ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah

[VDKMS]

The insurgents listen to the News too, they knew that they had the coalition forces beaten and that they were leaving, then they could do pretty much as they wanted, that is what we are seeing now.

Coalition forces beaten? Are you living on Mars?

Dream on, Pinocchio. The coalition knew they were never going to succeed even before Maliki was installed.

They already succeeded. Most of the country was at peace. They left before the political part was finished. Obama made a terrible mistake.

The insurgents may have lost many battles, but in the end they won the war. The coalition forces were totally out of their element when combating a guerrilla force, just as they were in Vietnam, Central America and a dozen other small wars they have been involved in. Their strength is in technology as we saw in Kuwait where they had a resounding success.

The insurgents were defeated. Coalition forces were training the Iraqis to take over but left too soon.
The US did not lose the war in Vietnam. They won. They bombed the Vietnamese to the negotiation table in Paris where they signed a peace agreement. They promised not to enter South Vietnam and the US would send its forces back home. The US kept its promise, the Vietnamese didn't. What happend afterwards is that the US didn't come to the rescue of South Vietnam.

 

[MontyB]

The insurgents were defeated. Coalition forces were training the Iraqis to take over but left too soon.

Too soon?
Hitler took over most of Europe within 6 years of taking over, Alexander conquered most of the known world within 5 years of coming to power are you seriously telling me the USA and Britain could not train a force to fight 6,000 guys in pick up trucks using modern military equipment in 10 years?

The US did not lose the war in Vietnam. They won. They bombed the Vietnamese to the negotiation table in Paris where they signed a peace agreement. They promised not to enter South Vietnam and the US would send its forces back home. The US kept its promise, the Vietnamese didn't. What happend afterwards is that the US didn't come to the rescue of South Vietnam.

Now I accept that this is a rather simplistic break down but I have always worked on the principle that when the country you are defending no longer exists because it is in the hands of the people you were defending it from it is called a loss.

 

[JOC]

military breakdown in Iraq

Too soon?
Hitler took over most of Europe within 6 years of taking over, Alexander conquered most of the known world within 5 years of coming to power are you seriously telling me the USA and Britain could not train a force to fight 6,000 guys in pick up trucks using modern military equipment in 10 years?

The Coalition - US basically keep the insurgents at bay, maintaining order. Particularly near the end their force was small and the rules of engagement to limited for them to do much more 'completely control Iraq". When the US left the Iraqi army could not fill these shoes. 1st their leadership was in a shambles. Had they keep more of the original officers perhaps they would have been capable of doing the job. But they were replaced with untried officers which lead to a complete breakdown.

 

[MontyB]

Too soon?
Hitler took over most of Europe within 6 years of taking over, Alexander conquered most of the known world within 5 years of coming to power are you seriously telling me the USA and Britain could not train a force to fight 6,000 guys in pick up trucks using modern military equipment in 10 years?

The Coalition - US basically keep the insurgents at bay, maintaining order. Particularly near the end their force was small and the rules of engagement to limited for them to do much more 'completely control Iraq". When the US left the Iraqi army could not fill these shoes. 1st their leadership was in a shambles. Had they keep more of the original officers perhaps they would have been capable of doing the job. But they were replaced with untried officers which lead to a complete breakdown.

But it comes down to a matter of opinion, were the insurgents kept at bay which would indicate a victory of US tactics or did they simply bide their time knowing that coalition forces would be leaving which would indicate a victory of insurgent tactics?

I would argue that the collapse of the Iraqi army at the first sign of opposition would also indicate that the institutions of the Iraqi armed forces simply were not up to spec and I think this is illustrated by the fact that the Iraq has 1 million people under arms in a country with a population of less than 40 million, I would suggest that any serious attempt to build a functioning military would have been more along the lines of Germany 1922 and 1955 where they limited the size of the military and retained only the best veterans who then formed the nucleus of the future German armed forces.

 

[JOC]

But it comes down to a matter of opinion, were the insurgents kept at bay which would indicate a victory of US tactics or did they simply bide their time knowing that coalition forces would be leaving which would indicate a victory of insurgent tactics?

I would argue that the collapse of the Iraqi army at the first sign of opposition would also indicate that the institutions of the Iraqi armed forces simply were not up to spec and I think this is illustrated by the fact that the Iraq has 1 million people under arms in a country with a population of less than 40 million, I would suggest that any serious attempt to build a functioning military would have been more along the lines of Germany 1922 and 1955 where they limited the size of the military and retained only the best veterans who then formed the nucleus of the future German armed forces.

