Do you think we're going back into Iraq?

[tombogan03884]

Here's the thing about Iraq.
There are 3 separate "nations", the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and they all HATE each other.
even Saddam could not keep them all playing nice all the time, and neither the US or any one we support would have guts enough to go to the extremes Saddam did.
The so called "nation" of Iraq is nothing but lines on a map having no relation to actually ethnic groupings.
And then there is Iran right next door who hates them all and hasn't missed a chance in 35 years to stir up trouble.

[Solus]

If you plan on building an effective military force for a country you need to figure on 20 years at least.
You can train up buck Sargent's and Captians in 4 or 5 years, but to make it stick you have to have trained, experienced Generals .
It takes a full generation for the trainees to work their way up to where the whole force is working from the same play book.

And before any one starts spouting that liberal crap about "No WMDS" remember this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLw3YC5MTU

At the time, I was following this fairly closely and was weighing the  news stories for likely truth, looking for  multiple independent sources, veracity of contradicting stories and any other means that presented itself and I'd have given it a 90% chance that Iraq had WMDs and was looking for more.

If you look at the type of guy Saddam was, there is no doubt that he would have obtained ANY WMDs he could get his hands on.  I mean, it was not in him to lay awake at night considering the risk WMDs would present to his populace and the rest of the world.

The question should be:  Who did he hand them off to in the months it took to build a coalition of nations to oppose Saddam so we could feel good about it and have some CYA should the winds of public opinion blow foul.

We learned in Afghanistan that the waring factions, even the one who had our support, tended to look at the conflict as two fronts.  One the everlasting fight amongst themselves and, two, the fight of both of them against the US. 

[tombogan03884]

The question should be:  Who did he hand them off to in the months it took to build a coalition of nations to oppose Saddam so we could feel good about it and have some CYA should the winds of public opinion blow foul.

He passed them on to Syria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/israel-strike-on-syria-also-hit-bioweapons-facility/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20060123.aspx

NBC Weapons: Chemical Shells Found in Iraq
   

NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICALÂ WEAPONS

Â

January 23, 2006: American troops in Iraq have run across chemical artillery shells on quite a number of occasions. There've never been more than a handful found in any particular cache, and all of them have been old, easily dating back to the period of the '90-'91 war. These shells were probably stashed away for "safekeeping" and then forgotten. Apparently none of the shells are usable, and in most cases the chemicals have deteriorated or leaked away. It would be extremely unlikely that any of these shells would be of tactical use. But if someone were to use one in an IED attack, despite the fact that no one would be injured by the chemical component, the PR impact might be serious.


Even the Huffington Post confirmed Iraqi chemical weapons before it became "Bush's fault".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/us-gave-iraq-intel-ignored-chemical-attacks_n_3817868.html

[kmitch200]

Of course Saddam used to have WMDs, (I think we still have the receipts somewhere), but what was brought out in interrogation of him was that he kept saying he still had WMDs to scare Iran.

The shithole landfill dissolving into civil war that is Iraq, is going to be a shithole landfill dissolving into civil war 100 years from now regardless of what the US does.

   

[Solus]

Found a couple of headlines on this topic this morning.

First one was about local resistance forming to the "invaders", but I can't find the link now.  Did not read it at that time because the defenders will probably end up fighting with or against the "invaders" depending upon who lives in the city that is next on the list.

Found a link:

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/06/grab-guns-iraqis-baghdad-beyond-reaching-guns-call-arms-isis/



This one, I don't even want to think about...did not read it...head in sand

Obama administration weighs ‘my enemy’s enemy’ foreign policy with Iran

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/16/obama-administration-weighs-my-enemys-enemy-foreign-policy-with-iran/

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

I have heard, though I have not looked into it myself, that the US is asking Iran to handle security for our embassy in Iraq.

That should work out well.   

[Solus]

I have heard, though I have not looked into it myself, that the US is asking Iran to handle security for our embassy in Iraq.

That should work out well.   

Geeze....anything can happen with this admin.

I read that our military would accept certain illegal aliens into the service.

This was about the time of the Gitmo 5 trade...

There happens to be 6 members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

I predict another terrorist release soon.

[GASPASSERDELUXE]

The evening news said that some SF troops are going in to "help" the Iraqis.  Just f---ing wonderful.

[Rastus]

There is a claim that nearly 40 former upper level officers in Saddam's regime walked off their posts and let Mosul fall.  Lt Gen Ali Ghaidian, General Aboud Qanbar, and General Mahdi al Ghazawi, all old guys from Saddam's army are supposed to be a part of that....and all of these guys are Baathists so that means old insiders.

So...this mixes it up a bit.  ISIS may be being used....to reclaim Saddam's old empire...or not.  Seems plausible to me if the above information is I heard is true.  Let them march through town....get shot up on the way to Baghdad...see what happens maybe go for it now maybe not.  Another word is that something like this has been in the plans for 5 or 6 years waiting for us to leave.  They should have not left the Baathists in charge I suppose....if anything could help I dunno.

Surely this makes a lot more sense than a bunch of terrorists who flocked in from outside...this initiative clearly has some command and control not to mention military vehicles (also an indication of help from the "inside").

And also this word...the House of Saud is rattling sabres about breaking off relations with the US.  They wanted us to go after Syria...seems as though the House of Saud is now raising an army of 40k to 50k to send into Syria to topple it.  I'm thinking Assad is better than Saudi financed radicals running Syria. 

And old Baathists, if they retain control, may be better than the Iraqi's we support as leaders as opposed to having a terrorist state/nation.

Are we going back?  Probably with some SF guys and possibly some air support...though who knows with the loon we have as prez.  Through no thought, effort or discernment on his own the right thing may happen....but most likely whatever is chosen will be most likely that which will get us into a larger conflict down the road (who knows what the idiot chooses or even if he has any gumption to make a choice at all).

[philw]

http://www.news.com.au/world/a-week-after-islamic-insurgents-launched-their-attack-on-iraq-the-west-faces-the-prospect-of-the-fall-of-baghdad/story-fndir2ev-1226957314557

interesting look at it.