door... No, "leadership" has no fuking idea why so many of us want TERA/VSP. Forgive me for using the "L" word, I promise I won't do it again. Oh, and box, head...
fire4effect Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Having spent more than my fair share of time on the ground in that hell hole, I say stack Taji with as many Preds/Reapers and Hellfires as they can fit and go to town on the SOBs. Let them take Falluja/Ramadi and the surrounding areas so they're drawn out into the open and kill them in easier to hit clusters........as for ground troops......beyond some SOF troops....no way 1
Fuzz Posted January 20, 2014 Author Posted January 20, 2014 Having spent more than my fair share of time on the ground in that hell hole, I say stack Taji with as many Preds/Reapers and Hellfires as they can fit and go to town on the SOBs. Let them take Falluja/Ramadi and the surrounding areas so they're drawn out into the open and kill them in easier to hit clusters........as for ground troops......beyond some SOF troops....no way Anything beyond one cent or one person no way. This is how every conflict we have ever been in since WWII started, sending people to train, then fight, then we are there for another decade.
HeloDude Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 Having spent more than my fair share of time on the ground in that hell hole, I say stack Taji with as many Preds/Reapers and Hellfires as they can fit and go to town on the SOBs. Let them take Falluja/Ramadi and the surrounding areas so they're drawn out into the open and kill them in easier to hit clusters........as for ground troops......beyond some SOF troops....no way I think they lengthened Taji's runway after I left that gem of a place several years ago...but according to this, I think the Reaper needs a little bit longer of a runway. Then again, what do I know...and besides, what's a 'runway'? I say allow the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're more than capable now, if they truly want to make it better.
SurelySerious Posted January 20, 2014 Posted January 20, 2014 We've given them some hellfires, some UAVs, some airplanes, and demonstrated some ways to use them. Hopefully they can figure out partnering with the local tribes to drive ISIS out. It's their fight now.
Tank Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) I spent considerable time in Fallujah during the spring of 2004 and that whole town can be turned into glass for all I care! Edited January 21, 2014 by Tank 2
fire4effect Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 I think they lengthened Taji's runway after I left that gem of a place several years ago...but according to this, I think the Reaper needs a little bit longer of a runway. Then again, what do I know...and besides, what's a 'runway'? I say allow the Iraqis to take care of their own country. They're more than capable now, if they truly want to make it better. Yep I couldn't remember Taji's runway length.....Balad would be better........I just like the thought of a relatively low risk way to keep killing insurgents a very long way from our shores. Having talked to a few less than respectable types from that area a long time ago the bad guy's definitely fear UAVs and Hellfires..... I knew Iraqis were using 208s with Hellfires but admittedly I can't speak to which is more effective. 1
farva Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Couldn't even get an f'in dip clearance for overflight last month...now they are crying for help. 2
HeloDude Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Yep I couldn't remember Taji's runway length.....Balad would be better........I just like the thought of a relatively low risk way to keep killing insurgents a very long way from our shores. Having talked to a few less than respectable types from that area a long time ago the bad guy's definitely fear UAVs and Hellfires..... I knew Iraqis were using 208s with Hellfires but admittedly I can't speak to which is more effective. No problem. The whole reason we stayed there for 8+ years was to help a new government get on its feet without the risk of being toppled by an insurgency and to also train their military to be able to defend their government against such an insurgency when we left. The Iraqis are more than capable of defeating a relatively small insurgency. They (Iraqis) are extremely resourceful when they chose to be. Going back to doing their job for them will keep them from growing to the point where they need to be militarily. And if they fail because they couldn't figure out something that they are capable of doing, then so be it. When they become a safe haven for terrorists wanting to invade/harm our homeland (and actually attempt to do so), then I'll be concerned, but until then...not so much. Same goes for the Afghans...with the caveat that I don't believe they have a chance against the Taliban when we pull out. Time will indeed tell. 1
pawnman Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 https://www.navytimes.com/article/20140117/NEWS/301170009?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter "The Pentagon is considering sending U.S. troops back to the Middle East to help train Iraqi forces, defense officials said Friday." So, would that slow down the RIF?
busdriver Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 Helping the Iraqis could be ok, but advise and assist only. The only risk to US forces should be existing in the country, very low key, low cost in both people and dollars. The face on all operations needs to be Iraqi, as long as the integration with the country team is tight and leadership is willing to call the baby ugly early it could be successful. To follow on to Helodude's point, we can't and shouldn't do it for them, they need to step up. We can be there to provide some advice, but it has got to be their effort and skin in the game. This is going to be the future of US efforts abroad, limited means, limited ways, and limited ends. The last point is what needs to change in the American psyche, what can we actually achieve, our ends need to be limited. We can't make Iraq a mini America, it will be fucked up for a very long time. The most we can hope for is help them achieve a semi-stable vector to something better, and help them with the tools to fight to maintain that vector. But they have to do that fighting or it isn't actually worth anything. In other words, sure we'll help a little, but if you fuck it up we're more than willing to let you lie in the bed you make.