The insurgents were present for years as evident by the > decade long infighting. They were keep at bay meaning their ability to take control and do as they wished was keep in check by the coalition – US forces. As mentioned the “coalition - US were too small and the rules of engagement to limited for them to “completely control Iraq or eliminate the insurgents". I also think some of these insurgents are opportunist, that doesn’t recognizing any formal borders. I.e.: Al-Qaeda which sends terrorist - fighter where an opening occurs. Who BTW helped out the ISIS early on. So a country can be relatively free of the influences of these groups but when signs of instability occur they stand ready to come in. This has happened in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Chechnya and several other African nations. In the case of Bosnia and Chechnya the countries had a national identity that acted as a binding agent which helps prevent complete destabilization.

The Germans keep a small but extremely effective officers corps. This is exactly what Iraq is lacking. The trouble was a lot of the building of an Iraqi military had nothing to do with the US. They can only train those who are referred to them to train. Unlike in Germany the head had been cut off the Iraqi military for sectarian reasons. The original officer corps “could have” provided more effective leadership. Many of them now lie dead. In fact most of the effective government is also out of a job, for sectarian reasons. The Shiites had a majority vote and they put many of their own newbie’s in office and in the head officer’s corps as well. This was done regardless if they had experience. Now they are calling on any able boded Shiite to grab a gun and join the Shiite militia in order to fight the ISIS.

 

[JOC]

Vietnam

Coalition forces beaten? Are you living on Mars?



They already succeeded. Most of the country was at peace. They left before the political part was finished. Obama made a terrible mistake.



The insurgents were defeated. Coalition forces were training the Iraqis to take over but left too soon.
The US did not lose the war in Vietnam. They won. They bombed the Vietnamese to the negotiation table in Paris where they signed a peace agreement. They promised not to enter South Vietnam and the US would send its forces back home. The US kept its promise, the Vietnamese didn't. What happend afterwards is that the US didn't come to the rescue of South Vietnam.

When Nixon decided to use the B52's to bomb Hanoi to the stone age the communists suddenly became very willing to negotiate. Things started moving at the long stalled peace Paris Peace talks and a negotiated settlement was reached in 1-73. The North promised not enter the south. However during the spring of 75 the north crossed the DMZ and took the south. As stated we kept our promise to withdraw they didn't and invaded.

We could examine this deeper by saying that the peace accord was just a step in their plan towards reunification however a lie is a lie, and that would be for another tread.

 

[brinktk]

I would really like to comment thoroughly on this thread but I'm at Ft Knox right now trying to turn cadets into officers. I'll be home in a few weeks and will comment at that time. Sorry this is so late, but I'd really like to put some perspectives out there as this is an issue that is close to my heart.

 

[hamidreza]

Iranian pilot 'killed fighting in Iraq': state media

http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-pilot-killed-fighting-iraq-state-media-102648954.html

It means that Iranian soldeirs are in Iraq now to help Maleki. It was predictable.

 

[JOC]

In Iraq?

Sounds like Iran is providing weapons support. Perhaps some sorties as well. However their is nothing in the article to indicate a large scale movement of Iranian troops - revolutionary Guards into Iraq.

Iran military is far superior to ISIS and it's Sunni allies. Perhaps Iran would step in to preventing a total victory by ISIS in Iraq.

As for ISIS they would all be better off dying and going to their paradise. For all the murdering they do. Already they have driven nearly a million people from their homes Shiites, Christians, etc..

 

[MontyB]

Sounds like Iran is providing weapons support. Perhaps some sorties as well. However their is nothing in the article to indicate a large scale movement of Iranian troops - revolutionary Guards into Iraq.

Iran military is far superior to ISIS and it's Sunni allies. Perhaps Iran would step in to preventing a total victory by ISIS in Iraq.

As for ISIS they would all be better off dying and going to their paradise. For all the murdering they do. Already they have driven nearly a million people from their homes Shiites, Christians, etc..

While I am not sure about the quality of Iranian forces I do not see any issues with them assisting the Iraqi government if invited to do so.

As for ISIS or IS as they seem to want to be called I can see nothing that justifies their continued existence as they seem determined to spread their ideas through conquest so yeah by all means nuke the bastards and move on with life.

However if Iraq actually wants to become a thriving stable nation it only has one option and that is a genuinely inclusive secular government as the alternative is going to be a split into three unstable nations.

