Donald Trump

[qazplm]

Well, you are asking several different questions there, all of which have different or many answers. Read your two posts. You go from: Who started ISIS? What disaffected group? What former group of military folks from Iraq advise ISIS? How did that group become disaffected in Iraq? All the way too in response to Gr8:
Wow...so you are saying you don't know that it was former military leaders under Saddam, Sunnis, who are helping ISIS now? Really?

There is a big difference between who started it and who is helping them, and how much the aforementioned Iraq military leaders are needed, .

Al-Baghdadi, the self proclaimed caliphate was thought to be a revolutionary Isamic professor(sunni) well before ISIS started and some even think before he invasion. No one knows for certain. If the USA would have known more-they likely sent him to Gitmo rather than release him. Much of ISIS is made of Al Qaeda and fighters that came from al-Nusra, and ME/North Africa region recruits. Large foreign influence. But pretty much all the main players had ties to Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan mujahideen, Chechen fighters, and Syrian rebels. Al-Qaeda(mostly Sunni), Afghanistan mujahideen were around long before the US invaded Iraq. Not like the USA invasion created those groups.

Sure former Baath party and Iraq military officers(sunnis) are helping ISIL. However, they also have Afghanistan mujaideen that were trained by and fought against the USA, fighters from the Georgian Army(mainly Chechens) that were trained by you guessed it, the USA and Russia, and Syrian rebels who have been trained by the USA, UK, and Russia(when they were part of Syrian Army).

So the answer in short to all your questions/claims would be nobody really knows for certain how it started, or would it have started. But as of now from reports on the ground it is pretty obvious that there is enough well trained military leadership with a vast background in training and philosophies to be good in battle without any former Iraqi officers.

And that is just the tip of the ice burg. Anyway, a big stretch to go from who started it to who is helping them. When you stated that Gr8 did not know it was former military leaders under Saddam Sunnis, who are helping ISIS, you seemed to imply that they needed that help to be successful or exist. Not the case. I mentioned all the foreign fighters and foreign training they had. I am sure they like the former Baath military officers-not needed though. It is a tough group, and SF guys on the ground there all say in every location they have their act together.

"Some organization like ISIS would have probably formed, but would they have declared a caliphate and swept across half of the country and captured major cities?" (Gr8)

Read that again, and then read why most of what you typed is nonresponsive to that. So, areas of agreement, ISIS would have formed regardless. Area of disagreement, they wouldn't have swept across Iraq and captured cities but for Obama. What did I point out? Actually, the reason why they were able to capture cities is because of the help of former Baathists...and I linked Fox News of all places for that very point that ISIS needed that help to capture cities. I said nothing about "ISIS needed Baathists to exist." Gr8 admitted that ISIS in some form would have existed regardless. So, as usual, you ignore the specific thing talked about and assume some giant broad point was being made that no one made.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think it is likely some ISIS like group would exist, but I think it is more likely that early success by ISIS in Syria led to the feeling of legitimacy that causes Muslims from around the world to pledge allegiance to them and want to come join. That same feeling is likely what caused Baathists and others to unite under their flag as well. With US forces - regardless of what we are calling them - in Iraq, the chances that ISIS would confront those allied forces and take Iraqi territory would've been greatly diminished. They wouldn't want to provoke a U.S. led surge early in a campaign and fighting US allied forces is exactly what that would've drawn. Well, under any other admin, anyway... So yes, eventually some group probably causes a unification of Baathists etc at some point, but our withdrawal coupled with the Syrian civil war and our abstinence from all things there helped create and nurture the environment that allowed ISIS to gain power now to the point that they are able to attract attackers on our home soil. That didn't have to happen, but it did largely because we impicitly allowed them to gain legitimacy by not being there.

 

[qazplm]

I think it is likely some ISIS like group would exist, but I think it is more likely that early success by ISIS in Syria led to the feeling of legitimacy that causes Muslims from around the world to pledge allegiance to them and want to come join. That same feeling is likely what caused Baathists and others to unite under their flag as well. With US forces - regardless of what we are calling them - in Iraq, the chances that ISIS would confront those allied forces and take Iraqi territory would've been greatly diminished. They wouldn't want to provoke a U.S. led surge early in a campaign and fighting US allied forces is exactly what that would've drawn. Well, under any other admin, anyway... So yes, eventually some group probably causes a unification of Baathists etc at some point, but our withdrawal coupled with the Syrian civil war and our abstinence from all things there helped create and nurture the environment that allowed ISIS to gain power now to the point that they are able to attract attackers on our home soil. That didn't have to happen, but it did largely because we impicitly allowed them to gain legitimacy by not being there.

The only plan anyone had was for advisers. No one, not Bush, not hawks, was advocating keeping fighting combat brigades in Iraq. So why would the Bush plan of keeping 5-10K non-combat troops have stopped anything? We have advisers there now. Not in those numbers but they aren't doing a thing to stop them.

And why would anyone in their right mind commit fighting US forces to intervene in an intercene religious war in the middle east indefinitely?

 

[SDBoiler1]

The only plan anyone had was for advisers. No one, not Bush, not hawks, was advocating keeping fighting combat brigades in Iraq. So why would the Bush plan of keeping 5-10K non-combat troops have stopped anything? We have advisers there now. Not in those numbers but they aren't doing a thing to stop them.

And why would anyone in their right mind commit fighting US forces to intervene in an intercene religious war in the middle east indefinitely?

If the US had kept 5-10K troops in Iraq and Daesh tried to go after them, the US would have annihilated them, given the chance. With Obama in office, a Neville Chamberlin-like President, I seriously doubt he would ever have committed to sending the troops required to wipe Daesh out, however. Obama did create a huge vacuum of power in Iraq because he left the country too early. This doesn't mean the US had to stay forever, but it was clear to anyone paying attention that Iraq was not capable of governing or defending itself at the time Obama ordered them out. The left always bitches about Bush's WMDs, but Obama's intel on Iraq was severely flawed as well. That is, unless Obama actually intended for Daesh to fill the vacuum...

 

[qazplm]

ah I love the smell of "secret Muslim" in the morning.

 

[Purdue97]

"Some organization like ISIS would have probably formed, but would they have declared a caliphate and swept across half of the country and captured major cities?" (Gr8)

Read that again, and then read why most of what you typed is nonresponsive to that. So, areas of agreement, ISIS would have formed regardless. Area of disagreement, they wouldn't have swept across Iraq and captured cities but for Obama. What did I point out? Actually, the reason why they were able to capture cities is because of the help of former Baathists...and I linked Fox News of all places for that very point that ISIS needed that help to capture cities. I said nothing about "ISIS needed Baathists to exist." Gr8 admitted that ISIS in some form would have existed regardless. So, as usual, you ignore the specific thing talked about and assume some giant broad point was being made that no one made.

Not sure what to say except that I quoted your entire post. Not gr8s. My point was to show that ISIS would be doing quite well without Baath Party or Iraqi officers. ISIS has some real military/terrorist All Stars on its team.

 

[Purdue97]

The only plan anyone had was for advisers. No one, not Bush, not hawks, was advocating keeping fighting combat brigades in Iraq. So why would the Bush plan of keeping 5-10K non-combat troops have stopped anything? We have advisers there now. Not in those numbers but they aren't doing a thing to stop them.

And why would anyone in their right mind commit fighting US forces to intervene in an intercene religious war in the middle east indefinitely?

Mlitary Commanders in the US and on the ground in Iraq wanted about 25,000 troops. That is essentially the size of a light infantry division. And yes, those soldiers with air support would have handled ISIS especially when ISIS was smaller. Keep in mind the soldiers that do the 'advising' are made up of infantry Marines, MARSOC, army light infantry(ABN/.AASLT), Rangers, SF, SEALS, engineers, mech guys etc. I have been part of advising groups more than once and even most of the PAC clerks are combat oriented. Would say that less than 5% are actual paper pushers. One cannot teach combat skills if that is not what one does. Especially since as 'advisers' we go out on the patrols with these clowns.

