Discussion for article #224002
And so it begins again…
This could quickly morph into the events that derail the Dem strategy for 2016. A steady increase in military personnel in Iraq followed by the inevitable caskets arising at Dover will not play well with the 2016 electorate.
Nor do I see how we come about with a “win” out of this. 100 special forces people does not seem likely to overturn a growing revolt, at best, the may hold onto that monstrosity we call a embassy in Baghdad, but little good that will do when the government we are propping up dissolve.
The neocons are out in full force, doing everything they can to goad the President into sending more troops. And without much doubt, rest of their GOP brethern will start screaming for impeachment for going into war without “consulting” Congress.
1 Like
It seems that they are being deployed to protect what might be a quite vulnerable US Embassy. Vulnerable because of its massive size. It was probably never a good idea to have such a large display of American Power, but in hindsight, an even worse idea.
Imagine though, we had not reinforced the embassy. Imagine it had been overrun by either faction - Shia or Sunni. Imagine the calls of Benghazziiiii - Baghdad!
It’s tough enough to have to make these kinds of no good options calls. Made all the tougher by those hoping to cash in on any and all missteps.
1 Like
It seems a little knee-jerk to conclude that a training mission and embassy security must necessarily turn into “it begins again.”
“Nearly 300 armed American forces are being positioned in and around Iraq to help secure U.S. assets”
So they are going to be deployed all over the country (read protect the infrastructure that American companies are so heavily invested). Nor is likely we are deploying special forces to be used as defensive measures. That isn’t their strength. They are going there to reconniter the situation on the ground, see if it is possible to command/rally the Iraqi armed forces, and then take steps towards a counter offense.
Given that it seem unlikely that the Iraqi army will stand up to this insurgency(based on mass surrenders we have seen so far), a counter offense is going to be done by…more American troops.
1 Like
A training mission and embassy security? Don’t kid yourself. Special forces do not man embassies for security. And what sort of training do you envision happening for an army that is in full retreat/surrender? We are going to give them the super dooper secret final pages of the training manual that we forget to give them during the 10 years we spent training and equipping them?
What has been demonstrated is that the Iraqi army is a paper army only. It is totally inadequate for the tasks of defending against a concentrated insurgency. Nor is it likely that 100 special forces troops will be enough to put the necessary steel in their collective backbones to stand up.
Once you start sending “advisers” into hot military zones where the country you are advising is losing…badly, there is significant risk that your advisers are going to start ending up being causalities.
And what becomes the republican response to the first American casualty in this latest upheaval? Get behind the President and support the troops? Don’t make me laugh.
1 Like
It’s not going to make the electorate run to vote for the Bush-Cheney-McCain all-war-all-the-time party either.
Agreed. But, and I really hate to go there, but there is one potential candidate who has always strongly been against military interventionism…just like his Daddy before him.
And THAT is a very scarey notion.