# The Battle for Ramadi



## Warrigal (Jun 10, 2015)

The US is reportedly sending 450 more "trainers" to Iraq.




> The Obama administration is sending 450 more U.S. military personnel to help Iraq's military as it tries to take back the city of Ramadi from the terrorist group ISIS, a senior administration official confirmed to NBC News — a move the White House emphasized is not "boots on the ground" by another name.
> 
> "To improve the capabilities and effectiveness of partners on the ground, the president authorized the deployment of up to 450 additional U.S. military personnel to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces at Taqaddum military base in eastern Anbar province," according to a statement by the White House released Wednesday.
> 
> ...



I heard some discussion on this this morning on the radio and the opinion was expressed that if the Iraqis aren't prepared to fight for their country they should not be supported/trained indefinitely.

What say you all about this development?  Necessary but limited response or the thin edge of the wedge?
I'm still waiting to hear whether Australia will commit more personnel to this cause. 
I'm sure our PM will want to, if only for the press conference.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 11, 2015)

Told ya. Our PM is talking tough on terrorism and ISIS.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/06/11/16/20/australia-weighs-up-iraq-boost



> *Australia weighs up Iraq boost*
> 
> Australia is talking with coalition partners about a possible boost to its involvement in Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 11, 2015)

I think that when we sent them to Vietnam that they were called advisors...


----------



## oakapple (Jun 11, 2015)

I think we have a duty to help in this case.It may be too little too late though .


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 11, 2015)

Well, when Obama says our policy sucks you have to wonder...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  Remember he has repeatedly asked Congress to debate the situation and we hear crickets up on Capital Hill. Yet there are all sorts of "arm chair POTUSs" on talk radio and TV..  Exactly what is the answer?


----------



## Don M. (Jun 11, 2015)

"If the Iraqi's aren't prepared to fight for their own country, etc."

We have spent 100's of Billions, and destroyed the lives of thousands of our own troops to prepare the Iraqi's to fend for themselves....apparently in Vain.  The Middle East is a quagmire of quicksand that can only suck us in deeper and deeper.  ISIS is now very well armed with billions of dollars of US military equipment that the Iraqi troops abandoned.  

One of the definitions of Insanity is "doing the same things over and over, and expecting the results to be different".


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Don M. said:


> "If the Iraqi's aren't prepared to fight for their own country, etc."
> 
> We have spent 100's of Billions, and destroyed the lives of thousands of our own troops to prepare the Iraqi's to fend for themselves....apparently in Vain.  The Middle East is a quagmire of quicksand that can only suck us in deeper and deeper.  ISIS is now very well armed with billions of dollars of US military equipment that the Iraqi troops abandoned.
> 
> One of the definitions of Insanity is "doing the same things over and over, and expecting the results to be different".



I agree, but if we do nothing and Iran (as in Shia) take over Sunni territory and... does who knows what... and Iraq falls apart.. and THE SKY IS FALLING... and what about Israel????    See?  

Here's the thing.. I think we have to stop thinking that Iraq is a country.  It was a PHONY country invented by the British in 1919.  It was held together by the despot Saddam Hussein, who is gone now thanks to GW and friends...    Iraq is actually three maybe four countries.. Sunni, Shiite and Kurds.. perhaps some other tribes..  Let them form their own boundaries and elect their own leaders...  ENOUGH!


----------



## Don M. (Jun 11, 2015)

IMO, our policy should be one of "containment" where these Islamic Fools are allowed to tear each other apart, until they begin to come to their senses and decide to join the 21st century.  Insofar as Israel is concerned, based upon past history, the Israeli's seem to have no trouble winning any confrontation with the Arabs.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Don M. said:


> IMO, our policy should be one of "containment" where these Islamic Fools are allowed to tear each other apart, until they begin to come to their senses and decide to join the 21st century.  Insofar as Israel is concerned, based upon past history, the Israeli's seem to have no trouble winning any confrontation with the Arabs.



Absolutely... contain them... but how without sending troops?   

As for Israel..  I also agree.. but Israel is used as a red herring and a political hammer by the Right... and an election is coming up... soooooooooooooo


----------



## Don M. (Jun 11, 2015)

"Contain them...but how"?

The last time I checked, we have billions of dollars invested in things like Aircraft carriers and drones, etc.  If these Fanatics want to tear Iraq and Syria apart, so be it.  However, if they set one foot outside of those boundaries, we utilize our resources to blown them to tiny bits.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Don M. said:


> "Contain them...but how"?
> 
> The last time I checked, we have billions of dollars invested in things like Aircraft carriers and drones, etc.  If these Fanatics want to tear Iraq and Syria apart, so be it.  However, if they set one foot outside of those boundaries, we utilize our resources to blown them to tiny bits.



I suppose...that's one way of looking at it.  So they step into say.. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon.. we just start lobbing missals into those countries?