I think you are getting confused that nobody wanted them there largely because Obama got caught up in a campaign promise to end the war-reelection was the following year. So that is what we all constantly heard. He later back tracked in the last year and said he had nothing to do with it.

Did anybody predict ISIS? No, not really. Did senior military predict a power vacuum and all hell breaking loose? Yes. It was common knowledge that army could not fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

And the question you ask about intervening in a religous war is spot on. Typically I would say no. But when one looks at the complexities, and starts to realize if they gain support, momentum, and financing, and their goal is to bring the fight or attacks here-I say fight them overseas. JMO

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Mlitary Commanders in the US and on the ground in Iraq wanted about 25,000 troops. That is essentially the size of a light infantry division. And yes, those soldiers with air support would have handled ISIS especially when ISIS was smaller. Keep in mind the soldiers that do the 'advising' are made up of infantry Marines, MARSOC, army light infantry(ABN/.AASLT), Rangers, SF, SEALS, engineers, mech guys etc. I have been part of advising groups more than once and even most of the PAC clerks are combat oriented. Would say that less than 5% are actual paper pushers. One cannot teach combat skills if that is not what one does. Especially since as 'advisers' we go out on the patrols with these clowns.

YEP. All of this.

Did senior military predict a power vacuum and all hell breaking loose? Yes. It was common knowledge that army could not fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

And the question you ask about intervening in a religous war is spot on. Typically I would say no. But when one looks at the complexities, and starts to realize if they gain support, momentum, and financing, and their goal is to bring the fight or attacks here-I say fight them overseas.

YEP. All of this.

 

[qazplm]

Not sure what to say except that I quoted your entire post. Not gr8s. My point was to show that ISIS would be doing quite well without Baath Party or Iraqi officers. ISIS has some real military/terrorist All Stars on its team.

My post was in response to Gr8s post, so most people would look at that to give them context...which if you'd have done you would have seen that the question under discussion was not the viability of ISIS to exist but to capture cities in Iraq. And foxnews' reporting disagrees with you on that respect.

 

[qazplm]

Mlitary Commanders in the US and on the ground in Iraq wanted about 25,000 troops. That is essentially the size of a light infantry division. And yes, those soldiers with air support would have handled ISIS especially when ISIS was smaller. Keep in mind the soldiers that do the 'advising' are made up of infantry Marines, MARSOC, army light infantry(ABN/.AASLT), Rangers, SF, SEALS, engineers, mech guys etc. I have been part of advising groups more than once and even most of the PAC clerks are combat oriented. Would say that less than 5% are actual paper pushers. One cannot teach combat skills if that is not what one does. Especially since as 'advisers' we go out on the patrols with these clowns.

I think you are getting confused that nobody wanted them there largely because Obama got caught up in a campaign promise to end the war-reelection was the following year. So that is what we all constantly heard. He later back tracked in the last year and said he had nothing to do with it.

Did anybody predict ISIS? No, not really. Did senior military predict a power vacuum and all hell breaking loose? Yes. It was common knowledge that army could not fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

And the question you ask about intervening in a religous war is spot on. Typically I would say no. But when one looks at the complexities, and starts to realize if they gain support, momentum, and financing, and their goal is to bring the fight or attacks here-I say fight them overseas. JMO

Military commanders don't make those decisions first of all. Military commanders, given a preference, would have kept up near surge levels indefinitely. We couldn't afford that, and the nation didn't and doesn't want that, that's why we have civilian control of the military.

Second of all, just rattling off a number and saying, well that's like a division shows a lack of understanding. That's the size of five brigades actually so not really a light division but larger, but no one was talking about that in 07 and 08 when the plans were being made for what residual force was to be left, the numbers were more along the lines of 10000. In either case, most of that number even if it WERE 25K would not be fighting forces. It would be combat support and combat service support and trainers.

And EVEN if we left one or two combat brigades in there, which no one was suggesting in either administration, that wouldn't have been enough to hold the entirety of Anbar which is humongous, plus Tikrit, plus all of the other cities that are "sunni" and thus predisposed to ISIS.

So how long do we "fight them overseas?"
We spent the better part of a decade fighting Sunni insurgents. After that time, we didn't wipe them all out, and we didn't do enough to prevent ISIS. So what's the cap on "fighting them over there?" Ten more years? Twenty? How much do we spend? We spend about a trillion over ten years. We spend another trillion?

All for what? So that there's a lessened chance of "fighting them over here?" As if somehow sending troops there prevents them from doing anything over here?? They can't do two things at once?

 

[Purdue97]

My post was in response to Gr8s post, so most people would look at that to give them context...which if you'd have done you would have seen that the question under discussion was not the viability of ISIS to exist but to capture cities in Iraq. And foxnews' reporting disagrees with you on that respect.

Fair enough-I guess I could have followed that one better. And I disagree with foxnews about a lot of things. This included.

 

[Purdue97]

Military commanders don't make those decisions first of all. Military commanders, given a preference, would have kept up near surge levels indefinitely. We couldn't afford that, and the nation didn't and doesn't want that, that's why we have civilian control of the military.

Second of all, just rattling off a number and saying, well that's like a division shows a lack of understanding. That's the size of five brigades actually so not really a light division but larger, but no one was talking about that in 07 and 08 when the plans were being made for what residual force was to be left, the numbers were more along the lines of 10000. In either case, most of that number even if it WERE 25K would not be fighting forces. It would be combat support and combat service support and trainers.

And EVEN if we left one or two combat brigades in there, which no one was suggesting in either administration, that wouldn't have been enough to hold the entirety of Anbar which is humongous, plus Tikrit, plus all of the other cities that are "sunni" and thus predisposed to ISIS.

So how long do we "fight them overseas?"
We spent the better part of a decade fighting Sunni insurgents. After that time, we didn't wipe them all out, and we didn't do enough to prevent ISIS. So what's the cap on "fighting them over there?" Ten more years? Twenty? How much do we spend? We spend about a trillion over ten years. We spend another trillion?

All for what? So that there's a lessened chance of "fighting them over here?" As if somehow sending troops there prevents them from doing anything over here?? They can't do two things at once?

Right. I get that civilians make those decisions for the military. I stated that, basically to refute the claim that nobody was calling for brigade combat teams(bct) to be left behind. Point is military recomended it. And just like Shinseki in 2002 stating we would need several hundred thousand to control Iraq after the over throw, the civilians should have listened in this case too. Also, McCain did want a sizeable force there.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

Numbers that I knew at the time from the ground were 16,000-25,000. Now my gross apologies if I did not go into detail about BCTs and actual specific numbers in units. And I am sure the numbers changed now, but the mid twenties used to be a rough estimate of what was in an entire light infantry division.

Look, vast majority of these 'advisers' are combat MOS personnel. Sure we had military members that were listed as 'support'. And entire 'support' units had Ranger Tabs/Scrolls or beards longer than the neighborhood sheiks. That is not your regular combat supply/support guy.

I think part of the issue is, people seem to forget that with the smaller force there in 2011 Iraq was a fairly stable place. Deterrent is huge. An ISIS group may have popped up somehwhere-not in Iraq though. Likely in Syria IMO. I also think a sizable force takes out ISIS in Iraq when it was smaller rather than letting it grow exponentially, gain momentum, and occupy a lot of land.

Well, as for how long and how much to invest in fighting them? Hard question to answer. I do think the UN, other Arab countries, and NATO countries should be footing a lot of the bill.(George Bush Sr was able to build a coalition. Unfortunately, not sure any politician on the ballot has that quality about them.) Those aforementioned groups benefit from terror group being on the run. I am just not an advocate of sitting back, letting a sworn enemy be financed, organized, plan illustrious attacks, and do little besides send an occasional cruise missile over.

I have said it before in regards to Afghanistan as well. Leave 20,000 there, mostly fighters or people highly capable of it. Have them train and "advise'(go out on missions with them), and when solid intel comes up that indicates an issue level the heck of the problem. That would either 1) prevent another ISIS and/or 2) Control it or limit its power

 

[qazplm]

Right. I get that civilians make those decisions for the military. I stated that, basically to refute the claim that nobody was calling for brigade combat teams(bct) to be left behind. Point is military recomended it. And just like Shinseki in 2002 stating we would need several hundred thousand to control Iraq after the over throw, the civilians should have listened in this case too. Also, McCain did want a sizeable force there.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

Numbers that I knew at the time from the ground were 16,000-25,000. Now my gross apologies if I did not go into detail about BCTs and actual specific numbers in units. And I am sure the numbers changed now, but the mid twenties used to be a rough estimate of what was in an entire light infantry division.