FallingOsh Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by this.
fire4effect Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 Helping the Iraqis could be ok, but advise and assist only. The only risk to US forces should be existing in the country, very low key, low cost in both people and dollars. The face on all operations needs to be Iraqi, as long as the integration with the country team is tight and leadership is willing to call the baby ugly early it could be successful. To follow on to Helodude's point, we can't and shouldn't do it for them, they need to step up. We can be there to provide some advice, but it has got to be their effort and skin in the game. This is going to be the future of US efforts abroad, limited means, limited ways, and limited ends. The last point is what needs to change in the American psyche, what can we actually achieve, our ends need to be limited. We can't make Iraq a mini America, it will be ######ed up for a very long time. The most we can hope for is help them achieve a semi-stable vector to something better, and help them with the tools to fight to maintain that vector. But they have to do that fighting or it isn't actually worth anything. In other words, sure we'll help a little, but if you ###### it up we're more than willing to let you lie in the bed you make. I did the advising gig too. Painful process though to watch. With the water treatment plant (provided most of water for Baghdad and a frequent insurgent target) at Tarmya North of Taji most of the effort our AO was directed at protecting that piece of infrastructure and the pumping stations coming from it......As for anything American...well lets just say during some down time one evening Iraqi and American officers watched Deuce Bigelow Male Gigolo on a laptop....fine juvenile humor transcending cultures But I digress.....They've come a LONG way from barely able to keep the water flowing to where they are now and they'll have to continue to figure out they way ahead for themselves. If we can provide something of relatively low cost/risk to us AND it's a force multiplier beyond their current capabilities I don't have a problem. On the subject of Afghanistan...having returned not long ago from that garden spot.....that place will be up for grabs depending on how much of a residual coalition force is left behind with most of the country being for the most part staying under Afghan Government control with areas of heavy Taliban influence in pockets of the East and South for some time to come....My 0.02
HeloDude Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 Helping the Iraqis could be ok, but advise and assist only. The only risk to US forces should be existing in the country, very low key, low cost in both people and dollars. The face on all operations needs to be Iraqi, as long as the integration with the country team is tight and leadership is willing to call the baby ugly early it could be successful. To follow on to Helodude's point, we can't and shouldn't do it for them, they need to step up. We can be there to provide some advice, but it has got to be their effort and skin in the game. This is going to be the future of US efforts abroad, limited means, limited ways, and limited ends. The last point is what needs to change in the American psyche, what can we actually achieve, our ends need to be limited. We can't make Iraq a mini America, it will be fucked up for a very long time. The most we can hope for is help them achieve a semi-stable vector to something better, and help them with the tools to fight to maintain that vector. But they have to do that fighting or it isn't actually worth anything. In other words, sure we'll help a little, but if you fuck it up we're more than willing to let you lie in the bed you make. We've already done what you have suggested. They have the means to put down an insurgency...and if they can't, then we're just wasting our time because if they can't stop one now, then they won't be able to stop one later with our 'training'. If they really want our help, then they can send their instructors over here and we'll play the 'train the trainer' game (as I'm sure we're already doing on a limited basis) and can see how that goes I guess. I enjoyed instructing, advising, and working with those guys...it was a shit ton of work too and at times I actually miss it (and miss the guys). But as a people, they (the Iraqis) have to be willing to accept the risk and take some losses if they want to keep what they have. We have huge problems here, and I just don't believe that spending millions (potentially billions) more on the Iraqis will improve our own nation. Just my $0.02
pcola Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 The Iraqis are more than capable of defeating a relatively small insurgency. They (Iraqis) are extremely resourceful when they chose to be. Going back to doing their job for them will keep them from growing to the point where they need to be militarily. And if they fail because they couldn't figure out something that they are capable of doing, then so be it. I'm afraid your estimation of Iraqi capability may be grossly inflated. Yes, individual Iraqis are capable of being trained to execute complex missions. Yes, they were actually mostly competent at executing those missions at the end of 2011. Pilots could fly 208s and T-6s in VFR conditions. Even a few of their helo pilots could occasionally pull off a HAF infil (although most of the SF dudes I talked to said they'd rather fly with Stevie Wonder than an Iraqi helo pilot.) Their SOF teams were even more capable. Able to competently conduct door to door urban ops or even more specialized targeted ops. The problem was (at the end of 2011) and apparently continues to be corruption. Many of the bad guys are connected to politicians, and many of the politicians are connected to bad guys. Time after time these shit bag terrorists on our HVT lists were non-warranted because the judges and politicians wouldn't sign off for Iraqi SOF guys to bring them in. And if US SF actioned a target unilaterally, you can bet there would be political backlash. Amongst the embedded SF community when we left that shit hole, there was exactly zero doubt that what you see happening now would occur. Only most thought it would happen sooner. I guess that's something. And if the corruption wasn't enough to bring down the fragile capability that we helped develop, an even bigger hurdle is the Iraqi military's complete lack of logistical competence. They weren't even close to having the ability or understanding required in order to maintain a logistical supply chain capable of maintaining even a modest fleet of simple jet aircraft. Just because we could train a pilot doesn't mean we were successful at creating a pilot training system. At the end of 2011, predictions were that their pilot production pipeline would dry up faster than camel piss in the desert wind. Helodude, I'm right there with you in saying that we should not invest another red cent in that shithole wasteland. When we left in 2011, everybody in the know, on both sides, knew absolutely how it would end up. The US didn't want a complete withdrawal, most Iraqis also didn't want a complete withdrawal, but apparently there was a powerful minority with big guns that were successful in influencing the Iraqi gov't into demanding a complete withdrawal. I say that those cowards are now getting what they asked for and deserve. Fuck it, let Iran have it. Just stop buying oil and we win.
busdriver Posted January 22, 2014 Posted January 22, 2014 Helodude, In no way did I mean have large numbers of trainers teaching pilot training and running basic training camps. I meant more at the higher levels, literally advising. They probably wouldn't listen anyways. On the other hand, if Hezbollah and Al Qaeda want to go at it, who are we to get in the way.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now