General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUS forces in combat in Iraq again (not related to genocide threat)
U.S. Warplanes Strike Militants in Iraq
American warplanes struck Sunni militant positions in northern Iraq on Friday, the Pentagon and Kurdish officials said, confirming the first significant American military operation in the country since United States forces withdrew in 2011.
Two F-18 fighters dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs on a mobile artillery target near Erbil, according to a statement by Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. Militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria were using the artillery to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, near U.S. personnel, Admiral Kirby said.
The strike followed President Obamas announcement Thursday night that he had authorized limited airstrikes to protect American citizens in Erbil and Baghdad, and, if necessary, to break the siege of tens of thousand of refugees who are stranded on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq.
* * *
Kurdish fighters, known as pesh merga, have been hard pressed in recent days by the militant fighters, who have seized several towns near Erbil from the Kurds and took the Mosul Dam, one of the most important installations in the country. The airstrike appeared intended to help stem the tide.
The airstrikes are being led by the U.S.A., and pesh merga are attacking with Katyusha, said Halgurd Hekmat, a spokesman for the Kurdish fighters, referring to a type of Russian-made tactical rocket.
* * *
Britain, a close ally and coalition partner of the United States in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Friday that it would not take part in military action there now but would provide humanitarian aid and technical assistance. Turkey, a NATO ally that borders northern Iraq, said on Thursday that it, too, would step up humanitarian aid to the region, news agencies reported.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/world/middleeast/iraq.html?_r=0
Pay close attention. Obama focused his speech on the potential genocide of the Yezidis. Who could oppose that? But, it is the other grounds for a strike being used here, because the US saw a threat to its interests. This strike was to protect US "personnel and facilities" in Erbil.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Is the Mosul Dam a US "facility?"
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)We can't just keep running. Neither the US nor the rest of the world can run away from this problem.
renegade000
(2,301 posts)we have a consulate in Erbil.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)renegade000
(2,301 posts)and waste the next two years with endless congressional hearings and Fox news obsessions about that...
but seriously, i don't know if you've looked at a map of the current political situation in Iraq lately, it's a giant mess (caused by the folly of the previous administration). ISIL is making incursions into the territory controlled by ethnic groups it is hostile to, they are the aggressors, and i don't see anything wrong with helping the Kurds defend themselves.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)We need diplomats in the Kurdish zone, don't we?
-Laelth
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Military capability degrades as a whole, and particularly in regard to heavy weapons possessed by capture. This is well within the parameters set in President Obama's speech last night.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)As I said last night, his parameters could cover all of Iraq at any given time. It was completely open ended bookended with genocide.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)The policy announced is being executed.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)This is just the first of what will no doubt be many, and with open end.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)bigtree
(89,607 posts). . . and destruction of weaponry and the opponent's weapon supply and capability is certainly reasonable.
I think what the op is alluding to, at least what I would like to amplify, is that the deliberate insertion of military personnel and their civilian support does require defense of those assets and equipment, but it shouldn't become a primary reason for the military action, lest the operation becomes a self-perpetuating defense of it's own activity.
Of course, these forces are presumed to be in defense of the broader effort to provide military support to the Iraqi forces as they defend against attacks on the civilians who are besieged in the higher elevations by the insurgent forces.
That said, I think it is important to try and keep some accounting of where that humanitarian mission the President described converges, or diverts from the altruistic into the original deployment which I believe was, essentially a defense of Baghdad and the Maliki regime; inaccurately defined, perhaps, but mainly a civil war between Iraqis.
The WH is insisting that there isn't an intent to widen their goals, but they have reserved any decision to do so on 'developing conditions,' rather than flatly rule that out.
As you know, there was more opposition to that possibility, and the bulk of support they are getting from folks here and elsewhere who have resisted the initial deployments has been tempered, by some, in favor of supporting the humanitarian mission identified by the President as preemptive strikes against potential 'genocide,' or the targeting of a particular group of civilians because of their ethnicity, in this case.
If the mission devolves into something else, it would raise questions again of the U.S. role in the larger fight against this insurgent group. Already, we see the administration conflating the combatants (valid or not) with the specter of 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq.
It's not a stretch to reason from that association they are making with al-Qaeda that our overt, direct military action might not end on that mountain's edge - but may well be folded into that wider mission that many folks out here objected to at the outset of this deployment.
To the op's point (I think) the protection of the US military assets shouldn't become our main objective. In my view, neither should a wider mission against insurgent forces threatening the autocratic and partisan Maliki regime be our military goal or ambition of active US force deployed or employed there.
It's not hard to reason that we may already be beyond the point where opponents of the original operation who've accepted military strikes in defense of this one group of civilians can properly or effectively oppose future action against the insurgents with the administration and military using the same 'humanitarian' justification for ordering even more military strikes.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Breaking the drive north by I.S.I.L., and rolling it back a bit, is the only thing which can remove the threat highlighted in our President's speech last night. Our people in Erbil are there to provide assistance, by way of intelligence and communication, to the attempt of Kurdish troops to do just that. The Kurdish forces are a good deal more reliable than were the troops of Shia Baghdad in the west of the country among a hostile population. It is not unreasonable to suspect that, if the power of artillery, and of motorized mobility, is stripped from I.S.I.L. fighters, Kurdish troops will be able to secure their own land and drive them out. With them will go the threat which has galvanized popular interest.
bigtree
(89,607 posts). . .I would note that there may be a question of the reliability or effectiveness of the Peshmerga, essentially the Kurdish army, in maintaining that rollback. Indeed, it's a question right now why those forces have been ineffective in protecting these civilians on their own, or in concert with other Iraqi forces - or are seen as such - when ISIS/ISIL has been described as a relatively small force... even with the weaponry the insurgents seized, they are less experienced and less equipped than those Kurdish forces were advertized as being.