Look, vast majority of these 'advisers' are combat MOS personnel. Sure we had military members that were listed as 'support'. And entire 'support' units had Ranger Tabs/Scrolls or beards longer than the neighborhood sheiks. That is not your regular combat supply/support guy.

I think part of the issue is, people seem to forget that with the smaller force there in 2011 Iraq was a fairly stable place. Deterrent is huge. An ISIS group may have popped up somehwhere-not in Iraq though. Likely in Syria IMO. I also think a sizable force takes out ISIS in Iraq when it was smaller rather than letting it grow exponentially, gain momentum, and occupy a lot of land.

Well, as for how long and how much to invest in fighting them? Hard question to answer. I do think the UN, other Arab countries, and NATO countries should be footing a lot of the bill.(George Bush Sr was able to build a coalition. Unfortunately, not sure any politician on the ballot has that quality about them.) Those aforementioned groups benefit from terror group being on the run. I am just not an advocate of sitting back, letting a sworn enemy be financed, organized, plan illustrious attacks, and do little besides send an occasional cruise missile over.

I have said it before in regards to Afghanistan as well. Leave 20,000 there, mostly fighters or people highly capable of it. Have them train and "advise'(go out on missions with them), and when solid intel comes up that indicates an issue level the heck of the problem. That would either 1) prevent another ISIS and/or 2) Control it or limit its power

You are citing McCain with a link the title of which is:
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement

Really? come on. McCain hasn't met a country he doesn't want us to invade/have troops in. 2011 Iraq wasn't fairly stable. The constant suicide bombings, the way the Shiites were treating the other two minority groups, the problems with Maliki, and the cosying up to Iran?

Do little other than send a cruise missile over? If that's what you think we've been doing, you need to stop, do some research and then come back.

But you avoided the main question, or are you with McCain on "100 years in Iraq?" How long before we never have to worry about ISIS and we can bring the troops back? The Shia-Sunni war has been going on for a millennia...you think what, ten years ought to do it?

 

[Purdue97]

You are citing McCain with a link the title of which is:
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement

Really? come on. McCain hasn't met a country he doesn't want us to invade/have troops in. 2011 Iraq wasn't fairly stable. The constant suicide bombings, the way the Shiites were treating the other two minority groups, the problems with Maliki, and the cosying up to Iran?

Do little other than send a cruise missile over? If that's what you think we've been doing, you need to stop, do some research and then come back.

But you avoided the main question, or are you with McCain on "100 years in Iraq?" How long before we never have to worry about ISIS and we can bring the troops back? The Shia-Sunni war has been going on for a millennia...you think what, ten years ought to do it?


Anyway, you mentioned more than once that no one was advocating keeping troops in Iraq. I just pointed out that was what the military brass recomended, and McCain(a civilian) had wanted a force there similar to what we have going on in Korea and Japan. So yes, there were other thoughts, recomendations, and ideas on the table. Just because Obama's decision to completely disengage has totally backfired do not claim that no one else wanted troops or had other ideas.

No, do little more than send a cruise missile over is in reference to our actions in the 90's, which led to terror groups gaining strength, organization, support, and funding, which led to 911 and Afghanistan. Like i said, I prefer to fight and/or keep a presence there instead of letting them get lodged into a society's frame work. Really tough to remove or weaken them then. Technically, there is no right or wrong on this, it is opinion. And I obviously think my opinion is right.

I did not avoid any question, I will repost/copy/paste what I said I would do here.

Well, as for how long and how much to invest in fighting them? Hard question to answer. I do think the UN, other Arab countries, and NATO countries should be footing a lot of the bill.(George Bush Sr was able to build a coalition. Unfortunately, not sure any politician on the ballot has that quality about them.) Those aforementioned groups benefit from terror group being on the run. I am just not an advocate of sitting back, letting a sworn enemy be financed, organized, plan illustrious attacks, and do little besides send an occasional cruise missile over.

I have said it before in regards to Afghanistan as well. Leave 20,000 there, mostly fighters or people highly capable of it. Have them train and "advise'(go out on missions with them), and when solid intel comes up that indicates an issue level the heck of the problem. That would either 1) prevent another ISIS and/or 2) Control it or limit its power.

As for specific time frame, not sure why you even want to answer that. That has been one of Obama's biggest downfalls. He spits out these timetables and lines in the sand quotes, tips off the enemy what are agenda is, and they simply bide time. I mean, USA is still in Japan, Europe, and Korea all from the middle of wars last century. I think ti is obvious to see the benefit. is it expensive? Sure. But like I mentioned before would like to see more of a coalition involved with this.

I could give a crap about the Sunni-Shia war. Let them go at it for another millenia for all I care. Not our business. Letting terror organizations get organized, financed, proceed with their agenda unfettered, and trained is our business and quite frankly, the rest of the world's too.

 

[qazplm]

You don't care about a specific timetable? So indefinitely then yes? No matter how much it drains our economy, no matter how many troops die, no matter how futile it is because the moment we leave the same "we shouldn't have left" talk will sprout up again.

All for the ridiculous idea that if we have troops there, they can't possibly think about or do any or inspire any attacks over here. The two aren't connected.

 

[SDBoiler1]

You don't care about a specific timetable? So indefinitely then yes? No matter how much it drains our economy, no matter how many troops die, no matter how futile it is because the moment we leave the same "we shouldn't have left" talk will sprout up again.

All for the ridiculous idea that if we have troops there, they can't possibly think about or do any or inspire any attacks over here. The two aren't connected.

This is not the point at all. Had Obama not prematurely yanked our troops out of Iraq, it is highly unlikely that ISIS would be controlling huge swaths of the country right now. Might they be in Syria? Yes. Might they be on the border of Iraq and making small raids into Iraq? Perhaps. As long as Obama did not order the troops to stand down and not fight back, I find it highly unlikely that Daesh would be anywhere near what it has become, especially so in Iraq.

I guess there is one other option. Partition Iraq into "Iraqistan" (for the Sunni's), "Shiastan" (basically a province of Iran), and a truly autonomous Kurdish region. Make them into three countries and allow the people of Iraq the option to become citizens of whichever of the three they choose.

 

[qazplm]

This is not the point at all. Had Obama not prematurely yanked our troops out of Iraq, it is highly unlikely that ISIS would be controlling huge swaths of the country right now. Might they be in Syria? Yes. Might they be on the border of Iraq and making small raids into Iraq? Perhaps. As long as Obama did not order the troops to stand down and not fight back, I find it highly unlikely that Daesh would be anywhere near what it has become, especially so in Iraq.

I guess there is one other option. Partition Iraq into "Iraqistan" (for the Sunni's), "Shiastan" (basically a province of Iran), and a truly autonomous Kurdish region. Make them into three countries and allow the people of Iraq the option to become citizens of whichever of the three they choose.

1. Prematurely yanked? First, the agreement was signed by Bush before Obama set one foot in the WH. Second, Iraq refused to give our troops immunity. That isn't a premature yank, it's following the plan agreed to between the prior President and the leader of Iraq.

2. The plan was 10K troops, almost none of them, if any, actual combat troops. That was what folks were talking about before with Bush and when Obama ACTUALLY TRIED to negotiate troops remaining. Even if that plan had come to fruition, those 10K troops wouldn't have done jack to stop ISIS because they aren't combat troops.

So no it is not highly unlikely nor is it because of "premature yanking."

3. ISIS is bigger than the forces we were fighting in Anbar. Yet you think 10 or even 20 thousand troops would be enough to stop them? You're kidding right?

You know who had the partition option? Biden. He was laughed at by republicans for suggesting it. But the reality is it ain't our country so we don't have the option of partitioning Iraq. That's up to them.

