Biden’s Pentagon ‘Open’ To Increasing Troop Levels In Iraq

Gentlemen, we have been in conflict with Iraq for 30 years now. It is time to close this chapter.

Our Republic has been in existence for 245 years, and we survived for 215 of those years without ongoing hostilities in/with Iraq.

I don't think the general public cares about Iraq very much. I think the American public would prefer to see the U.S. using its resources to benefit our country rather than spending billions on Iraq, endlessly. If the POTUS were to just tell the public that enough is enough, we're going to let that country find its own destiny, the public would be fine with that. There would be the usual carping from the warhawks and political enemies, but the public would accept this outcome.

This is leadership. Leadership can be risky. Leadership isn't always easy. Leadership may be criticized. Leadership takes courage.

It is worthwhile to remember that Iraq never really had a great military prior to 1991, but it was at least viable. They managed to be that much without NATO or U.S. training, and so I fail to see why they need to have that now.

If the Europeans think they should commit their troops to Iraq, that's their business. But, knowing them, they won't do it if they have to bear the burdens of that commitment on their own.

If ISIS were to ever reconstitute, we could deal with that if the Iraqis couldn't.

Another option would be to take Iraqi officers, NCOs, and police out of country for training. They could go to Europe, or perhaps training facilities could be set up at our air base in Turkey or Diego Garcia. There are more than one way to skin a cat. Keeping boots on the ground in Iraq is just unnecessary.

Our young people who serve in the military are among our finest. And they have given enough since 9/11. There has been a terrible cost that they have paid, and they have paid it in full.

This has got to stop.

I do not want this president increasing our troops in Iraq; I want him to decrease those numbers and work to withdraw them completely. Trump was on the right track. I only wish he had finished the job. But I don't want this president going backwards.

My perspective is that of a father whose Marine son fought and bled in Iraq.

Seth

 

What kind of conflict are we with them at this time, and how is this training exercise going to make it worse?

 

When the bombs fly, and missiles launch.....that is when they begin to make money!

 

We are not in conflict with the Iraqi government officially, but we have our troops in harm's way in a country where a great many do not want us there. We still suffer casualties there. And, of course, it costs a lot of money.

Ask yourself a question. If your son or daughter lost their life in Iraq, would it be worth it? If the answer is no, then how can we ask someone else to lose their son or daughter for Iraq?

 

The Europeans are such tough talkers for those who want us to 'engage' their wars for them. I'm tired of the US Nation being some glorified version of the German Merchants that the British hired in the revolutionary war.

 

What comes of being the world's sap-ass cop and sugar-daddy. But regardless, the Military-Industrial Complex MUST be kept well fed.

 

How many casualties did we take in Iraq in 2020?

How many casualties did we take on US soil?

Answer: We lost about 400 000 to the corona virus, 30 000 to gun violence, 30 000 in traffic accidents and 250 000 due to medical malpractice.

So, there are ways to save American lives, but you can save a heck of a lot more right here at home than in Iraq, where we are NOT at war. It seems my son or daughter would be safer there than here.

 

Whataboutism?

Come on, stay on topic.

2020 Iraq casualties (not counting civilians): 11 dead, 116 wounded (source: icasualties.org)

So if your son was one of those dead, or lost a limb, would it be worth it?

 

[QUOTE="Seth Bullock, post: 1072462264, member: 70181"Come on, stay on topic.[/QUOTE]It IS the topic. We are not at war in Iraq. The only reason we had people wounded last year was because Trump assassinated the Iranian general and they retaliated. Iraqis didn't do it.

 

We had casualties before Soleimani was killed. They were caused by Iraqi militia. Let's not get into the weeds over what Trump did or who started it first. Trump is no longer the president. Biden is. Let's look forward. And as we move forward, I am absolutely sure that I don't want Biden increasing our military footprint in Iraq and committing us to another Iraqi mission that is bound to go on for another decade.

Look ... The root of Iraqi dysfunction is Iraq's own tribalism - Sunni vs Shiite vs Kurds. Their is little sense of "nation" in Iraq. And as long as that tribalism exists, there will be violence and dysfunction.

