Posted on Nov 7, 2014
The deployment of up to 1,500 more troops authorized for Iraq.
11.7K
140
50
4
4
0
Today our President authorized an additional 1500 more troops to Iraq to battle ISIS. If all 1,500 are deployed, it would almost double the American presence in Iraq. The troops will serve in a non-combat role, expanding the U.S. mission of training and advising Iraqi forces, the "Pentagon said". That will include helping Iraqi forces in the highly volatile section of Anbar Province mostly under ISIS control. As reported by NBC.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102129732
So have we passed the point of continually stating "no boots on the ground"? And if our troops are in a high volatile section controlled by ISIS are we really non-combat? Are our troops under any ROE's or are they under direction to not respond to any action that may put them in harms way?
I think we are getting close to the point of no return and the inevitable fight we really don't want to start in country again. Not that it has really ever stopped.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102129732
So have we passed the point of continually stating "no boots on the ground"? And if our troops are in a high volatile section controlled by ISIS are we really non-combat? Are our troops under any ROE's or are they under direction to not respond to any action that may put them in harms way?
I think we are getting close to the point of no return and the inevitable fight we really don't want to start in country again. Not that it has really ever stopped.
Iraq
ISIS
Office of the President (POTUS)
GWOT
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 20
2
2
0
My concern is how in the hell do you put our troops in Anbar Province, mostly under ISIS control and claim they will be in a "non-combatant role!" Just their presense makes them targets of opportunity, and we know ISIS will do all they can to exploit this. I'm very troubled as to what rules of engagement our troops will be placed under; And what happened to no boots on the ground? Deploying in flip-flops and sandals? Another step closer returning to the fight that we walked away from earlier! I worry deeply for our returning troops!
(2)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Exactly 1SG (Join to see) I have many of the same concerns. And also worry about our troops. SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. made a very interesting comment in the thread. He alluded to the idea that maybe we should have left Hussein in power. Truthfully never have given that much thought. We where a very hurting nation at the time with many mixed feelings of what justice would be or should be. So what may have been a sound decision to some at the time has turned around and bit us in the ass. The argument about going or not going will be a matter of opinion between folks for decades. But as they say hindsight is 20/20.
(1)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
1SG, you and I both know there is no such animal as "non-combatants" in this type of situation. And we all know what boots on the ground is. This is the problem when political leader have no clue.
(3)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MSgt (Join to see) So true, even the arguement of whether we should have ever went in the first place will go on and on...it's a moot point. We were told to go and we went. My Biggest beef with the leadership of this country is this..... When you send us off to fight the Wars where politics and politicians have failed...Do not send us....if you are not going to let us fight to WIN! Wars are ugly business, and when you put rules of engagement on us, in the hope of making it look like we are there with some compassion......You're killing our Soldiers! The same should apply with going back now! We are not noncombatants in a combat zone with people who want to wipe us off the face of the earth. Only the IDIOTS in DC think different.
As you mentioned hindsight above....we have to stop doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results. SGT Hyde makes some very good points. Unfortunely we can not go back in time......and NOW, here we go again....and who knows what the hell the Genius's up there are thinking this time. It's already not sounding good to me.
As you mentioned hindsight above....we have to stop doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results. SGT Hyde makes some very good points. Unfortunely we can not go back in time......and NOW, here we go again....and who knows what the hell the Genius's up there are thinking this time. It's already not sounding good to me.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SGM Mikel Dawson So true. I also have to think that "he" has a clue, if he doesn't then every member of the JCofS, should be fired and shot. Unfortunately our current leader has a reputation of not listening and he believes his authority makes him always right and never wrong. We know how that works! Maybe he believes ISIS will read the memo as we get ready to strike a deal with Iran on Nukes! Yeah RIGHT...........in both cases!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Politician after politician can send us to and bring us from. They can will elections based on the fact that they brought us from, and they have to convince that our NATIONS security is at risk to send us to. The only problem with this is that they will send us to do a mean and evil job, one that none of us necessarily WANT to do but stand ready if the need should arise, then prosecute us when we do our job. We should never go to a country and simply occupy it. We should never go to a country without overwhelmingly scary numbers of troops and armor. We should never go IN planning on an exit strategy that doesn't involve ALOT of casualties and collateral damage. War is hell and nobody wants it, but that's what we are here for. Thats why we join. Sending 1500 troops to do a job that 150,000 should be...isn't anything shy of someone trying to save their asses in the Pentagon! If we are going to send troops and feel the need to deploy them again...than we should deploy with plans of doing one thing and one thing only. Killing every one of these poor dumb bastards. We should never want to isolate. We should never want to mitigate.We should destroy! That is the ONLY way to get rid of these people. Simply terminate them! Only sending 1500 troops over is nothing but dangerous! We are putting these 1500 in so much danger by sending them somewhere that they are out numbered 10 to 1 its ridiculous! We will send these 1500, a couple 10 will get killed and then the POTUS will be right back on the TV telling us some other bullshit like "They're a bigger threat than we originally thought, so we are going to send over a Brigade of troops. The troops will only be there for support and training" and like the sheep that we are....we'll say "well hell! These ISIS guys aren't no joke! We better send more troops!" When if we would just send enough troops to overwhelm and intimidate these jerk-offs in the first place we wouldn't have NO worries.....but here were are! 1500 at a time!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt Richard I P.