Here's an idea. Let the middle east, for once, fight its own battles. Remove ourselves from depending on oil thus making that region a lot less important. Remain committed to protecting Israel's sovereignty but otherwise let them fight it out between themselves and stop interjecting ourselves into a millennia long religious battle as if we will solve it or contain it. Stop shedding our blood so that the extremist group of the moment is curtailed. How many groups do we have to battle before we realize there's always going to be another group after that one?

 

[Purdue97]

Well in a political world right now where senior military officers tend not to say much in fear of getting fired or discredited, General Odierno was about as damning as one can be right now. Oh, and the number he requested was 30-35,000. My bad, the 25,000 I mentioned was low. He also had some pretty positive things to say about Iraq when the pullout was complete. Paints a different picture than what you did. And let me guess, there was going to be a plan for 35,000 lawyers, supply personnel, and support people? Not sure what to tell you, other than other options/ideas were on the table-from both politicians and military personnel

I do not disagree that Muslims should be fighting their own religous wars. Really doubt anyone does. But to think that if the US has a presence over in the ME, that promotes peace, goes after radicals and in their organizations, attacks/disrupts their funding and sources of income, that does not make the world and the USA a safer place-well believe what you want.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-exit-interview-says-us-could-have-prevented/

The fact is Obama did not aggressively, or really even pursue a new SOFA, because again he had to keep a campaign promise for re election. He took credit for ending the war in Iraq, but then says he had nothing to do with it. Well which is it? And either way one looks at it, the USA is back over in Iraq with a much more complicated situation that involves ISIS, Tukey, and are one ally there the Kurds. Your point on Obama following the SOFA that was agreed by Bush reminds of this:

 

[SDBoiler1]

1. Prematurely yanked? First, the agreement was signed by Bush before Obama set one foot in the WH. Second, Iraq refused to give our troops immunity. That isn't a premature yank, it's following the plan agreed to between the prior President and the leader of Iraq.

2. The plan was 10K troops, almost none of them, if any, actual combat troops. That was what folks were talking about before with Bush and when Obama ACTUALLY TRIED to negotiate troops remaining. Even if that plan had come to fruition, those 10K troops wouldn't have done jack to stop ISIS because they aren't combat troops.

So no it is not highly unlikely nor is it because of "premature yanking."

3. ISIS is bigger than the forces we were fighting in Anbar. Yet you think 10 or even 20 thousand troops would be enough to stop them? You're kidding right?

You know who had the partition option? Biden. He was laughed at by republicans for suggesting it. But the reality is it ain't our country so we don't have the option of partitioning Iraq. That's up to them.

Here's an idea. Let the middle east, for once, fight its own battles. Remove ourselves from depending on oil thus making that region a lot less important. Remain committed to protecting Israel's sovereignty but otherwise let them fight it out between themselves and stop interjecting ourselves into a millennia long religious battle as if we will solve it or contain it. Stop shedding our blood so that the extremist group of the moment is curtailed. How many groups do we have to battle before we realize there's always going to be another group after that one?

1) Things changed from the time Bush signed the "agreement" with Iraq's government to the time you are referring to. Al-Maliki seemed to be dealing in good faith with Bush and Iraq had something of a coalition government with Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds all participating. It wasn't perfect, and it was somewhat fragile, but it seemed to be working. Over time, the Shia started getting more in cahoots with Iran and becoming more hardline with the Sunnis. The coalition government started breaking down, yet Obama went forward with the withdrawal.
2) Purdue97 spent how many posts talking about this above already? He doesn't agree with your assertion and I don't think I do either. I seriously doubt Daesh would attack Americans (if we had good units there) because they know what would come next - annihilation as long as Obama didn't stand in the way. The USA would have sent more guys in if necessary and they would've done their job as long as they were allowed to.
3) Duh. They are now. They've been adding soldiers from across the world day-by-day as they've made territorial gains. Daesh was nothing until they rolled into Iraq and Iraq's so-called defense forces laid down their arms, tanks, Stingers, you name it, and in some cases even joined Daesh. How do you think they got to the strength they are? Because of the vacuum Obama created and allowed with his inaction. Bombing them with fighters and drones will not do the job. Daesh would be stuck in Syria, duking it out with Al-Nasra Front and also Bashaar Al-Assad if not for the withdrawal. I don't how you can honestly contest this. But you seem to contest everything, so what's new?

 

[qazplm]

1. you clearly have no idea about how combat service and service support works. Yes, there are always going to be MORE support personnel than actualy combat personnel. Yes, there are going to be more lawyers, docs, medics, contract folks, fuel, transportation, supply, etc personnel than trigger pullers by a large amount.

An infantry BCT has about 4400 personnel. About 1500 will be assigned to one of the three Infantry BNs (+ recon elements). But of that 1500, you are not talking 1500 trigger pullers. You have admin folks, supply folks, commo folks, personnel folks. How do I know? I was once one of those supply folks as an enlisted in one of those infantry BNs. So you are talking a maybe 4-1 ratio just in a BCT between trigger pullers and support personnel.

Of course you don't just send the BCT. You need HQ personnel. You need G-level folks (G1, G2, etc). So the ratio is probably closer to 1 to 5 or higher.

So to get 20K trigger pullers, you need a minimum of 100-120K Soldiers when you fold in all the support personnel.

If you have 20K Soldiers, you are only going to have about 5K trigger pullers, at best...and probably less.

This is the direct quote from Odierno:

“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,”

Well that's a strong position...maybe it might have been prevented.

And he can propose whatever he wanted to, Al-Maliki said he didn't want any American troops left. You have no idea how hard Obama fought or didn't...and you have no idea that it would have mattered, because it's pretty clear Al-Maliki did not want US troops remaining.

So, we have an agreement to leave negotiated by Bush, and an Iraqi President adamant that we leave, and we have the foundations for ISIS coming from some the folks we detained at Camp Bucca, and who are unhappy in part thanks to the switch in power from Shia to Sunni we intiated...

But it's Obama and Hillary's fault.

Sure, OK.

You STILL haven't said how long we should stay. How long it will take to pacifiy the region so that no one like you can come back and say "we shouldn't have left."

 

[qazplm]

1) Things changed...yet Obama went forward with the withdrawal.
2) Purdue97 spent how many posts talking about this above already? He doesn't agree with your assertion and I don't think I do either. I seriously doubt Daesh would attack Americans (if we had good units there) because they know what would come next - annihilation as long as Obama didn't stand in the way. The USA would have sent more guys in if necessary and they would've done their job as long as they were allowed to.
3) Duh. They are now. They've been adding soldiers from across the world day-by-day as they've made territorial gains. Daesh was nothing until they rolled into Iraq and Iraq's so-called defense forces laid down their arms, tanks, Stingers, you name it, and in some cases even joined Daesh. How do you think they got to the strength they are? Because of the vacuum Obama created and allowed with his inaction. Bombing them with fighters and drones will not do the job. Daesh would be stuck in Syria, duking it out with Al-Nasra Front and also Bashaar Al-Assad if not for the withdrawal. I don't how you can honestly contest this. But you seem to contest everything, so what's new?

1. Obama went forward. Again, Iraq did not agree to us being there. So the alternative was what then? Send in troops over their objection? Obama should ignore the agreement signed by the President? Oh yes, he should have "negotiated harder."

2. Many of these are the SAME GUYS we supposedly "annhilated" during the surge. Several leaders of ISIS met together in Camp Bucca. But sure, THIS time, we'll defiintely annhiliate all terrorists elements in Iraq...if only we stay long enough (but we cant talk about how long that would actually be).

3. We spent a decade training and arming these folks. A DECADE. And after that decade, they fell apart after the first contact with an inferiorly equipped, numerically smaller enemy. And you think that's because of a "vacuum" created by Obama? LMAO.

Yes, because we agree on very few things, it's only I that "contests everything."

 

[Purdue97]

1. you clearly have no idea about how combat service and service support works. Yes, there are always going to be MORE support personnel than actualy combat personnel. Yes, there are going to be more lawyers, docs, medics, contract folks, fuel, transportation, supply, etc personnel than trigger pullers by a large amount.

