ISIS

[Shake n Blake]

Also agree with Fred. Service only feels noble and heroic when you are actually making a difference.

I haven't felt that way about the wars in the middle east since before I got out 8 years ago.

It sucks to give up hope, but it just doesn't feel like we can make much peace there.

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 05:11 PM)Benton Wrote: The difference being we never won on the ground in the Middle East.

We had victories, we established temporary bases and we hung on to them until temporary objectives were complete. And they were largely irrelevant to opposition forces that are mobile in the sense that they don't observe the same border arrangement as military command. So we punch hard in one spot, they move to the next and we follow there and take another shot. And they move. There's no end to a war like that, as the forces we're combating — in most cases — aren't trying to permanently hold specific resources or locations. There's nothing to "win" for them outside of us leaving the area.

The bases we established post WWII were different. There wasn't continued aggression. We weren't still fighting Nazis in the 70s and 80s. Outside of an attack by a Libyan aligned group, the biggest threat to the naval base in Naples is the local economy. Even if we did have a friendly patch of desert (wasn't that supposed to be the reason we were so chummy with the Saudis?), establishing a significant base there wouldn't do much if the opposition just moves to another area as its stronghold.

Of course we won on the ground in the ME. We have to infuse our way of life into their culture. I've seen the effects of doing that first hand. There are more people that live in California than live in Iraq. We and other NATO forces need to invest in their economy. Hopefully we can get a little oil out of the deal as we show them other ways and products to produce.

For instance, I provided security for reconstruction teams. You give an Afghani a pile of rocks and he can build you a mansion and a luxury car. You give him a 2x4, a hammer, and nails, the dude is lost. I suppose it's just not in my nature to say we cannot make conditions better over there; perhaps because I've seen them. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 05:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We maintain those bases for strategic reasons to respond to present day and future threats which have nothing to do with WWII. 

"Power projection platforms" as the Army is fond of calling them. im sure we don't want to continue "nation building," but maintaining a long term military presence similar to Italy, Germany, and Japan for the next 80 years would be strategically advantageous for the same reasons we have bases in Italy, Germany, and Japan. 

Of course they had to do with WWII. We kicked the Nazis out and we didn't want the Soviets to come in. (See comparison of Saddam/ISIS).

It's not the enemy you defeat, it is those that look to gain from your victory.

[Dill]

(11-10-2016, 12:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In a word, sectarianism.  In two words, proxy war.

I am not in the Middle East any more. Left in 2011.

My question about "interference" arose from the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran are already participants in the fight.  Iranian militia have, tensely, been in the field fighting on the same side as the US in Iraq for two years now. Saudi is one of the secondary causes of the rise of ISIS, owing to four decades of funding Islamicism in the Middle East, but that rise has finally worked against their interests. 

The NI article you posted is interesting, and recognizes the conflicting options open to the US.  But unlike the folks at NI, I think either Saudi or Iranian domination of Syria is a better outcome than continued existence of the Islamic state, though that would mean continued armed conflict in the region.  In part because it means Saudi boots on the ground rather than Americans.

Or at least I thought that on Monday. Since my original comments, Trump has become president of the US, so what future US policy in the region might be like is a mystery. Erdogan has said he will not let the US operate from Turkey if Trump is president.  If he means that, and Trump uses his executive "first strike" prerogatives, I forsee chaos. I no longer have any idea whether Iranian/Saudi help is good or bad. None of our "allies" in the region has any idea what the consequences of helping (and being identified with) the widely-perceived-to-be-anti-Muslim Trump administration will have for their own credibility.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they had to do with WWII. We kicked the Nazis out and we didn't want the Soviets to come in. (See comparison of Saddam/ISIS).

It's not the enemy you defeat, it is those that look to gain from your victory.

I didn't claim the the bases didn't have anything to do with WWII in the past. The Cold War ended approximately a quarter century ago, yet we maintain those bases for their strategic advantages reacting to current and future threats which don't have anything to do with why the bases were originally built. 

Could you clarify that last sentence?  I'm not sure I understand. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-10-2016, 11:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't claim the the bases didn't have anything to do with WWII in the past. The Cold War ended approximately a quarter century ago, yet we maintain those bases for their strategic advantages reacting to current and future threats which don't have anything to do with why the bases were originally built. 

Could you clarify that last sentence?  I'm not sure I understand. 

...and hopefully one day the permanent bases we establish in the ME will only be required for launching pads, but just like the bases that where established in Germany their purpose was to deter those that would come in and take over those we defeated.

The last sentence is our mentality. We defeat an enemy, we generally move to protect it from those that would try to take advantage of the region. Just like if we would have kept an permanent and significant presence in Iraq the Bath party would not have been out threat, it would be those that tried to exploit the void. 

