Knowing what you know now would you still support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq

Dirtie_Frank

450+ more troops heading back to Iraq

brianlux

Dirtie_Frank said:

450+ more troops heading back to Iraq

Not finding this in news. Got a link?

Halifax2TheMax

Dirtie_Frank said:

450+ more troops heading back to Iraq

Why?

Asterisk on the Street

brianlux said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

450+ more troops heading back to Iraq

Not finding this in news. Got a link?

From Reuters:

reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa-idUSKBN0OP1YD20150610

President Barack Obama on Wednesday ordered the deployment of 450 more U.S. troops to Iraq's Sunni heartland to advise and assist fragile Iraqi forces being built up to try to retake territory lost to Islamic State.

The plan to expand the 3,100-strong U.S. contingent in Iraq and open a new operations center closer to the fighting in Anbar province marks an adjustment in strategy for Obama, who has faced mounting pressure to do more to blunt the momentum of the insurgents.

But with Obama sticking to his refusal to send troops into combat or to the front lines, the White House announcement failed to silence critics who say the limited U.S. military role in the conflict is not enough to turn the tide of battle.

U.S. officials hope that a strengthened American presence on the ground in Anbar will help the Iraqi military devise and carry out a counter-attack to retake the provincial capital Ramadi, which insurgents seized last month in an onslaught that further exposed the shortcomings of the Iraqi army.

The U.S. advisers, who will be injected into the heart of one of the most hotly contested areas of the Islamic State campaign, will offer tactical advice to Iraqi officers on how to conduct their operations, the Pentagon said.

A complex challenge for the U.S. troops, who will establish a training hub at the Taqaddum military base only about 15 miles (25 km) from Ramadi, will be their outreach to Sunni tribal fighters, many of whom do not trust the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

U.S. officials want to integrate them into the Iraqi army and reduce its reliance on Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who have also joined the fight against Islamic State.

Obama decided on the new troop deployment in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, the White House said. The two leaders met while attending the G7 summit in Germany earlier this week.

"To improve the capabilities and effectiveness of partners on the ground, the president authorized the deployment of up to 450 additional U.S. military personnel to train, advise and assist Iraqi Security Forces," the White House said in a statement. ...

Dirtie_Frank

Asterisk on the Street said:

brianlux said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

450+ more troops heading back to Iraq

Not finding this in news. Got a link?

From Reuters:

reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa-idUSKBN0OP1YD20150610

President Barack Obama on Wednesday ordered the deployment of 450 more U.S. troops to Iraq's Sunni heartland to advise and assist fragile Iraqi forces being built up to try to retake territory lost to Islamic State.

The plan to expand the 3,100-strong U.S. contingent in Iraq and open a new operations center closer to the fighting in Anbar province marks an adjustment in strategy for Obama, who has faced mounting pressure to do more to blunt the momentum of the insurgents.

But with Obama sticking to his refusal to send troops into combat or to the front lines, the White House announcement failed to silence critics who say the limited U.S. military role in the conflict is not enough to turn the tide of battle.

U.S. officials hope that a strengthened American presence on the ground in Anbar will help the Iraqi military devise and carry out a counter-attack to retake the provincial capital Ramadi, which insurgents seized last month in an onslaught that further exposed the shortcomings of the Iraqi army.

The U.S. advisers, who will be injected into the heart of one of the most hotly contested areas of the Islamic State campaign, will offer tactical advice to Iraqi officers on how to conduct their operations, the Pentagon said.

A complex challenge for the U.S. troops, who will establish a training hub at the Taqaddum military base only about 15 miles (25 km) from Ramadi, will be their outreach to Sunni tribal fighters, many of whom do not trust the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

U.S. officials want to integrate them into the Iraqi army and reduce its reliance on Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who have also joined the fight against Islamic State.

Obama decided on the new troop deployment in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi, the White House said. The two leaders met while attending the G7 summit in Germany earlier this week.

"To improve the capabilities and effectiveness of partners on the ground, the president authorized the deployment of up to 450 additional U.S. military personnel to train, advise and assist Iraqi Security Forces," the White House said in a statement. ...

Thanks. I forgot to add a link to the story.

InHiding80

I've said it before and I'll say it again...DINObama. SMH As long as there's money involved the rethuglican lite party will fire away.

And you wonder why I'm in the green party now.

gimmesometruth27

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Asterisk on the Street

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad decision. We never should have been there in the first place.

gimmesometruth27

Asterisk on the Street said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad decision. We never should have been there in the first place.

yeah i was playing stupid. i have been saying all along we never should have been there in the first place.

brianlux

TPP + Troops sent back to Iraq = I shake my head and sigh.