 

[JOC]

While I am not sure about the quality of Iranian forces I do not see any issues with them assisting the Iraqi government if invited to do so.

As for ISIS or IS as they seem to want to be called I can see nothing that justifies their continued existence as they seem determined to spread their ideas through conquest so yeah by all means nuke the bastards and move on with life.

However if Iraq actually wants to become a thriving stable nation it only has one option and that is a genuinely inclusive secular government as the alternative is going to be a split into three unstable nations.

Well we got to remember Monty although they have been highly successful fighting a disintegrating Iraqi Army and some Syrian guerrillas. However they are still a ragtag organization

I agree the planet would be better without them.

Right now the Shiites dominated government is ridiculously paralyzed. They need to have a mixed government of Kurds, Sunni's and Shiites but they continue to squabble as the country falls further into chaos. The Kurds are happy to maintain their own autonomous region. Although I don't think ISIS is even happy with that.

 

[JOC]

Read the News manager

Read the last post by the news manager: as per the news manager:

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/iraq-parliament-delayed-five-weeks-t110042.html#post674509

 

[MontyB]

Read the last post by the news manager: as per the news manager:

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/iraq-parliament-delayed-five-weeks-t110042.html#post674509

I do not see an issue with Iraq being split along sectarian lines with the 3 state governments then being used to form a federal government to oversee the whole country as that would give all groups an equal say in the process which seems to be their biggest problem at the moment.

 

[JOC]

IRAQ is a mess

I do not see an issue with Iraq being split along sectarian lines with the 3 state governments then being used to form a federal government to oversee the whole country as that would give all groups an equal say in the process which seems to be their biggest problem at the moment.

Me either, that would likely be a good solution.

The trouble now is the Government filled the offices with Shiites. The Sunni's began to rebel as a result, since previously they played an important part in the government "delicate balance to begin with" and weakened a the mainly Shiite lead army who officers at the time were fairly professional. So many Shiites that knew how to help run this multi religious - tribal country were out of a job and were replaced by inexperienced nitwits who have remain paralyzed ever since.
As the Shiite rebellion took place they were joined by these nuts the ISIS who were at 1st welcomed but then ended up virtually taking over the fight against the Sunnis at a time when the Sunnis are weak from the disintegration of the military due to lack of leadership. This is typical of these opportunistic terroristic groups, they come in when weakness exist. Now they desire to take Bagdad a Shite city as they strive to expand outside the Shiite only areas. This makes things very complex as Iran would be nervous if ISIS wins and the US is also against such a victory. Strange bedfellows. However the Federal government has decided in this time of crisis to take 5 weeks off for a break. Further proof of the uselessness of the present leadership - Federal government.

 

[VDKMS]

Let's be clear. This is a religious problem and it is not (radical) Sunni vs Shia, it is (radical) Sunni vs non-Sunni. The Iraqi Shia now cry for help forgetting that they themselves expelled or killed many Christians (and Sunnis). This was happening under Malikis watch and is happening in Arab Spring countries as well. Radical Shias (Al-Sadr) already threatened to kill Americans coming to the rescue. It is going to get ugly over there.

Why don't the Americans send troops to reinforce the Kurds? That way they'll have a lot of leverage when the Kurds declare their independence in Iraq and maybe in Syria and to calm down possible Turkish resistance. This will also send a signal to Maliki (and the Iranians) that he screwed up and they'll have a base(s) from which they could attack IS in Iraq and Syria as well.

Jordan? It seems that the Israelis will come to the rescue when things spiral out of control. They already operate drones along the Iraqi-Jordan border.

 

[JOC]

Continued

It’s religious as well as tribal. The big treat now is that unless this bloodthirsty ISIS is stopped there will be no resolution whatsoever and they are winning. And for the Government to go into a 5 week recess in the middle of a major crisis that is tearing the country apart is absolutely ridiculous. This is the same elected leadership that is responsible for letting things get this bad in the 1st place by not leaving the guys that knew how to run the country (at least nominally) in place, but instead fired them and replaced them with their nitwit cronies. This is what further alienated the Sunni’s in the 1st place and set the country up for a collapse of the military. Extremist exist on both sides. However these ISIS (or whatever they are called) need to be but out of their misery. They have killed thousands of innocents, some in horrible ways and caused ~ a million refugees in a reality short time. They are opportunist terrorist coming in (many from abroad) when the Sunni’s could use an ally to fill the vacuum then taking over. Many native Sunni’s don’t want them and talk of splitting away from them.

