• United States answer to Ramadi's fall to Daesh/ISIS: Speed up the arming and training of Iraqi tribe
    12 replies, posted
[quote]US President Barack Obama is considering faster training and more arms supplies for Iraqi tribes, while eying a rapid counteroffensive to retake Ramadi from the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), a US official has said. [B]"We are looking at how best to support local ground forces in Anbar [province]," National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey told the AFP news agency, "including accelerating the training and equipping of local tribes and supporting an Iraqi-led operation to retake Ramadi".[/B] Ramadi, a city in Iraq's Sunni heartland just 90 minutes' drive away from the capital Baghdad, was taken by ISIL on Sunday. Iraq's army and allied militias are currently massed around Ramadi, looking for swift action to recapture the city from ISIL before it builds up defences. The UN said on Tuesday that at least 25,000 people had escaped the city ahead of the expected battle. The audacious military victory was a major blow in the battle against ISIL, calling into question Obama's strategy in Iraq and the authority of his ally, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. [B]The White House has described the loss of Ramadi as a "setback"[/B] but played down suggestions that the war is being lost. "Are we going to light our hair on fire every time that there is a setback in the campaign?" asked White House spokesman Josh Earnest. [B]"There is no formal strategy review," said Baskey, indicating that the pace rather than type of assistance to Sunni tribes was in question.[/B] A more detailed announcement could come within days. Obama has repeatedly ruled out sending vast numbers of US troops back to the theatre of a bloody and unpopular nine-year war that he vowed to end. Instead, he has vowed to support Iraq's struggling army and hit ISIL from the air. There has also been support for disparate [B]Iraqi militias that have proven a more potent fighting force than army or police regulars.[/B] Both Washington and Baghdad had been [B]uneasy about arms flowing directly to Kurdish peshmerga fighters in the north, fearing those arms could later be used in the battle for independence.[/B] Meanwhile, many of the [B]Shia groups that helped retake Tikrit are armed and trained by Iran.[/B][/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/ponders-arms-iraqi-tribes-ramadi-rout-obama-150520004235389.html[/url]
One group arming the Shia and the other arming the Sunni while another arms the Kurds is just asking for trouble. Can't wait till this blows up in our face again.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;47765054]One group arming the Shia and the other arming the Sunni while another arms the Kurds is just asking for trouble. Can't wait till this blows up in our face again.[/QUOTE] Bin Laden 2.0 when?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;47765054]One group arming the Shia and the other arming the Sunni while another arms the Kurds is just asking for trouble. Can't wait till this blows up in our face again.[/QUOTE] Not before they blow each other up :v
Why do I feel like this is the opposite of helping?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47765114]Why do I feel like this is the opposite of helping?[/QUOTE] The US is between a rock and a hard place They can either arm and support the tribes who may be more effective at pushing Daesh back Or they can support the regular Iraq military that would be less effective and is known for retreating due to Daesh's excellent propaganda but will strengthen (or maybe not) relations with Baghdad.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;47765114]Why do I feel like this is the opposite of helping?[/QUOTE] Because it's the most we can do without severely tarnishing the world's opinion of the US/NATO. Best case scenario, we drop in with boots on the ground and run ISIS out of Iraq within a few months, but thats going to cause casualties for the US and inevitably cause civilian casualties, so the US populace will be pissed we're fighting another countries war and losing our boys because of it, and that country will be pissed that theres civilian losses, even though we freed them from one of the most oppressive groups to pop up in the last few hundred years. Furthermore its not just Iraq thats affected by this cock monglers, Syria's suffering too so we'd have to clean them up as well or they'd just come right back. Russia wouldn't take kindly to that because thats their territory. Russia and China wouldn't like that to begin with because everyone and their grandma knows they're making mad bank by selling guns to these groups. By us just throwing flak jackets and guns at these groups, they can just kill each other far away from us while we sit in relative peace and complain about how bad an idea this is. It's better this way* *for us. Supporting from the background is the wrong decision any way you look at it. If we arm the tribes, they'll inevitably fight each other over some petty religious bullshit or land squabbles, and it's been proven time and time again that these regime we're supporting in Iraq is incapable, incompetent, and a bunch of lame-asses with a cowardly military. It's a lose-lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
Even if we sent boots on the ground, both with the US populace's permission and Iraq's permission, we would inevitably have to stop at the Syria-Iraqi border, which only sets Daesh back, not destroys it. Especially when it's making gains in Syria as well, arguably easier there than in Iraq.
Why do we bother with the middle east? The place is nothing but a melting pot of violence.
[QUOTE=Reshy;47765598]Why do we bother with the middle east? The place is nothing but a melting pot of violence.[/QUOTE] Oil and Israel. Back in the Cold War, the middle east was a large chessboard between the US and USSR. The US had Israel and Saudi Arabia while the USSR had Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Unfortunately, just because the USSR disolved didn't mean the US gave up their alliances.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47765096]Bin Laden 2.0 when?[/QUOTE] Bin Laden never received western aid
As long as US is responsible for it's actions and reaps what it sows. [editline]20th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47766082]Bin Laden never received western aid[/QUOTE] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/qdCuOIk.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=Reshy;47765598]Why do we bother with the middle east? The place is nothing but a melting pot of violence.[/QUOTE] Resources and the fact that its an area of violence that spreads violence like crazy. [editline]20th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47766082]Bin Laden never received western aid[/QUOTE] Did you forget 1979-1989 was a thing? Mujahadeen forces in Afghanistan received aid and training to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, Bin Laden included.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.