An infantry BCT has about 4400 personnel. About 1500 will be assigned to one of the three Infantry BNs (+ recon elements). But of that 1500, you are not talking 1500 trigger pullers. You have admin folks, supply folks, commo folks, personnel folks. How do I know? I was once one of those supply folks as an enlisted in one of those infantry BNs. So you are talking a maybe 4-1 ratio just in a BCT between trigger pullers and support personnel.

Of course you don't just send the BCT. You need HQ personnel. You need G-level folks (G1, G2, etc). So the ratio is probably closer to 1 to 5 or higher.

So to get 20K trigger pullers, you need a minimum of 100-120K Soldiers when you fold in all the support personnel.

If you have 20K Soldiers, you are only going to have about 5K trigger pullers, at best...and probably less.

This is the direct quote from Odierno:

“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,”

Well that's a strong position...maybe it might have been prevented.

And he can propose whatever he wanted to, Al-Maliki said he didn't want any American troops left. You have no idea how hard Obama fought or didn't...and you have no idea that it would have mattered, because it's pretty clear Al-Maliki did not want US troops remaining.

So, we have an agreement to leave negotiated by Bush, and an Iraqi President adamant that we leave, and we have the foundations for ISIS coming from some the folks we detained at Camp Bucca, and who are unhappy in part thanks to the switch in power from Shia to Sunni we intiated...

But it's Obama and Hillary's fault.

Sure, OK.

You STILL haven't said how long we should stay. How long it will take to pacifiy the region so that no one like you can come back and say "we shouldn't have left."

Well, pretty much spent a career in infantry or smaller units. I understand how it works. Not sure how much I want to continue this debate on the numbers it just serves as deflection for you.

I will just say that there are differences between BCT and advising units. Please understand that the MO of Special Forces personnel is largely 'advising.'

I would also say that combat support people in BCT are much different than other combat support units not attached to a BCT.. You should know that. Many of them are 11series(infantry). And even the ones that are not 11series come to the field and train with us, do pt with us, and combatives as well. And in every infantry company I have ever been in, there were at most two per company(out of 140). PAC clerk and armorers were all 11 series infantry and all trained and fought with other members in the company.

Like I said, at the very least, I have never met an 'adviser' that at a minimum, did not have a combat arms background. The best combative fighter as an adviser I ever met, was a 'supply' guy who happened to have a Ranger and SF tab. Yeah, total pencil pusher.

Did anyone else ever come out and contradict Obama? No. This is not exactly an administration that allows for people to get out of line, or say to much publicly. Odierno largely states he disagreed. And regardless, that number blows what you are asserting out of the water. Keep believing what you want though.

Anyway, like I said, Obama and even Maliki to an extent made decision on re election. Obama took credit for it as shown in clip above, then denied he had anything to do with it. Anyway, the reason it did not work out is the USA was not leaving enough troops to be effective for Maliki especially with the hit he was going to take politically. And Obama was not going to leave more because he wanted to win re election. This was fairly well known at the time on the ground in Iraq, and the immunity clause was something to get thrown out here as a talking point. You can assert I did or did not know this-do not really care.

Oh and get the hell off your high horse:

You STILL haven't said how long we should stay. How long it will take to pacifiy the region so that no one like you can come back and say "we shouldn't have left."

I explained it well enough twice already. And really, do not need to as it was not the topic of this discussion. I never mentioned pacifying the region, really do not think that is possible. Keep region in check. Sure. Keep terror groups on the run. Sure. Heck the inner cities hoods here in the US are not even pacified-not sure why you would think it would be done there.

 

[Purdue97]

1. Obama went forward. Again, Iraq did not agree to us being there. So the alternative was what then? Send in troops over their objection? Obama should ignore the agreement signed by the President? Oh yes, he should have "negotiated harder."

2. Many of these are the SAME GUYS we supposedly "annhilated" during the surge. Several leaders of ISIS met together in Camp Bucca. But sure, THIS time, we'll defiintely annhiliate all terrorists elements in Iraq...if only we stay long enough (but we cant talk about how long that would actually be).

3. We spent a decade training and arming these folks. A DECADE. And after that decade, they fell apart after the first contact with an inferiorly equipped, numerically smaller enemy. And you think that's because of a "vacuum" created by Obama? LMAO.

Yes, because we agree on very few things, it's only I that "contests everything."

1. Maliki wanted US troops there, but was going to face political backlash for it. If they were going to be there he wanted a worthwhile force. Obama was not agreeing to a large number as he wanted re election. Common knowledge at embassy at the time.

2, Not sure they met at Bacca, a lot of them knew each other before hand and met during the enlightening but would give you that that shared experience allowed for bonding.

3. The US did not spend a decade training troops. When we started it was not real serious, then got serious to late in the game. That and disbanding army was biggest mistake IMO

 

[qazplm]

Well, pretty much spent a career in infantry or smaller units. I understand how it works. Not sure how much I want to continue this debate on the numbers it just serves as deflection for you.

I will just say that there are differences between BCT and advising units. Please understand that the MO of Special Forces personnel is largely 'advising.'

I would also say that combat support people in BCT are much different than other combat support units not attached to a BCT.. You should know that. Many of them are 11series(infantry). And even the ones that are not 11series come to the field and train with us, do pt with us, and combatives as well. And in every infantry company I have ever been in, there were at most two per company(out of 140). PAC clerk and armorers were all 11 series infantry and all trained and fought with other members in the company.

Like I said, at the very least, I have never met an 'adviser' that at a minimum, did not have a combat arms background. The best combative fighter as an adviser I ever met, was a 'supply' guy who happened to have a Ranger and SF tab. Yeah, total pencil pusher.

Did anyone else ever come out and contradict Obama? No. This is not exactly an administration that allows for people to get out of line, or say to much publicly. Odierno largely states he disagreed. And regardless, that number blows what you are asserting out of the water. Keep believing what you want though.

Anyway, like I said, Obama and even Maliki to an extent made decision on re election. Obama took credit for it as shown in clip above, then denied he had anything to do with it. Anyway, the reason it did not work out is the USA was not leaving enough troops to be effective for Maliki especially with the hit he was going to take politically. And Obama was not going to leave more because he wanted to win re election. This was fairly well known at the time on the ground in Iraq, and the immunity clause was something to get thrown out here as a talking point. You can assert I did or did not know this-do not really care.

Oh and get the hell off your high horse:

You STILL haven't said how long we should stay. How long it will take to pacifiy the region so that no one like you can come back and say "we shouldn't have left."

I explained it well enough twice already. And really, do not need to as it was not the topic of this discussion. I never mentioned pacifying the region, really do not think that is possible. Keep region in check. Sure. Keep terror groups on the run. Sure. Heck the inner cities hoods here in the US are not even pacified-not sure why you would think it would be done there.

lol you didn't explain anything, much less "well enough." How. Long. Do. We. Keep. Troops. There?
Real simple question.

I'm not going to waste a ton of time talking about the idea that support troops don't vastly outnumber trigger pullers or that somehow they are all special forces supply folks. The vast majortity are 92 yankees just like I was, and no they don't "Fight" with anyone unless the BSA is overrun. Neither do the PAC Clerks. Or the Commo guys. They each do THEIR jobs so that the trigger pullers can do THEIR job as free from other obligations as possible. That's the whole point.

Yes, I will assert that you do not know the inner workings of the reasons why Obama or Maliki made decisions. I feel pretty comfortable in that assertion.

Half the stuff you type is pulled from your fourth point of contact. "This is not an administration that allows for people to get out of line." lmao, this administration does what every administration does when it comes to expecting folks to support the President. Military leaders are always going to say "we need more troops." Of course, again, he could have said we needed a million troops, Maliki said zero.

But yes, I remember, you are intimately aware of what he REALLY wanted.

And yes they met at Camp Bucca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

I mean how can I take you seriously when you don't know basic facts like that?
And yes, disbanding the Army was a huge mistake because that Army was filled with, wait for it, Baathists.
So you tell me how long the "serious" training was? How much more "serious" training do you think we needed to do before the Iraqi army didn't start running from ISIS? How much to keep them from reprisals on Sunni towns and villages even after evicting ISIS?