[HarleyDog]

(11-09-2016, 10:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way we can fix the middle east as long as their government are tied to their religion.

The Uited States and other countries have been sending troops there to die for over 30 years and it has not gotten any better.

Only answer is for us to pull out and let them kill each other. Any of our troops that die there are just a waste.

Finally! You get it. Sigh.

[Dill]

(11-10-2016, 06:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For instance, I provided security for reconstruction teams. You give an Afghani a pile of rocks and he can build you a mansion and a luxury car. You give him a 2x4, a hammer, and nails, the dude is lost. I suppose it's just not in my nature to say we cannot make conditions better over there; perhaps because I've seen them. 

Bfine, where were you at in A-stan?

[Dill]

(11-10-2016, 06:00 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Also agree with Fred. Service only feels noble and heroic when you are actually making a difference.

I haven't felt that way about the wars in the middle east since before I got out 8 years ago.

It sucks to give up hope, but it just doesn't feel like we can make much peace there.

Gotta vote for the right leaders.

Carter achieved peace between Egypt and Israel and got a peace process started with the PLO.  Then came Reagan.

The US has made good decisions in the Middle East. E.g., Bush 41 kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, then refused to "break" Iraq and bog the US down in quagmire.

Bush 43 saw it differently. Now we have ISIS.  And if we had stayed as many think Obama should have, then we'd have another 4,000 dead and 20,000 wounded by now. Plus the billions more drained from the US Treasury.

And after routing the Taliban out of Afghanistan, Bush, Cheney, and Rummy sent half the occupying force to Iraq and let the warlords have the country back--the people who drove Afghanis into the arms of the Taliban in the first place.

It is not true that the US "can't make peace"--or at least not in the case of Afghanistan. Could have been done, just as it was done in Japan and Germany. Nation build with the military in control of development funds--NOT HALLIBURTON.

Even after the invasion of Iraq, the country could have been stabilized if the Bush team had not gone in with the mindset of "small government, fire the army and send them home with their guns, open the oil fields to international ownership."
There were people all along the way pointing out what could go wrong, but the "intellectual elite" were ignored.

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2016, 02:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Bfine, where were you at in A-stan?

I've been all over the SW. Kandahar was home, but spent a lot of time in Helmand, Farah, Herat, and Ghor.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2016, 07:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not in the Middle East any more. Left in 2011.

My question about "interference" arose from the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran are already participants in the fight.  Iranian militia have, tensely, been in the field fighting on the same side as the US in Iraq for two years now. Saudi is one of the secondary causes of the rise of ISIS, owing to four decades of funding Islamicism in the Middle East, but that rise has finally worked against their interests. 

The NI article you posted is interesting, and recognizes the conflicting options open to the US.  But unlike the folks at NI, I think either Saudi or Iranian domination of Syria is a better outcome than continued existence of the Islamic state, though that would mean continued armed conflict in the region.  In part because it means Saudi boots on the ground rather than Americans.

Or at least I thought that on Monday. Since my original comments, Trump has become president of the US, so what future US policy in the region might be like is a mystery. Erdogan has said he will not let the US operate from Turkey if Trump is president.  If he means that, and Trump uses his executive "first strike" prerogatives, I forsee chaos. I no longer have any idea whether Iranian/Saudi help is good or bad. None of our "allies" in the region has any idea what the consequences of helping (and being identified with) the widely-perceived-to-be-anti-Muslim Trump administration will have for their own credibility.

I agree a Saudi or Iranian controlled Syria would be better for US interests than the continuation of ISIS.  Saudia Arabia has supplied and funded ISIS.  Iran supported the al Maliki Iraqi government which led to a sectarian civil war.  Both have played a part in the creation of ISIS as part of their Sunni/Shia proxy war.  Extending their respective influence is their primary goal, not defeating ISIS.  Defeating ISIS is just a means to an end, but only if it helps them accomplish their goals.  Iran wants to gain control so that's why they are willing to send Iranian militia.  Saudi Arabia funded ISIS to combat the Iranian Shia influence in Iraq and Syria, but they are willing to send troops to defeat ISIS if it allows them to occupy Syria.  They have been interfering for years.  If you removed both from a multinational task force to defeat ISIS, each would continue to meddle covertly (as they have already done) to tip the balance of power in their favor.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they had to do with WWII. We kicked the Nazis out and we didn't want the Soviets to come in. (See comparison of Saddam/ISIS).

It's not the enemy you defeat, it is those that look to gain from your victory.

(11-10-2016, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and hopefully one day the permanent bases we establish in the ME will only be required for launching pads, but just like the bases that where established in Germany their purpose was to deter those that would come in and take over those we defeated.

