• Ashton Carter: U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria
    21 replies, posted
[QUOTE] Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that [B]the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants[/B] as progress against them remains elusive. "We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group. [B] Carter pointed to last week's rescue operation with Kurdish forces in northern Iraq to free hostages held by ISIS. [/B] Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, [B]Carter said last week that the military expects "more raids of this kind" and that the rescue mission "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission."[/B] [B]This may mean some American soldiers "will be in harm's way, no question about it," Carter said last week.[/B] ... White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz on Tuesday said the administration has "no intention of long term ground combat". He added that U.S. forces will continue to robustly train, advise and assist. ... Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the "balance of forces" has tilted in Assad's favor. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131"]Source: NBC News[/URL] lol
Good. Go get 'em boys.
"Begin". I'm pretty sure they've been at it for a while now. That raid is just the first publicly announced combat deployment of US Personnel. Any time we send "advisers" there's usually some element of Special Operations units sent among them. After all, you need guys on the ground to direct the airstrikes effectively.
Fuck ISIS. Kill every last one of em.
Yay another pointless conflict which cannot be won.
IMO it's way past the point where direct intervention would've been effective. ISIS have had a lot of time to entrench.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49002391]Yay another pointless conflict which cannot be won.[/QUOTE] Now we're going to be in another quagmire for another 20 years. I can't wait to see what organization is spawned from the destruction of ISIS. I'm starting to think that the point of these interventions to create an organization of pure crystallized anti-american hate so the military can destroy it and end evil once and for all
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49002404]IMO it's way past the point where direct intervention would've been effective. ISIS have had a lot of time to entrench.[/QUOTE] As long as they keep rescuing hostages, I'm happy.
Can america just go "Okay fuck it, Iraq is ours, all right?" The problem is the fucking governments that we leave in place after we leave are corrupt and useless. The military doesn't give a shit about their country, so they just drop their guns and burn their uniforms. America is pretty good at occupying these countries once we've defeated the main combatant, then there's just some insurgents who blow a truck up every now and then. Ultimately, we need to destroy Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49002864]Can america just go "Okay fuck it, Iraq is ours, all right?" The problem is the fucking governments that we leave in place after we leave are corrupt and useless. The military doesn't give a shit about their country, so they just drop their guns and burn their uniforms. America is pretty good at occupying these countries once we've defeated the main combatant, then there's just some insurgents who blow a truck up every now and then. Ultimately, we need to destroy Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran[/QUOTE] Occupying countries is a huge money drain. The bill for the 2003-2011 Iraq War was in the trillions. Also, Iraq falling quickly to extremists is, in part, a result of America's piss-poor nation rebuilding in the region. They exiled large parts of the former Saddam government & army who now make up ISIS' leadership. Destroying more middle-eastern nations is just going to destabilize the region more.
[QUOTE=Flapjacks;49002962]Occupying countries is a huge money drain. The bill for the 2003-2011 Iraq War was in the trillions. Also, Iraq falling quickly to extremists is, in part, a result of America's piss-poor nation rebuilding in the region. They exiled large parts of the former Saddam government & army who now make up ISIS' leadership. Destroying more middle-eastern nations is just going to destabilize the region more.[/QUOTE] Yeah but we need to sap the country. We get all the oil, free, in exchange for their country not being a shithole anymore. And we just keep Iraq as a territory until they become some semblance of a real country. Well someone's gotta do something about those three countries. What are we gonna do, ask them to stop supporting terrorism?
[QUOTE=Flapjacks;49002962]Occupying countries is a huge money drain. The bill for the 2003-2011 Iraq War was in the trillions. Also, Iraq falling quickly to extremists is, in part, a result of America's piss-poor nation rebuilding in the region. They exiled large parts of the former Saddam government & army who now make up ISIS' leadership. Destroying more middle-eastern nations is just going to destabilize the region more.[/QUOTE] I think he was invisioning annexing the countries completely.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49003013]I think he was invisioning annexing the countries completely.[/QUOTE] Just like Puerto Rico
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49003045]Just like Puerto Rico[/QUOTE] I wish that was a feasible plan. And I'm not being sarcastic, I want global stability as much as the next guy.
Iraq War III Coming soon to theaters.
I'm starting to think the US is a glutton for punishment based on the way they love to get involved in the middle east's terribly convoluted affairs.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49002864]Can america just go "Okay fuck it, Iraq is ours, all right?" The problem is the fucking governments that we leave in place after we leave are corrupt and useless. The military doesn't give a shit about their country, so they just drop their guns and burn their uniforms. America is pretty good at occupying these countries once we've defeated the main combatant, then there's just some insurgents who blow a truck up every now and then. Ultimately, we need to destroy Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran[/QUOTE] That'd be a great way to justify them calling us Imperialists.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49002391]Yay another pointless conflict which cannot be won.[/QUOTE] Yes lets just let ISIS dominate the middle east because 10 years from now there might be the occasional car bomb which means everything was a big failure.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49002994]Yeah but we need to sap the country. We get all the oil, free, in exchange for their country not being a shithole anymore. And we just keep Iraq as a territory until they become some semblance of a real country. Well someone's gotta do something about those three countries. What are we gonna do, ask them to stop supporting terrorism?[/QUOTE] Yah annexing their country won't help ISIS's cause at all right...
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49002864]Can america just go "Okay fuck it, Iraq is ours, all right?" The problem is the fucking governments that we leave in place after we leave are corrupt and useless. The military doesn't give a shit about their country, so they just drop their guns and burn their uniforms. America is pretty good at occupying these countries once we've defeated the main combatant, then there's just some insurgents who blow a truck up every now and then. Ultimately, we need to destroy Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran[/QUOTE] Unless we want to go full Roman/British Empire, and are willing to brutally suppress dissent, we can't reasonably occupy a country like that. Its not feasible in the 21st century, The West just doesn't have the stomach for it.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;49004477]Unless we want to go full Roman/British Empire, and are willing to brutally suppress dissent, we can't reasonably occupy a country like that. Its not feasible in the 21st century, The West just doesn't have the stomach for it.[/QUOTE] not to mention that imperialism can't fix corruption and sectarism, since it depends on corruption and sectarism to exist and work in the first place, neither the romans, nor the british could do something like that, the romans basically murdered or enslaved everyone who disagreed and incorporated into the empire those who accepted the rule, and the british simply picked one ethinic/religious group and then gave that group free reign to do whatever the fuck it wanted to the others in exchange for loyalty.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49002864]Can america just go "Okay fuck it, Iraq is ours, all right?" The problem is the fucking governments that we leave in place after we leave are corrupt and useless. The military doesn't give a shit about their country, so they just drop their guns and burn their uniforms. America is pretty good at occupying these countries once we've defeated the main combatant, then there's just some insurgents who blow a truck up every now and then. Ultimately, we need to destroy Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran[/QUOTE] Like a modern day "white mans burden" [sp]was your suggestion a joke?[/sp] [editline]29th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Pantz Master;49004477]Unless we want to go full Roman/British Empire, and are willing to brutally suppress dissent, we can't reasonably occupy a country like that. Its not feasible in the 21st century, The West just doesn't have the stomach for it.[/QUOTE] the british usually ruled via regional or local leaders, sometimes the local leader didn't even have the change. The persians did this also. Its a pretty effective tactic. That would be kind of like a puppet ruler or would involve rubbing shoulders with someone like Assad... hm.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.