One explanation why they haven't been sufficient in resisting the insurgents may well be that the capability of the Kurdish force has been inflated in reports beyond their actual ability.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)There are officers with experience of combat at higher ranks, but not so much in the fighting line. No matter how well trained and motivated they may be, green troops are at a disadvantage against veterans, and the I.S.I.L. fighters are veterans in large part. What shocks green troops most is artillery and sudden changes of front. At this point, the I.S.i.L.people are fighting in conventional mobile style in fairly open ground, and so are quite vulnerable to air attack. Green troops, and militias, can stiffen up if they have some time, and a scent of victory.
bigtree
(89,607 posts)EX500rider
(11,407 posts)http://strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20140807.aspx
bigtree
(89,607 posts). . . I think that assessment is mostly correct.
I also don't believe that's the only area in Iraq in which members of the population or the resources they rely on to survive are threatened by this insurgent group. The dam is important because of speculation that it could be destroyed and decimate much of their opposition's populace and territory.
I'm sure that's not the only place where ISIS/ISIL threatens the wider Iraqi populace.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)human shields.
Plant a few near some other areas of Iraq, space them out every 20 miles or so, then bombs away for anyone "near U.S. personnel".
Am I the only one this cynical?
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Erbil is in essence the capital of Kurdistan, with which we have long had friendly relations, and the natural and proper station for diplomatic and advisory personnel. People are not there as part of policy of scattering them about the country-side like grass seed.
I would quarrel with your claim to be cynical, citing Mr. Shaw's comment: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
I submit your observation cannot meet the enabling qualification....
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Citing Fred Sanders.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)"If you can't tell shit from Shinola, don't order tuna fish in a French restaurant."
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It should be self deleted.
As several folks have now pointed out to you
#1 - we have diplomatic staff and others there as part of normal relations with the Kurds
#2 - this is within the parameters of the Presidents announcement last night
#3 - no American troops are being sent, these are folks already there
Etc
bigtree
(89,607 posts). . . no more fair than post titles in support of this operation should be defined as 'hunting for a reason to bomb Iraq.'
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)comments.
The situation we have here sucks to use a scientific term. There are no good options. Idiot boy screwed us in 2003.
Reaching for reasons to be mad at the Presidents decisions is bullshit. I'm sorry if that seems unfair. No one has come up with better ideas.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Move the US personnel out, we've watched the advance, this isn't a surprise.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ISIS and the crimes they are committing would not be happening without the US's 2003 invasion.
We can stay out of a lot of things regarding Iraq, including a generalized civil war and degeneration into a failed state, but not a genocide in the making that is our fault.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)bigtree
(89,607 posts). . .what I find 'bullshit' is the shouting down with expletives any attempt to define the mission or determine its limits; or determine if the President's own definition of those limits is being adhered to.
I think it's irresponsible, especially among those who opposed the initial deployments and are now supporting this 'limited' humanitarian mission, to turn away from the actual conduct of our forces and refuse to discuss the parameters and the actual operation.
You may well be frustrated and have concluded that there are no easy answers. But, it's not sufficient to just say 'idiot boy screwed us' and let the chips fall where they may.
That might be sufficient for you, but it's 'bullshit' to define an attempt to measure the limits the President, himself, put on this order for airstrikes as mere opposition to the President.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)night. And it is bullshit.
It is an attempt to manufacture outrage.
bigtree
(89,607 posts). . .
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bigtree
(89,607 posts). . . all you're doing is repeating yourself.
No one is going to be bullied out of expressing themselves here by your opinion of this op.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)No outrage either. You are reading what isn't there. Watching closely and not surprised.
Your number three is wrong. Unless it wasn't American's flying the jets.
bigtree
(89,607 posts). . . your effort to determine where the humanitarian mission ends, and the original justifications opposed by a number of folks now supporting this action threaten to take over is a valid and useful one.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)our sale of chemicals to Saddam Hussein. Those chemicals were used to gas the very same place you now are writing about--Kurdistan. We kinda owe Kurdistan a big fucking debt.
You might have read about that case and my co-defendants.....
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_803
Seriously???? I'm reading on DU about how it's a bad thing to take out artillery?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)fucking thing we could be doing.
You are complaining because Navy jets took out their artillery. Think about that.
You are complaining that two F/A 18s got in the air and made sure that the Sunni fundamentalists wouldn't be able to fire their artillery at civilians. Think about that.
You are complaining that we used our military hardware to take out a mobile artillery unit.....that was pointed at civilians. Think about that.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)in Iraq. I am calling attention to the reasons given for this strike, so that we can keep track during subsequent strikes.
I fully support our military during true humanitarian missions, such as the aid drop. That is what we should be doing across the globe. I do not support the unilateral use of the US military in carrying out strikes anywhere.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I mean, I'm sure everybody enjoyed the water and the MREs (insert laughter here) but I bet the civilians who are there are grateful there's a lesser chance of them getting shot to shit tonight.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)ISIS, not Iraqi civilians.
I also don't think that emergency food and water aid to suffering people is anything to laugh at.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the incoming aircraft dropping the aid, and the people on the ground coordinating it, and our consulate are protected.
RunInCircles
(122 posts)Where are all of the Iraq Oil Wells Located?
What ever the stated reason ISIS is now threatening the area that produces most of Iraq's oil.
neverforget
(9,446 posts)That is a big distinction.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The speech was an announcement of a new Iraq war, wrapped in talk of genocide.
We may very well end up striking to protect the Yazidi. But, so far, all of the strikes, by jets and drones, have been to protect US interests in Erbil. We'll see where this goes, but it is open-ended as hell.