The last sentence is our mentality. We defeat an enemy, we generally move to protect it from those that would try to take advantage of the region. Just like if we would have kept an permanent and significant presence in Iraq the Bath party would not have been out threat, it would be those that tried to exploit the void. 

(11-10-2016, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Our biggest issue is not establishing a long term presence after we win on the ground.

No, but we "generally move to protect it from those that would try to take advantage of the region" from "those that look to gain from [our] victory" after "we defeat an enemy" even though "it's not the enemy you defeat."

And the reason we protect the area where we didn't and did defeat the enemy is to protect the region from those who would gain from our victory like the Soviets and ISIS . . . our enemies.  Which is nothing more than occupying terrain to deny the enemy from occupying terrain.


Which brings us full circle back to those strategic reasons I mentioned.  You agree with me, but you don't realize you're just saying the same thing using different words.  What did you think I meant by "strategic reasons"?

[Dill]

(11-11-2016, 03:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been all over the SW. Kandahar was home, but spent a lot of time in Helmand, Farah, Herat, and Ghor.  

Marine? Or contractor the whole time?

[Dill]

(11-11-2016, 04:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree a Saudi or Iranian controlled Syria would be better for US interests than the continuation of ISIS.  Saudia Arabia has supplied and funded ISIS.  Iran supported the al Maliki Iraqi government which led to a sectarian civil war.  Both have played a part in the creation of ISIS as part of their Sunni/Shia proxy war.  Extending their respective influence is their primary goal, not defeating ISIS.  Defeating ISIS is just a means to an end, but only if it helps them accomplish their goals.  Iran wants to gain control so that's why they are willing to send Iranian militia.  Saudi Arabia funded ISIS to combat the Iranian Shia influence in Iraq and Syria, but they are willing to send troops to defeat ISIS if it allows them to occupy Syria.  They have been interfering for years.  If you removed both from a multinational task force to defeat ISIS, each would continue to meddle covertly (as they have already done) to tip the balance of power in their favor.

Ha ha, "interference" is a matter of perspective. Saudis may wonder why they should be perceived as "interfering" in matters so close to their own borders, and remind us whose "interference" broke Iraq in the first place. And Iranians may wonder if the US overturning a democratically elected government in Iran, installing a dictator there and then supporting Iraqi aggression in a war that cost 800,000 Iranian lives was "interference."

Aside from feeling the need to comment on the notion of "interference," I agree with most of what you said. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2016, 10:29 AM)Dill Wrote: Marine?  Or contractor the whole time?

Solder, tasked with escort and security missions all over the region as the G5 folks worked to win hearts and minds. 

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2016, 06:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I suppose it's just not in my nature to say we cannot make conditions better over there; perhaps because I've seen them. 

What conditions were improved?

How much did it cost us to create these improvements?

How much would it hasve cost us to manintain these improvements?


In my opinion if we had continued to occupy Iraq we would have spend hundreds of billions more and suffered tens of thousands more casualties.  It would have been throwing money and the lives of soldiers down a bottomless pit.  We can't afford to "fix" problems by taking over countries and occupying them.

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not the enemy you defeat, it is those that look to gain from your victory.

But in the ME the United States is seen as "those that look to gain from our victory".

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2016, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What conditions were improved? LIVING CONDITIONS, PUBLIC ELECTIONS AND NUMEROUS OTHERS

How much did it cost us to create these improvements? QUITE A BIT. 

How much would it hasve cost us to manintain these improvements? IT'S HARD TO SAY ON THE HYPOTHETICAL


In my opinion if we had continued to occupy Iraq we would have spend hundreds of billions more and suffered tens of thousands more casualties.  It would have been throwing money and the lives of soldiers down a bottomless pit.  We can't afford to "fix" problems by taking over countries and occupying them.

Nor can we afford to take in everyone dissatisfied with living conditions in their own country. Occupying until stability is achieved is necessary or that truly is a waste. I lost friends that helped coalition forces take ground that we just gave up because of some ill-timed End Game.

Both sides here have the "correct answer" it just depends on which one you support:

A: Totally ignore

B: Totally control

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2016, 12:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But in the ME the United States is seen as "those that look to gain from our victory".

Nothing wrong with gaining from your victories. It has been the way of the world since the dawn of civilization. 

[Dill]

(11-11-2016, 11:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Solder, tasked with escort and security missions all over the region as the G5 folks worked to win hearts and minds. 

Sounds interesting. I'm not military, but was on FOBs in Khost and Lowgar during during 2011 (Salerno and Shank). Also spent a week in Bagram in May 2011.  Landing on the runway there twice is the closest I got to Kandahar.