Hint: the fictitious country practices eternal war with constantly shifting alliances to unify its people against an exterior threat and overlook the interior problems in the year _____.
(0)
(0)
SSG Genaro Negrete
Good book. I read it shortly after graduating high school. I think I need to give it another read.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Id hate to say it but if Hussein was left in power and we never went in the second time, which wasnt necessary, This ISIS issue may have never came up. Yes he and his sons were brutal, arrogant and loved saber rattling. But they had an infrastructure, people were working and the various religions generally got along. He was contained.
All that was destroyed during the invasion. We kind of opened the door on this one then removed it so that any radical can walk in. Here ya go all yours now. Sometimes your worst enemy can be your greatest asset in preventing disaster and tragedy.
Some things should be left to their own devices.
My 2 bits.
All that was destroyed during the invasion. We kind of opened the door on this one then removed it so that any radical can walk in. Here ya go all yours now. Sometimes your worst enemy can be your greatest asset in preventing disaster and tragedy.
Some things should be left to their own devices.
My 2 bits.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
SGT(P) Harry Clyde Jr. Thank you for bringing up an idea that truthfully I have never considered. Very interesting thought.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Round 3. It seems that the higher ups dont read or understand the history of this region.
It has been at war for centuries both with its self and with any outsider that tries to change or absorb it. The crusades, romans, Macedonians etc. All with great leaders who had some limited success but eventually were pushed back. The capabilities of those from the region have always been underestimated by those outsiders with superior numbers and weaponry. It doesn't matter if you overthrow a government there. There is always someone waiting in the wings and for the most part those not living in the major cities are highly independent and dont care any way as long as they are not bothered. Yes ISIS is a threat to the region. They are not the first radical group/religion to do so. They are like ants, destroy some or a colony for that matter another pops up cause you cant eliminate all of them.You also cant identify them cause they can easily blend in with others around them.
Round 2 was not necessary. Hussein was contained and was just saber rattling. Too many lives , time, equipment and money was wasted on that one.
Round 3 would be more of the same just as history tells us.
We do not need to go back in there just to appease the richer nations i.e. Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.
In time ISIS will peter out as all dominating groups in the region have. Unless they attack europe or home in force, just leave this one alone cause for every one person we kill, another 5 will take his/her place.
Want to destroy isis/ radicals? Hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook/funding.
We should worry about the radicalization at home first rather than try to defeat the hydra overseas.
My 2 bits.
It has been at war for centuries both with its self and with any outsider that tries to change or absorb it. The crusades, romans, Macedonians etc. All with great leaders who had some limited success but eventually were pushed back. The capabilities of those from the region have always been underestimated by those outsiders with superior numbers and weaponry. It doesn't matter if you overthrow a government there. There is always someone waiting in the wings and for the most part those not living in the major cities are highly independent and dont care any way as long as they are not bothered. Yes ISIS is a threat to the region. They are not the first radical group/religion to do so. They are like ants, destroy some or a colony for that matter another pops up cause you cant eliminate all of them.You also cant identify them cause they can easily blend in with others around them.
Round 2 was not necessary. Hussein was contained and was just saber rattling. Too many lives , time, equipment and money was wasted on that one.
Round 3 would be more of the same just as history tells us.
We do not need to go back in there just to appease the richer nations i.e. Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.
In time ISIS will peter out as all dominating groups in the region have. Unless they attack europe or home in force, just leave this one alone cause for every one person we kill, another 5 will take his/her place.
Want to destroy isis/ radicals? Hit them where it hurts, the pocketbook/funding.
We should worry about the radicalization at home first rather than try to defeat the hydra overseas.
My 2 bits.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
What?!? Am I the only one that saw the camel poke it's nose under the tent flap? sheeeesh.... this "new" deployment was in the works for months......just waiting on the right diplomatic or political moment to publish.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Oh and others are in the making for sure. But I don't think anyone is really concerned on accomplishing anything. And who suffers the consequences, the troops.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Cpl Joseph Radzinski escalation is just a mater of time. But hopefully our kids do come home safe.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Stevan Auldridge
No worries though, they will be wearing flip flops thus no "boots" will be on the ground!
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Sounds like this is going to be the war for the next guy/gal in office. President Obama is goi g
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Before I screwed my post up. I think President Obama is going to let the conflict draw along until he becomes a lame duck. Which only makes it hard Hilary because albeit Sen. Cruz or Gov Christie, they're going to use her history with Iraq with Benghazi to show her inability to lead
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'll go back...to Al Anbar Province....again....was in the surge (OIF 05-07) with 1-36 Infantry (our HHC & A co in Hit, Iraq & our B & C co in Ramadi, Iraq)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google