Five more years? Ten?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The answer to your question is: as long as it takes. But that's not popular, so it's a non-starter.

 

[Purdue97]

lol you didn't explain anything, much less "well enough." How. Long. Do. We. Keep. Troops. There?
Real simple question.

I'm not going to waste a ton of time talking about the idea that support troops don't vastly outnumber trigger pullers or that somehow they are all special forces supply folks. The vast majortity are 92 yankees just like I was, and no they don't "Fight" with anyone unless the BSA is overrun. Neither do the PAC Clerks. Or the Commo guys. They each do THEIR jobs so that the trigger pullers can do THEIR job as free from other obligations as possible. That's the whole point.

Yes, I will assert that you do not know the inner workings of the reasons why Obama or Maliki made decisions. I feel pretty comfortable in that assertion.

Half the stuff you type is pulled from your fourth point of contact. "This is not an administration that allows for people to get out of line." lmao, this administration does what every administration does when it comes to expecting folks to support the President. Military leaders are always going to say "we need more troops." Of course, again, he could have said we needed a million troops, Maliki said zero.

But yes, I remember, you are intimately aware of what he REALLY wanted.

And yes they met at Camp Bucca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

I mean how can I take you seriously when you don't know basic facts like that?
And yes, disbanding the Army was a huge mistake because that Army was filled with, wait for it, Baathists.
So you tell me how long the "serious" training was? How much more "serious" training do you think we needed to do before the Iraqi army didn't start running from ISIS? How much to keep them from reprisals on Sunni towns and villages even after evicting ISIS?

Five more years? Ten?

"I'm not going to waste a ton of time talking about the idea that support troops don't vastly outnumber trigger pullers or that somehow they are all special forces supply folks. The vast majortity are 92 yankees just like I was, and no they don't "Fight" with anyone unless the BSA is overrun. Neither do the PAC Clerks. Or the Commo guys. They each do THEIR jobs so that the trigger pullers can do THEIR job as free from other obligations as possible. That's the whole point."

I am glad you decided not too. It was a way to deflect the argument from your belief that no politicians wanted a force there are military commanders wanted only a few thousand at most. Hardly any of which would be trigger pullers.

Anyway, been in 5 infantry comapnies during my career. Out of approxiamtely 140-160 soldiers, there were two supply clerks, one commo sgt, and one Nuclear Biological Chemical Sergeant. There was an armorer and two Pac clerks, those three were 11 series infantry-and yes, they did train with the platoons and would go out on missions when needed. The supply clerks did pt with us, came to the field with us, went to ranges with us, etc. So sure they might be "combat support" but they could fight and were not your typical supply guys sitting in a warehouse/BSA somewhere. NBC and Commo Sgts if even with the company stayed with the commander and 1st SGT. That is what makes up 'advisers' on deployment.

Yes, I will assert that you do not know the inner workings of the reasons why Obama or Maliki made decisions. I feel pretty comfortable in that assertion.

Half the stuff you type is pulled from your fourth point of contact. "This is not an administration that allows for people to get out of line." lmao, this administration does what every administration does when it comes to expecting folks to support the President. Military leaders are always going to say "we need more troops." Of course, again, he could have said we needed a million troops, Maliki said zero.

I never said I knew the inner workings of anything with Obama or Maliki. I just said what was common knowledge/word around the embassy at the time. Just a tad bit of difference. I remember having to go back and report on training on about a weekly basis. Different advising/training groups all had the same message. Iraqis had little interest in learning or becoming soldiers. Conversations went like this:

Sr advisers: How long do we have to train these guys? The four-five months per rotation is just not going to cut it."
Military attache: Do what you can. Cover your ass on the way out.(Did not even bother to ask why it would take longer to train)
Sr advisers: Oh so we are leaving and not extending?
Military attache: Look, Maliki wants numbers that the USA is just not going to give, and he wants us gone if he is not going to get it. There are really no negotiations going on either. Everyone knows that here. So just CYA on the way out.

Did not know inner workings. Did not care too. Did not claim too. That part was none of my business.

Like I said, IMO, that was a lot for a General Odierno to say something like that. Especially in this politically correct, do not step out of line, trying to transition to peace time military.

"And yes they met at Camp Bucca. I mean how can I take you seriously when you don't know basic facts like that?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

Great Qaz Awesome, do an internet search to try to find one story to back up away to try to demean someone. Just an FYI, there are a lot of reports out there that said leaders met at University before internment, there are reports that said al Baghdadi was there in 2004, but a commander and other officials of the camp said he was there for 4 years til 09, just a ton of questions about him in general, they all were known to spend time there which is why I wrote this:

Not sure they met at Bacca, a lot of them knew each other before hand and met during the enlightening but would give you that that shared experience allowed for bonding. (By shared experience I meant internment-they were all known to be there at least once.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rican-prison-helped-ignite-the-islamic-state/ (notice the word probably)

Read his wiki profile, a lot of probablies and not sures of al baghdadi-

Seems your 'basic facts like that' have a lot of questions about them.

So you tell me how long the "serious" training was? How much more "serious" training do you think we needed to do before the Iraqi army didn't start running from ISIS? How much to keep them from reprisals on Sunni towns and villages even after evicting ISIS?

Five more years? Ten?

IMO, I do not think training got serious until the second surge. By serious I mean in terms of funding, number of troops 'advising' as we like to say, and vetting candidates. JMO though.

Look a lot of leaders both political and militarily said in early 2000's that this would take decades. I tend to agree. I am not sure how one wants a timetable after seeing the poop show that Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into. Any time table one gives is a crap shoot IMO. I am of the opinion that the USA/West would be much better off keeping them on the run and attacking funding overseas in order to weaken them and their terror networks. I also mentioned I think Europe and ME should be funding a lot of it. You did not seem to agree and that is fine.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

"I'm not going to waste a ton of time talking about the idea that support troops don't vastly outnumber trigger pullers or that somehow they are all special forces supply folks. The vast majortity are 92 yankees just like I was, and no they don't "Fight" with anyone unless the BSA is overrun. Neither do the PAC Clerks. Or the Commo guys. They each do THEIR jobs so that the trigger pullers can do THEIR job as free from other obligations as possible. That's the whole point."

I am glad you decided not too. It was a way to deflect the argument from your belief that no politicians wanted a force there are military commanders wanted only a few thousand at most. Hardly any of which would be trigger pullers.

Anyway, been in 5 infantry comapnies during my career. Out of approxiamtely 140-160 soldiers, there were two supply clerks, one commo sgt, and one Nuclear Biological Chemical Sergeant. There was an armorer and two Pac clerks, those three were 11 series infantry-and yes, they did train with the platoons and would go out on missions when needed. The supply clerks did pt with us, came to the field with us, went to ranges with us, etc. So sure they might be "combat support" but they could fight and were not your typical supply guys sitting in a warehouse/BSA somewhere. NBC and Commo Sgts if even with the company stayed with the commander and 1st SGT. That is what makes up 'advisers' on deployment.

Yes, I will assert that you do not know the inner workings of the reasons why Obama or Maliki made decisions. I feel pretty comfortable in that assertion.

Half the stuff you type is pulled from your fourth point of contact. "This is not an administration that allows for people to get out of line." lmao, this administration does what every administration does when it comes to expecting folks to support the President. Military leaders are always going to say "we need more troops." Of course, again, he could have said we needed a million troops, Maliki said zero.

I never said I knew the inner workings of anything with Obama or Maliki. I just said what was common knowledge/word around the embassy at the time. Just a tad bit of difference. I remember having to go back and report on training on about a weekly basis. Different advising/training groups all had the same message. Iraqis had little interest in learning or becoming soldiers. Conversations went like this:

Sr advisers: How long do we have to train these guys? The four-five months per rotation is just not going to cut it."
Military attache: Do what you can. Cover your ass on the way out.(Did not even bother to ask why it would take longer to train)
Sr advisers: Oh so we are leaving and not extending?
Military attache: Look, Maliki wants numbers that the USA is just not going to give, and he wants us gone if he is not going to get it. There are really no negotiations going on either. Everyone knows that here. So just CYA on the way out.