----------



## Geezerette (Jun 11, 2015)

Sadly, have to agree with Don M. Wish we could cut off the supply lines to ISIS.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Geezerette said:


> Sadly, have to agree with Don M. Wish we could cut off the supply lines to ISIS.



Yeah.... good idea..    How though?  Without sending in troops or lobbing bombs into other countries?


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 11, 2015)

Obama doesn't want to be the president that will have to go to Dover Air Force Base to attend the U.S soldiers body bags back home, so he will not commit our troop to combat while President.   IN a way he's very smart to leave this decision to the next President.
This doesn't change my mind as I STILL don't care for him as President.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> Obama doesn't want to be the president that will have to go to Dover Air Force Base to attend the U.S soldiers body bags back home, so he will not commit our troop to combat while President.   IN a way he's very smart to leave this decision to the next President.
> This doesn't change my mind as I STILL don't care for him as President.



And you think that's a BAD thing?   I think it's a good thing.. and that he is a great President for wanting to keep us out of this "clusterfutch" as much as possible.  Can you imagine if Bush or one of his hawkish buddies were president..  We'd have to double the size of Dover to accommodate all our dead kids.  I''m praying our next President feels the very same way.


----------



## Don M. (Jun 11, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I suppose...that's one way of looking at it.  So they step into say.. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon.. we just start lobbing missals into those countries?



I would include ALL of the Middle East "Muslim" nations...in a "Who Gives a Hoot" realm.  If ISIS wants to spread its lunacy into the nations you mentioned, it becomes the responsibility of those nations to take action....and Not us.  If the Sunni and Shiite factions want to go after each other, so be it....the more they go after each other, the less effort they can devote to spreading their idiocy to our shores.  Our concern should be more in keeping these radicals out of the U.S.  Towards that goal, I would put more of our ground forces along our borders to assist the Border Patrol in intercepting any of these whacko's who might try to slip in among the illegals coming in from Mexico...which might also have a positive side effect in reducing the flow of illegal drugs from the Mexican Cartels.  I would also do some serious work with the TSA and get some agents who can do their jobs properly...rather than standing around fondling themselves and harassing Grandmothers.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Ahhh...  but the Corporate Military Industrial Complex might disagree with your plans.   They profit BIG from continuous warfare..  They are the lobbyists and doners to the super pacs getting war hawks elected..  Again.. Thanks Citizens United.


----------



## Don M. (Jun 11, 2015)

That's right....Eisenhower warned about this Complex...but No one in Washington seems willing to listen.  If a person follows the money on sites like OpenSecrets.org, it quickly becomes apparent that our MIC donates lavishly to Both sides of the Aisle...so no matter who wins the elections, the MIC interests are Well Protected.  I would be surprised if many of these "Hawks" in Congress ever saw, first hand, the horrors of war.  The one that amazes me most is McCain...one would think that after what he went through in VietNam, he would be dead set against exposing anyone else to such a mess...which makes me think that his time in VietNam affected his mind.


----------



## Geezerette (Jun 11, 2015)

Once  again agreeing with Don M.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 11, 2015)

Geezerette said:


> Once  again agreeing with Don M.




Actually... Don M. and I aren't disagreeing...  We are discussing the problem.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

We are going to have to get our head around the change that has occurred in the world with the rise of ISIS.  This is not just a regional power that would stop with an ME empire but, rather, has the world in its sights.  Sooner or later the West will have to act with more force, and the sooner the better, as it will take more lives and treasure with the longer we wait...


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2015)

Over reach is what brings them all down in the end.
Napoleon with Russia, Hitler opening the eastern front, the Soviets trying to beat the US in the arms race.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

Over reach could be a problem but should we have to wait for that?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2015)

No. perhaps we should accelerate it.
The Russians did it to Napoleon by retreating from Moscow and burning the crops, leaving a scorched earth.

Perhaps they could be lured into a trap? A very big trap.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jun 12, 2015)

Listened to General Odierno this morning... U.S. Army Chief of Staff.  2009 up until about 2 years ago, the Iraqi Army had both Shia and Sunni and things were marginally getting by.  As Malakai began empowering the Shia in "his" army, the Sunni began falling out.  Many joined ISIS/ISIL and those left in the Iraqi Army would not fight members of their own sect.  The U.S. trainers in Iraq today are working with the mostly Shia Iraq Army, attempting to get them to able to defend their Country.  The 450 additional trainers will be focused on setting up training sites for the few Sunni still attached in hopes more Sunni can be recruited to fight ISIS/ISIL.