BS44325

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad Decision. This is too little too late. Go all in or don't go at all. This is just 450 troops to appease the press after Obama's "lack of complete strategy" talk this week. This is still not a strategy. It is just window dressing.

callen

BS44325 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad Decision. This is too little too late. Go all in or don't go at all. This is just 450 troops to appease the press after Obama's "lack of complete strategy" talk this week. This is still not a strategy. It is just window dressing.

All in? 5000 US troops killed. 200000 injured. Another trillion dollars pissed away while neglecting Us infrastructure. Then in 5 years we are back to present day conditions.

Hear there's an opening for a mercenary fighting with the curds. Sure we could crowd fund to help you with air fare.

Sheese.

JimmyV

Asterisk on the Street said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad decision. We never should have been there in the first place.

This is what I argued in 2003, but we went anyway. (I know you did too, Gimme.) Today I feel like the damage is done, the ink is out of the bottle, etc. I don't know what "good decisions" there are to make in the Middle East anymore. I really don't. Every decision feels wrong. Whether we go back in or we don't go back in, everything seems lose-lose. There are consequences to making the worst foreign policy blunder in a generation and we are feeling them today. Nothing will undo Bush's mistake, but the mistake is made. It's easy to point fingers at Obama and criticize this move or that move, and it will be easy to criticize whoever wins in 2016. The fact is there are no easy answers to the situation there.

callen

Think the solution is for the humans in Middle East to handle their part of the world. Our meddling won't permanently do anything. Iraqi's need to feel the pressure. Though Obama can work on his message, keeping American troops out of battle is a good strategy.

BS44325

callen said:

BS44325 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad Decision. This is too little too late. Go all in or don't go at all. This is just 450 troops to appease the press after Obama's "lack of complete strategy" talk this week. This is still not a strategy. It is just window dressing.

All in? 5000 US troops killed. 200000 injured. Another trillion dollars pissed away while neglecting Us infrastructure. Then in 5 years we are back to present day conditions.

Hear there's an opening for a mercenary fighting with the curds. Sure we could crowd fund to help you with air fare.

Sheese.

Did you spell it "curds" on purpose just to insult my canadianess and love for poutine?

But yes..."all in" vs nothing. I know you prefer nothing. This 450 advisers is a complete waste of time.

callen

BS44325 said:

callen said:

BS44325 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

so, knowing what we know now, is it a good decision or a bad decision to put people back in there?

Bad Decision. This is too little too late. Go all in or don't go at all. This is just 450 troops to appease the press after Obama's "lack of complete strategy" talk this week. This is still not a strategy. It is just window dressing.

All in? 5000 US troops killed. 200000 injured. Another trillion dollars pissed away while neglecting Us infrastructure. Then in 5 years we are back to present day conditions.

Hear there's an opening for a mercenary fighting with the curds. Sure we could crowd fund to help you with air fare.

Sheese.

Did you spell it "curds" on purpose just to insult my canadianess and love for poutine?

But yes..."all in" vs nothing. I know you prefer nothing. This 450 advisers is a complete waste of time.

So the "all" isn't a solution.

Not with my money and not with my countries soldiers.

callen

BS. you prefer nothing to what we're doing now? Serious question.

BS44325

callen said:

BS. you prefer nothing to what we're doing now? Serious question.

I equate what we're doing now with nothing. What we are doing now gives off the appearance of action for the purpose of keeping domestic critics at bay.

mickeyrat

Who the fuck are you talking about with this "we" bullshit?

DarthMaeglin

mickeyrat said:

Who the fuck are you talking about with this "we" bullshit?

In case you were unaware, Canadian soldiers are on the ground as advisors as well (and we suffered a friendly fire fatality as a result), and Canadian airmen are participating in strikes against IS, hence the "we". So, to use a term thrown out earlier (in a somewhat different context), Canada, as a nation, does in fact have skin in the game this time around.

As far as the question at hand, I see the current situation as the inevitable development of having an artificial deadline placed on what was essentially a war. The enemy knew they only had to hide in the sand until the "coalition of the willing" pulled out their troops.

I was (and am) proud that Canada stood aside in 2003, but am equally pleased to see our troops involved in the current actions. In part I see it as being more proactive before IS gets the means to do something similar to 9/11. Unfortunately we're talking about a group that doesn't accept our way of life on principle and will always work to take us down.

Here in Canada we've been lucky thus far to have prevented many (unfortunately not all though) of the attacks aimed at us, in part because we're aware we're on both AQ and IS's hit lists.