I think other than some possible sorties and advisors the US will try to stay out, my hunch.

If the ISIS takes Bagdad as they intend to do you could see Iranian involvement.

I think the Kurds pretty much (at least in Iraq) have established their own unofficial autonomous zone, and seemed to be holding the rebels at bay. This is probably a tricky area for the US seeing as the Kurds continued war with Turkey.

 

[brinktk]

Let's be clear. This is a religious problem and it is not (radical) Sunni vs Shia, it is (radical) Sunni vs non-Sunni. The Iraqi Shia now cry for help forgetting that they themselves expelled or killed many Christians (and Sunnis). This was happening under Malikis watch and is happening in Arab Spring countries as well. Radical Shias (Al-Sadr) already threatened to kill Americans coming to the rescue. It is going to get ugly over there.

Why don't the Americans send troops to reinforce the Kurds? That way they'll have a lot of leverage when the Kurds declare their independence in Iraq and maybe in Syria and to calm down possible Turkish resistance. This will also send a signal to Maliki (and the Iranians) that he screwed up and they'll have a base(s) from which they could attack IS in Iraq and Syria as well.

Jordan? It seems that the Israelis will come to the rescue when things spiral out of control. They already operate drones along the Iraqi-Jordan border.

As much as I would like to see the Kurds succeed in this whole mess I'm not sure it will solve much within the region if we solely back them. The Kurds don't just have a significant population in Iraq, but in Turkey, Iran, and Syria as well. None of those countries want the Kurds to have independence because that would imply those same countries having to give up some of their territory to facilitate the large Kurdish population in those areas. Or if they don't and Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq itself becomes a state then the flow of Kurds moving into the area would quickly tax the balance in the fairly stable region creating a supply demand issue between the Kurds currently living there and the ones moving in.

If the US backs the Kurds then that also implies we go against a NATO "ally" in Turkey and also the very government in Iraq we spent so much to prop up for over a decade. That's not really good for anyone. Just more violence, more war profiteering, more chaos, and zero resolution.

I think it's just going to have to take the Iraqis themselves to live in the bed they are making for themselves for a while to get fed up and push out the whackos like they did in 2007 during the Sunni awakening. They CAN do it and since the ISIS ideologues will soon wear out their welcome they will eventually find themselves unwelcome in the very place they came to "liberate". They're certainly not making any friends as of today with their strict interpretation of Wahhabism (which isn't very well routed in Iraqi culture anyways) and they burnt even more bridges by declaring themselves the new Caliphate. No matter which sect of Islam one adheres to, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who is the current leader of ISIS and the new "Caliphate", doesn't fit the criteria to lead by the Sunni or Shia standard pertaining to a Caliphates leadership. It is in my estimation that this movement will bog down in bickering, power struggles, ethnic/tribal ties, etc before it can pick up any more steam as a singular movement.

Chances are, once these lines are fractured the islamists will again split into multiple different sects that will likely be fighting not only the local government, the secularist, and Shi'as, but each other as well. I think Iraq is destined to be a focal point of dissent and fighting for years to come fueled by the powers around the country simply to keep that fighting from crossing too much into their own borders.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[JOC]

As much as I would like to see the Kurds succeed in this whole mess I'm not sure it will solve much within the region if we solely back them. The Kurds don't just have a significant population in Iraq, but in Turkey, Iran, and Syria as well. None of those countries want the Kurds to have independence because that would imply those same countries having to give up some of their territory to facilitate the large Kurdish population in those areas. Or if they don't and Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq itself becomes a state then the flow of Kurds moving into the area would quickly tax the balance in the fairly stable region creating a supply demand issue between the Kurds currently living there and the ones moving in.

If the US backs the Kurds then that also implies we go against a NATO "ally" in Turkey and also the very government in Iraq we spent so much to prop up for over a decade. That's not really good for anyone. Just more violence, more war profiteering, more chaos, and zero resolution.

I think it's just going to have to take the Iraqis themselves to live in the bed they are making for themselves for a while to get fed up and push out the whackos like they did in 2007 during the Sunni awakening. They CAN do it and since the ISIS ideologues will soon wear out their welcome they will eventually find themselves unwelcome in the very place they came to "liberate". They're certainly not making any friends as of today with their strict interpretation of Wahhabism (which isn't very well routed in Iraqi culture anyways) and they burnt even more bridges by declaring themselves the new Caliphate. No matter which sect of Islam one adheres to, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who is the current leader of ISIS and the new "Caliphate", doesn't fit the criteria to lead by the Sunni or Shia standard pertaining to a Caliphates leadership. It is in my estimation that this movement will bog down in bickering, power struggles, ethnic/tribal ties, etc before it can pick up any more steam as a singular movement.