So if we want to truly help Iraq become a peaceful, successful nation, the best thing we can do is to try to influence the leadership of Iraq. They need to learn that they should be inclusive, giving respect to the Sunni and Kurdish populations as full and valued members of their nation. This needs to be the philosophy going forward if they wish to build their nation and provide a positive future for their people. They need to suppress their tribalism and understand that inclusiveness and respect for everyone is in their best interest. And if they don't have the wisdom and foresight to do that, no amount of military and police training is going to really help them, and we will be there forever, fruitlessly putting out fires, taking casualties. Influencing the leaders should be our role. It is the only real pathway to success. We can influence through our diplomatic corps and through extra-governmental interactions. That should be our mission.

 

And even then, controversially I've made my opinion known that I don't think you're going to successfully "influence" the power players in the region. Not without taking more direct approaches(IE: Actual seizure of the land/government itself.). Either we get over our sentimentality about "that's not who we are" and keep people who are anti-USA out, or we become more serious about establishing our desired norms across the countries we're participating in.

 

Well I am not interested in seizing land in the middle east, nor am I interested in trying to establish our desired norms through force.

I think we may influence those countries, but at the same time, recognize our own limitations. They may take our counsel and act on it, or they may ignore it. That is our limitation.

 

Sorry, those are not the facts. During Saddam's time there wasn't this big conflict between Sunnis and Shia. Most of the Iraqi army that fought the Iranian Shia army were Shia themselves and did so with pride in their country. Even during the Iran/Iraq war Shia pilgrims from Iran were free to visit the holy sites in the south of Iraq without impedance. The Baarth party were predominantly Sunni but the second highest person was a Christian. The government as a whole was secular. Saddam did not really care about any religious sect, he only cared about power and was murderous to those that threatened his position.

The ongoing war at the time between Iraq and Kurdistan had been going on since the 1950s (there abouts). In early 1970s, Saddam did offer a position to the Kurds in the Iraqi government with the aim for Kurdish autonomy but then the US and Israel secretly scuppered those talks by covertly promising the Kurds that they will ensure that the Kurds get their own independent country and all the oil in Northern Iraq. As soon as talks between Iraq and Kurdistan broke down following the interference, Israel and US reneged on their promise to help and abandoned them. This was all part of the plan

Other than this, I do agree with your premise

 

I think Saddam enforced peace at the point of a gun all that time. You may recall that when Bush 1 initiated Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, there was a mistaken belief among Shiites that the U.S. would fully invade Iraq, and that belief spawned a Shiite rebellion. The rebellion was crushed by Saddam because Bush's objective was Kuwait, not Iraq. So I think that undercurrent of tribalism has been there all along, but it was simply brutally suppressed under Saddam. And as far as the Iran/Iraq war goes, knowing Saddam, I suspect he took a perverse pleasure in conscripting Shiite Iraqis to fight Shiite soldiers from Iran. Estimates of Iraqi losses in that war range from 105,000-500,000. Both sides used suicidal human wave attacks and poison gas, so in a way, it doesn't surprise me that Saddam would use Shiites in that war.

But that aside, thanks for agreeing with my basic premise. The real key to a positive future for Iraq is in how Iraqis treat each other. If we can use persuasion and influence to get them to understand and act on that philosophy, then we have done the best we can do, in my opinion.

I have little faith in helping Iraq through military and police training programs. We did that throughout the occupation from 2003-2011, and when ISIS swept in, Iraqi forces threw down their guns, surrendered, hid, and fled for their lives. Those who were captured were summarily executed. 8 years of training programs, and that's what they did.

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." — Albert Einstein

 

Obama's withdrawal turned out how some predicted. People said it would embolden the enemy and terrorism would increase, and it did with ISIS. It was ISIS that Russia, Turkey, and Iran used to justify their military presence. So now we got a nuclear armed power on the ground, getting entangled with our only NATO Muslim member, with the leading state sponsor of terror's overt military forces (covert already there from day 1) thrown in for good measure. So in hindsight, terrible decision almost certainly based on obtaining/keeping political power.

 

Do you have a link?