Did not know inner workings. Did not care too. Did not claim too. That part was none of my business.

Like I said, IMO, that was a lot for a General Odierno to say something like that. Especially in this politically correct, do not step out of line, trying to transition to peace time military.

"And yes they met at Camp Bucca. I mean how can I take you seriously when you don't know basic facts like that?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

Great Qaz Awesome, do an internet search to try to find one story to back up away to try to demean someone. Just an FYI, there are a lot of reports out there that said leaders met at University before internment, there are reports that said al Baghdadi was there in 2004, but a commander and other officials of the camp said he was there for 4 years til 09, just a ton of questions about him in general, they all were known to spend time there which is why I wrote this:

Not sure they met at Bacca, a lot of them knew each other before hand and met during the enlightening but would give you that that shared experience allowed for bonding. (By shared experience I meant internment-they were all known to be there at least once.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rican-prison-helped-ignite-the-islamic-state/ (notice the word probably)

Read his wiki profile, a lot of probablies and not sures of al baghdadi-

Seems your 'basic facts like that' have a lot of questions about them.

So you tell me how long the "serious" training was? How much more "serious" training do you think we needed to do before the Iraqi army didn't start running from ISIS? How much to keep them from reprisals on Sunni towns and villages even after evicting ISIS?

Five more years? Ten?

IMO, I do not think training got serious until the second surge. By serious I mean in terms of funding, number of troops 'advising' as we like to say, and vetting candidates. JMO though.

Look a lot of leaders both political and militarily said in early 2000's that this would take decades. I tend to agree. I am not sure how one wants a timetable after seeing the poop show that Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into. Any time table one gives is a crap shoot IMO. I am of the opinion that the USA/West would be much better off keeping them on the run and attacking funding overseas in order to weaken them and their terror networks. I also mentioned I think Europe and ME should be funding a lot of it. You did not seem to agree and that is fine.

The popular assertion seems to be that if we left there, they'd leave us alone. But that's probably not true anymore. It is what it is.

 

[qazplm]

The popular assertion seems to be that if we left there, they'd leave us alone. But that's probably not true anymore. It is what it is.

The truth is that our being over there would not mean they couldn't attack us over here. None of their attacks are likely to be direct. It will be "inspired" whether through twitter or Americans (or Europeans) traveling there to get indoctrinated and coming back. That possibility exists equally whether we have 20K troops on the ground, or 30K or 10K or zero.

 

[qazplm]

"I'm not going to waste a ton of time talking about the idea that support troops don't vastly outnumber trigger pullers or that somehow they are all special forces supply folks. The vast majortity are 92 yankees just like I was, and no they don't "Fight" with anyone unless the BSA is overrun. Neither do the PAC Clerks. Or the Commo guys. They each do THEIR jobs so that the trigger pullers can do THEIR job as free from other obligations as possible. That's the whole point."

I am glad you decided not too. It was a way to deflect the argument from your belief that no politicians wanted a force there are military commanders wanted only a few thousand at most. Hardly any of which would be trigger pullers.

Anyway, been in 5 infantry comapnies during my career. Out of approxiamtely 140-160 soldiers, there were two supply clerks, one commo sgt, and one Nuclear Biological Chemical Sergeant. There was an armorer and two Pac clerks, those three were 11 series infantry-and yes, they did train with the platoons and would go out on missions when needed. The supply clerks did pt with us, came to the field with us, went to ranges with us, etc. So sure they might be "combat support" but they could fight and were not your typical supply guys sitting in a warehouse/BSA somewhere. NBC and Commo Sgts if even with the company stayed with the commander and 1st SGT. That is what makes up 'advisers' on deployment.

Yes, I will assert that you do not know the inner workings of the reasons why Obama or Maliki made decisions. I feel pretty comfortable in that assertion.

Half the stuff you type is pulled from your fourth point of contact. "This is not an administration that allows for people to get out of line." lmao, this administration does what every administration does when it comes to expecting folks to support the President. Military leaders are always going to say "we need more troops." Of course, again, he could have said we needed a million troops, Maliki said zero.

I never said I knew the inner workings of anything with Obama or Maliki. I just said what was common knowledge/word around the embassy at the time. Just a tad bit of difference. I remember having to go back and report on training on about a weekly basis. Different advising/training groups all had the same message. Iraqis had little interest in learning or becoming soldiers. Conversations went like this:

Sr advisers: How long do we have to train these guys? The four-five months per rotation is just not going to cut it."
Military attache: Do what you can. Cover your ass on the way out.(Did not even bother to ask why it would take longer to train)
Sr advisers: Oh so we are leaving and not extending?
Military attache: Look, Maliki wants numbers that the USA is just not going to give, and he wants us gone if he is not going to get it. There are really no negotiations going on either. Everyone knows that here. So just CYA on the way out.

Did not know inner workings. Did not care too. Did not claim too. That part was none of my business.

Like I said, IMO, that was a lot for a General Odierno to say something like that. Especially in this politically correct, do not step out of line, trying to transition to peace time military.

"And yes they met at Camp Bucca. I mean how can I take you seriously when you don't know basic facts like that?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-origins-of-isis-finding-the-birthplace-of-jihad/

Great Qaz Awesome, do an internet search to try to find one story to back up away to try to demean someone. Just an FYI, there are a lot of reports out there that said leaders met at University before internment, there are reports that said al Baghdadi was there in 2004, but a commander and other officials of the camp said he was there for 4 years til 09, just a ton of questions about him in general, they all were known to spend time there which is why I wrote this:

Not sure they met at Bacca, a lot of them knew each other before hand and met during the enlightening but would give you that that shared experience allowed for bonding. (By shared experience I meant internment-they were all known to be there at least once.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rican-prison-helped-ignite-the-islamic-state/ (notice the word probably)

Read his wiki profile, a lot of probablies and not sures of al baghdadi-

Seems your 'basic facts like that' have a lot of questions about them.

So you tell me how long the "serious" training was? How much more "serious" training do you think we needed to do before the Iraqi army didn't start running from ISIS? How much to keep them from reprisals on Sunni towns and villages even after evicting ISIS?

Five more years? Ten?

IMO, I do not think training got serious until the second surge. By serious I mean in terms of funding, number of troops 'advising' as we like to say, and vetting candidates. JMO though.

Look a lot of leaders both political and militarily said in early 2000's that this would take decades. I tend to agree. I am not sure how one wants a timetable after seeing the poop show that Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into. Any time table one gives is a crap shoot IMO. I am of the opinion that the USA/West would be much better off keeping them on the run and attacking funding overseas in order to weaken them and their terror networks. I also mentioned I think Europe and ME should be funding a lot of it. You did not seem to agree and that is fine.

So you think it makes sense, politically, financially, or even militarily to spend DECADES with 30K+ Soldiers in Iraq?
So you think the right answer to how can we stop a millennia long religious battle in a country containing the two participants in said battle is sit 30K+ troops there for "decades?"
You think that will improve our terrorism problem?

That's insanity. We'd financially destroy our country doing that, we'd have thousands of lost lives, thousands more broken, with zero chance of the exact same things not breaking out the moment we left "decades" from now and additionally fanning the flames for additional attacks on us here in the interim. There's a reason the military is run by civilians. The military doesn't know the answer "it can't be done." That's a great quality to have. But you know what, sometimes, it can't be done.

The only answer is to disengage from that region. Let them kill each other on their own terms until they figure out a better way. Protect Israel's sovereignty (which quite frankly isn't much at risk given the relative military disparity right now). Encourage politically and of course keep using intelligence and covert means to keep track of the bad guys to minimize attacks over here.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The truth is that our being over there would not mean they couldn't attack us over here. None of their attacks are likely to be direct. It will be "inspired" whether through twitter or Americans (or Europeans) traveling there to get indoctrinated and coming back. That possibility exists equally whether we have 20K troops on the ground, or 30K or 10K or zero.

I agree that it doesn't mean they wouldn't or couldn't, but the fact is while troops were there, their focus was not on attacking the US... They were recruiting people to come join the jihad there. ISIS wants the holy war to happen in or near the Caliphate.