Chances are, once these lines are fractured the islamists will again split into multiple different sects that will likely be fighting not only the local government, the secularist, and Shi'as, but each other as well. I think Iraq is destined to be a focal point of dissent and fighting for years to come fueled by the powers around the country simply to keep that fighting from crossing too much into their own borders.

Of course, that's just my 2 cents.

I agree as my previous post pretty much states, although you have evaluated the situation in greater detail. The thing that concerns me "as mentioned" is the favoritism and inability of the elected government. We both noted that the Sunni's are growing weary of their "so called ally" the ISIS. Perhaps infighting will develpoe here as well. Anything to stop these murderers. That is a point Iran on one hand vs Arabia and the Gulf States would likely not want to see this spill over in fact you could likely throw in Jordon and even Turkey.

 

[brinktk]

Precisely,... the insurgents were never "beaten", the coalition forces only ever "controlled" the land they were standing on, at any given time, the moment they moved elsewhere the land immediately reverted to the control by the insurgents. They would mount a mission on some little village, go in and kill a handful of insurgents then hightail it for home before dark. Within 10 minutes of their leaving the area it was back in control of the insurgents. You see, it's vastly different to the computer games you get your experience from.

It would have been no different had the coalition forces stayed there forever, That's why the coalition forces were run out of Iraq with their tails between their legs.

I have to address this statement here. I can understand this statement being the case in maybe 2005 and before. But that was certainly not the case going into 2006 until we left in 2011. There were areas throughout the duration of the war where units actually lived in the neighborhoods where they operated. Most of those areas were markedly more secure than the areas that had 16-20 hours of coverage a day. They were used as a model to coincide with the surge of troops going into the country starting in 2006. By the end of that year, most of the units that were responsible for battle space in Iraq were living IN their battle space areas. By the end of 2007 the results were convincing because violence in every category one could place dropped precipitously from their levels when compared to Jan 1 2006. Those numbers continued to drop until we left in Dec of 2011.

I can also say that I didn't have my tail between my legs when I left in Dec of 2011and neither did any of the soldiers that I served with. I was in that country for the first 2 years of the war and can honestly say it was vastly more secure when I left in 2011 than it was in 03-04-05. WE had a good feeling about the country because the insurgents were hurting so badly there and the ISF seemed to be able to operate sufficiently to deal with that threat at the time. It wasn't an ISF loss, it was an Iraqi government loss. The failure of the government to adequately establish rule of law and chain of custody on people who were suspected of terrorism meant that the same individuals would be captured and sent to jail over and over, only to be released because they didn't yet have the systems in place to make anything stick, or the corruption allowed for bribes to be taken to secure the release of a person of interest.

I understand the zeal with which the statement was made in making a point. Just understand it isn't as simple as the way you described it. Encyclopedia volumes could be written about the complexities of the successes and failures of the US, ISF(in all their stages), Iraqi government, tribalism, ethnic discourse, and sectarian lines over the decade of direct US involvement and even then it wouldn't cover everything.

 

[MontyB]

I can also say that I didn't have my tail between my legs when I left in Dec of 2011and neither did any of the soldiers that I served with. I was in that country for the first 2 years of the war and can honestly say it was vastly more secure when I left in 2011 than it was in 03-04-05. WE had a good feeling about the country because the insurgents were hurting so badly there and the ISF seemed to be able to operate sufficiently to deal with that threat at the time. It wasn't an ISF loss, it was an Iraqi government loss. The failure of the government to adequately establish rule of law and chain of custody on people who were suspected of terrorism meant that the same individuals would be captured and sent to jail over and over, only to be released because they didn't yet have the systems in place to make anything stick, or the corruption allowed for bribes to be taken to secure the release of a person of interest.

But surely the idea that the insurgency had recognised that from 2010 onwards that the US withdrawal was almost complete so further sacrifice was futile as such the "hurting insurgents" were in fact just the dead enders who were determined to kill as many as they could before being killed is not unrealistic.

After all the Syrian revolution broke out around that time so perhaps the insurgents simply shifted their focus to an easier target while they waited for you to leave Iraq.