Odierno's focus was this MUST be a fight handled by those in the region... NOT the U.S.  He was adamant that if we took in ground troops and took out ISIS/ISIL, that would not stabilize the region since no one had "skin in the game".  He said that at any time ISIS/ISIL developed to where they were an imminent and immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, all bets were off.  Until then, he feels the strategy will be to empower and unite components within Iraq and to motivate regional governments to become more involved.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

I don't know about a trap of that magnitude but we had better get on with really stopping them soon...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 12, 2015)

I think right now, few Sunni want to fight and die for a Shiite dominated government or country.  Particularly when they don't really recognize Iraq and it's Western dictated borders as a country.   This is exactly why ISIS exists in the first place.. to retaliate for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and to protest Sunnis pretty well being left out of the government.  Kill off this group, and another will form.  Do we want to play whack-a-mole forever?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

They are expanding way beyond the ME and we had better pay attention now or suffer the consequences later...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 12, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> They are expanding way beyond the ME and we had better pay attention now or suffer the consequences later...



Personally... I think ISIS talks a pretty good game.. and I think much of their rhetoric is a recruitment tool to fire up people to come and fight on their side.  We need to do whatever it takes to keep ourselves safe and to stop the homegrown Terrorists from functioning.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

They are better organized, financed and led than we think.  This is going to take a large amount of will and effort to eradicate them on all fronts...


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2015)

I agree with Quicksilver. ISIS is not spreading beyond the ME except to recruit fighters. Al Qaeda is the group that targets foreign governments. What ISIS wants is to take over large tracts of the ME to establish a Sunni led caliphate. If they do, this could be their downfall because it is one thing to conquer a people but it is something else entirely to govern them. 

Ralphy, when you say "we", I don't feel myself part of that pronoun. If Indonesia becomes destabilised by similar radical Islamists I won't feel any desire to go in and sort them out unless they start invading Singapore or PNG. Then I might consider it more personal.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

Hmmm, the ghost of Chamberlin lives on...


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2015)

That is the excuse of a hawk. Sometimes it is the wisdom of the owl that is needed.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

And who was right, Chamberlin or Churchill?  I rest my case...


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2015)

Australians have problems with Churchill. He got us into trouble in two world wars.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 12, 2015)

What I think is happening in the ME is the eventual reversion to pre 1919 days before our meddling with borders.  We have destabilized the region by removing Hussein, who nasty as he was, kept a lid on the centuries old fighting.   The ME, will be carved up according to religion.. with a Sunni country. A Shiite country, and perhaps a Kurdish country.   And guess what?  They are not going to be democracies..  they will be hard core theocracies.  Jeffersonian Democracy is OUR invention.. it's not something this area or these people want.. nor will they ever embrace it.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

He got you in and we got you out...nthego:


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2015)

Churchill was a product of British Empire mindset. His choices reflect that. Re ISIS, unclear to me whether or not their rhetoric is genuine, but I don't feel we can take the chance that they will contain their actions to the Middle East. Also, their crimes against humanity are off the map. Even in a war setting, some actions are far beyond the fog of war.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

The sun did finally set on the British empire, but let's hope that it doesn't on all of civilization...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 12, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Churchill was a product of British Empire mindset. His choices reflect that. Re ISIS, unclear to me whether or not their rhetoric is genuine, but I don't feel we can take the chance that they will contain their actions to the Middle East. Also, their crimes against humanity are off the map. Even in a war setting, some actions are far beyond the fog of war.



I agree about their crimes.. but I also see that as part of the recruitment strategy..  Those able to be radicalized are turned on by that stuff..  It inflames and inspires them.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2015)

Ralphy, civilization has always been under threat, will continue to be so, until when, and if, we climb out of the sandbox and embrace something other than violence and greed. We need to grow up, it is becoming too  dangerous to be testosterone crazed children any longer.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2015)

Sadly, QS, you are right. To some, these horrors are the stuff erotic dreams are made of.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

See how those dreams become reality for you when the "Hun".are at the door...


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2015)

Please do not mistake my opinions for naïveté Ralphy, I have seen horror, I just view this situation from a different perspective.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 12, 2015)

OK, even if it is the wrong perspective...nthego:


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 12, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> See how those dreams become reality for you when the "Hun".are at the door...




Ralphy....  While I am loathe to take ISIS lightly.. and up front, let me say that they are a scourge and an menace..  I really stop short of seeing hoards of them swarming our northern and southern borders and capturing San Antonio or Hoboken.   (After they conquer Canada that is)    What I do see is continued radicalization of  young American Muslims who are eager to pull off another Boston Marathon bombing.. or worse yet another 911.    This is a much different war than WWII.. Our enemy is already here.. and can only be stopped by surveillance and covert operations.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2015)

But QS, I don't want Canada to be conquered first. Lol.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2015)

Quicksilver is right. Nobody outside the ME is under threat of invasion. 
There are economic threats though. Also there are economic opportunities. 
These are two of the stronger motives for engaging in war.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 12, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> But QS, I don't want Canada to be conquered first. Lol.



Well to get to us they are either going to have to conquer Canada or Mexico... OR... the could attack on the coast.. you know... with their massive Navy..  lol!!   

We need Paul Revere... One if by land... two if by sea!!


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 12, 2015)

QS, HaHaHaHaHaHa. Perhaps they will steal our canoes, lest we join up with the American Navy and disturb the balance of power.....


----------