This actually frightens me. We need to be careful in placing non Muslim troops in Saudi. It greatly offends many Muslims. OBL flipped from ally to best, I mean worst, nightmare overnight after the last time we put an army there.

 

You mean Bush Sr? I was there before 9/11, trust me, we were already deep "in them"; you either weren't around or were unaware of this fact.

 

It was a decision made by Bush, and in 2011 it was not much of a choice since Iraq revoked immunity from US troops. Its interesting that under Obama, bringing troops home was a horrible idea and when Trump said the same thing it was a great idea.

 

Oh Good - another dumb and dumber moment .. brought to us by Blue - and nary a few weeks in office. And what exactly will our troops be doing there . who will they be fighting ? .. local militia's .. going house to house .. do another Falujah using depleted Uranium - make some more deformed babies. ..

Oh .. not that stuff ? .. Ohh .. Police work .. thats it .. for this we need to be spending 1.2 Trillion per year - Total Military Spend.

 

Seth, what they are heading us into might be a lot worse than a war in Iraq and Syria. From what I'm reading, the Biden Administration's provocations towards China is making war inevitable, and in Europe, the relations with Russia have reached the point of no return. Britain feels that if they can't change Russia's government through covert actions, then the alternative is war.

Julian Assange - Preparing us for war with the Russians and the Chinese.​

Do you believe HMG staged the 'Navalny accident' as part of some kind of a secret operation? Did HMG create Media outlets, nurture bloggers and stringers that it controlled? Did it engage Russia's youth and CSOs? Did it try to demonize Putin just like it had done with Assad by labeling them Evil Dictators who poisoned their people with forbidden chemical weapons?

Do you know what all of this is needed for? They need it to delegitimize a leader of a country and convince people around the world that 'no holds should be barred to fight a mad dictator'.

Can you grasp the gravity of what is going on? Well, you ought to. They are preparing us for war with the Russians and the Chinese. They are looking for casus belli, and only the truth can stop them, because 'if wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth'.
​

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/...more-british-efforts-to-undermine-russia.html

https://theduran.com/biden-administration-seeking-to-provoke-china-to-war/

 

No, Jeanette, I don't buy any of that. Nobody in the U.S. wants to have a war with either Russia or China.

My opinion of Putin is that he leads a mafia-like criminal cabal, but that doesn't translate into wanting a war with Russia.

I hold a low opinion of the Chinese Communist Party and its leader as well, but again, I'm not interested in war with China.

These are nuclear nations you're talking about, and mutually assured destruction is not worth it.

The Russians, Chinese, Americans, and Europeans have all been engaged in intelligence gathering and various forms of espionage against each other for decades. This is nothing new.

 

I recall at the time we had the coup in Kiev and kicked out their legitimate president, Craig Paul Roberts who was one of Reagans economic advisors saying that in Washington they're talking of going to war with Russia. After he said that, the media began to demonize Roberts even though he's one of the most brilliant men in the country.

Well if that's what you're told. My opinion of Putin is that he is hated by the West mostly because he kicked out the oligarchs who refused to pay their taxes, and were sending Russia's wealth to off shore accounts. Other than that, Putin refuses to bow to the West's liberal values since he 's a Christian, and believes in traditional values and the sovereignty of nations. Of course the West hates him.

It doesn't matter if you're not interested in war. What matters are our provocations which are leading us into war. Is it intentional? Could be.

It's not the Intelligence or our attempts at regime changes. It's our provocations and naval maneuvers in Chinese waters that are a direct threat to their merchant ships and survival. As for Russia, it's our military build ups along their borders in Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, Central Asian States, Far East and the Arctic.

Anyway the situation is reaching a point of no return. Yesterday Lavrov referred to Brussels in an interview as the 'politbureau' - which likened them to the bosses of the Soviet Union. He listed everything the EU had done since 2011. This of course freaked out Brussels since it means Russia has now closed the door to them forever.

Lavrov said that from now on Moscow will deal with EU countries on an individual basis and not as a whole. Bye-bye EU. I see their survival rate as being nil.

 

The thing in Iraq is a training exercise, which somehow translated to US going to war with Russia and China. Propaganda works well on some people.