Otherwise, yes, I agree. Nothing stops them from attacking here at this point. Again, we've been involved over there long enough that pulling out now isn't stopping them from attacking us. Maybe in the 1980s. It is what it is.

 

[qazplm]

I agree that it doesn't mean they wouldn't or couldn't, but the fact is while troops were there, their focus was not on attacking the US... They were recruiting people to come join the jihad there. ISIS wants the holy war to happen in or near the Caliphate.

Otherwise, yes, I agree. Nothing stops them from attacking here at this point. Again, we've been involved over there long enough that pulling out now isn't stopping them from attacking us. Maybe in the 1980s. It is what it is.

I think ISIS will take what it can get. I think they do not limit their holy war to just the ME, although I thin they are savvy enough to realize that they are more limited perhaps in their reach since they are, unlike AQ, actually focused on creating a nation-state/caliphate. But, having said that, I think if they could inspire an attack in the West, or ten, they'd be just fine with that, and I don't think it would matter if they were fighting our troops or someone elses.

But the real issue here is that it is time for the countries in the ME to fight their own battles and secure their own stability. Let SA put some troops in the field for example. We already subsidize several of those nations with weapons and training and more...time for them to start using it and stop using our troops to stabilize their region.

 

[Purdue97]

The truth is that our being over there would not mean they couldn't attack us over here. None of their attacks are likely to be direct. It will be "inspired" whether through twitter or Americans (or Europeans) traveling there to get indoctrinated and coming back. That possibility exists equally whether we have 20K troops on the ground, or 30K or 10K or zero.

I do not disagree that it would not be 100% successful in stopping an attack-especially an inspired lone wold type attack that we just saw in TN. I do think it would be greatly beneficial in stopping another 9/11. I would also state that the Obama admin went after Khorasan(al qaeda offshoot) in Syria, and they were thought to be tied to a possible attack in NY and aviation. I would just rather have them running and being disrupted over there than allow them to train, raise, money and recruit, without worry.

Anyway, I think I have also mentioned in more than one post that the ME, UN, and other western nations need to foot much of the bill, or contribute militarily along the levels of England, Canada, the Dutch, Estonia, and Austrlia. So sure, that is an acknowledgment that the USA cannot go it alone.

 

[lbodel]

Donald Trump is the face of the Republican Party.

Fact.

New CNN poll has him gaining more traction - and leads among Republican women as well (with 60% approval rating.

The question is, if he doesn't implode himself (which somehow he's managed to avoid), is whether he can gain support from people who support other candidates once those candidates trim down. Basically, what's his ceiling? In this poll, he has a 58% approval rating from Republicans. However, 58% also say Republicans would have a better chance of winning with someone else

One thing I've seen brought up is he is happy to get in front of the cameras and so he's getting a lot of coverage. He'll go and do interview after interview. Obviously the spectacle will also eventually fade as you can only get so much hype for so long.

 

[qazplm]

New CNN poll has him gaining more traction - and leads among Republican women as well (with 60% approval rating.

The question is, if he doesn't implode himself (which somehow he's managed to avoid), is whether he can gain support from people who support other candidates once those candidates trim down. Basically, what's his ceiling? In this poll, he has a 58% approval rating from Republicans. However, 58% also say Republicans would have a better chance of winning with someone else

One thing I've seen brought up is he is happy to get in front of the cameras and so he's getting a lot of coverage. He'll go and do interview after interview. Obviously the spectacle will also eventually fade as you can only get so much hype for so long.

I just dont see how republican pull the lever for him come actual voting time. Having said that, two bits I continue to maintain:

1. His immigration stance is going to be THE immigration stance of the party the more he hangs around, and that's bad news for chances of any eventual nominee getting enough of the Hispanic vote to win. He just put out a plan that almost half of all Republicans say they like, that is getting favorable overall views at places like the National Review and on talk radio, and that several of the candidates have more or less said they like parts of it (like revoking birthright citizenship for example). He's going to force the candidates to embrace at least part of it, even Bush and Rubio, and that's going to hurt them with the very demo they need to win.

2. As long as he's sucking down 20-25% of the vote, no one candidate is going to be able to break out. We might see a brokered convention, which is never a sign of strength for a party. The moment when/if he drops out, there's going to be a mad scramble to get his supporters. What will be done to lure them will not reflect well for moderate voters IMO.

 

[Beeazlebub]

I just dont see how republican pull the lever for him come actual voting time. Having said that, two bits I continue to maintain:

1. His immigration stance is going to be THE immigration stance of the party the more he hangs around, and that's bad news for chances of any eventual nominee getting enough of the Hispanic vote to win. He just put out a plan that almost half of all Republicans say they like, that is getting favorable overall views at places like the National Review and on talk radio, and that several of the candidates have more or less said they like parts of it (like revoking birthright citizenship for example). He's going to force the candidates to embrace at least part of it, even Bush and Rubio, and that's going to hurt them with the very demo they need to win.

2. As long as he's sucking down 20-25% of the vote, no one candidate is going to be able to break out. We might see a brokered convention, which is never a sign of strength for a party. The moment when/if he drops out, there's going to be a mad scramble to get his supporters. What will be done to lure them will not reflect well for moderate voters IMO.

Something else I haven't seen discussed at 538, NYTimes, or elsewhere is what happens if/when Cruz or Carson drop from the race? Both are considered anti-establishment candidates with extreme positions, so it seems their support may be more likely to move toward Trump than Bush, Rubio, or any other candidate that emerges.

 

[qazplm]

Something else I haven't seen discussed at 538, NYTimes, or elsewhere is what happens if/when Cruz or Carson drop from the race? Both are considered anti-establishment candidates with extreme positions, so it seems their support may be more likely to move toward Trump than Bush, Rubio, or any other candidate that emerges.

Maybe but I'm guessing it could as easily be they aren't Trumpites because something about him turns them off so they might move to say Paul or Cruz who are less traditional candidates.

 

[lbodel]

Something else I haven't seen discussed at 538, NYTimes, or elsewhere is what happens if/when Cruz or Carson drop from the race? Both are considered anti-establishment candidates with extreme positions, so it seems their support may be more likely to move toward Trump than Bush, Rubio, or any other candidate that emerges.

I don't think it's a simple establishment vs. non-establishment candidates. There are some people who think he's not a true Republican - while no one doubts a guy like Ted Cruz being conservative. So I don't think it's as simple as "this person supports a non-establishment person so their support will go to another, very different non-establishment type".

That being said, there are areas where Trump is not a "traditional" conservative that I'm surprised that some of these candidates have not pressed him on. One issue is gun control - in his book, he says he supports an assault weapons ban and longer waiting periods for gun purchases. But where Trump is a bit different than these other candidates is that he's not coming from a political background, where his stances are really established. That book is from 2000. So he can create his own new position (whether it's BS or not is another thing) and people can't say "well 6 months ago you said this…" because he doesn't have a voting record.

 

[qazplm]

Are you trolling for crazies?

So not just for Noodle, but Trump's at 32 percent nationally now among Republican voters and he's been in the lead now I believe longer than any of the 2012 flash in the pans were.

So is this question still "trolling for crazies?" Or is Trump now the legit front-runner and the guy who has a real shot at the republican nomination.

I still think he'll falter at some point, but I think he won't falter enough to not have things lead to a brokered convention, where just about anything can happen.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Trump will have the same impact on the election as Bernie Sanders.

That is actually a very insightful statement.

Taking it a step further, if neither got the nomination from the Dems and Reps and both ran as independents it would create chaos. Imagine the votes Bernie would steal from the Looney Left and the votes Trump would get from people fed up with PC and establishment politicians. It could actually make this the best election ever.....vbg

 

[BoilerMadness]

Donald Trump is the face of the Republican Party.

Fact.

By the same token, you could call Hillary the face of the Democratic Party. Lying, untrustworthy, inept, entitled and self-absorbed. WOW, that's a pretty accurate description of Obama, as well. She is well suited to lead an Obama third term and you could hardly tell the difference.