International Four Americans Killed in Syria by ISIS

[IGIT]

Citing Clinton doesn't help your argument, not after her little adventure in Libya went so wrong. Obama was not a fan of intervening in the MidEast but seemed compelled to do so by the hawks in his administration like Clinton.

hullo Kafir-kun,

what argument?

i'm merely stating the facts.

Candidate and then President Obama was not compelled to stay in Afghanistan by the hawks. that is simply not accurate. in 2008, Afghanistan was the "good war" for the Obama team.

and my citing of Mrs. Clinton, clearly one of the most hawkish of Democrats, was only to show that the commitment to Afghanistan was broadly shared. it wasn't just a few nutty guys on the right (ie Mr. Bolton).

- IGIT

 

[Fronk]

Yes agreed. I sincerely want stability and for Iraq to deal with it's own problems internally and diplomatically.. I think they've suffered enough.

To give the US some credit, I really do think the experience of post-Baath Iraq played into the decision to never take a hardline stance on the overthrowal of the Syrian goverment. During the conflict there always existed that underlying openess to have state instutions preserved from a US point of view; "force to negotiate" or "Assad must go" basically. There are alot of other factors playing into US never commiting to regime-change but it played some role atleast.

About the Iraq-ISIS conflict you have to give credit to the Shia militias, without Sistanis fatwa to save Iraq (which meant to not only defend Shia areas), ISIS would have probably rolled into the center of Bagdad and cemented their rule over Sunni parts of Iraq. Progressively, under US pressure, the Shia-militas were forced into a more passive role but without them the situation would have been catastrophic. Iran and the PMU saved Iraqs existence as a state but US played a key-role in the defeat of ISIS basically. US firepower was crucial, especially when it came to levelling Mosul which saw the hardest and most brutal combat of any battle in this conflict; Syria included.

There is a reason ISIS only ever conquered Sunni areas. The Iraqi army, that was in many ways an army only on paper due to widespread corruption, rolled over but did it almost exclusively in Sunni towns and cities. Take the hard fought siege of Amirli as an example where the goverment fought back; by no coincidence a shia city.

ISIS only conquered the Sunni parts of Iraq. Kurds never fought outside of its own areas either (they get credit for the siege of Mosul, when the Peshmerga actually never fought in the city itself), which obviously shows the underlying weakness of the Iraqi state. Only the Shias initially shed blood for areas that wasn't "theirs" in the name of the preservation of the Iraqi state. Later on the Iraqi army and the Sunnis played a key-role too, like the "Golden Division" that saw bloody combat in every corner of the conflict; a unit marked by their hard stance on no secterianism from it's
soldiers and made up by members of every creed.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You said they were a huge part in taking Mosul when they were specifically not even allowed to enter the city.

Okay fair enough but outside that one offensive they were pretty vital. It was probably a goo idea to keep Shiite militias out of the offensive on Mosul anyway.

And you seem all too willing to completely ignore the massive Kurdish contributions to our effort over an imaginary line that's rapidly fading.

That's my point.

I'm not ignoring it, I've already conceded that they helped a lot but primarily in the regions they claim.

 

[Fronk]

Okay fair enough but outside that one offensive they were pretty vital. It was probably a goo idea to keep Shiite militias out of the offensive on Mosul anyway.

I'm not ignoring it, I've already conceded that they helped a lot but primarily in the regions they claim.

Shia militas fought in the offensive leading up to the battle of the city itself; they fought in the campaign but was denied to participate in the urban combat by US demand.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Which militia group do you think did the most? Which one outpaced US bombs being dropped? Apache helicopters doing daily missions? And divisions of Iraqi army supported by the coalition?

I know a few names, namely Badr.. I don't deny they did stuff, mostly clean up work and regional security, small militia groups were so many in number and with little leadership.. saying they essentially carried the burden is an exaggeration. Their strength actually grew after areas were secure. Some fought each other. Some were totally propped up by Iran specifically to influence elections...

Their strength growing after areas were secured doesn't really hurt my argument. Being able to defend territory you secure and the people in it from rebels is as important as taking the territory.

The Iraqi army is garbage, it melted before ISIS and only recovered after being propped by various Shiite militias who infiltrated it.

I'm not arguing US "role", I'm arguing schematics, where you're wrong. I was defensive about Mosul, you said it was militias that fought that fight, that's wrong. Iraqis themselves paid in full to win that fight. There ought to be books written on that offensive.

The militias are made of Iraqis though. Sure in Mosul they decided not to allow them to take the city, a wise move, but overall they were critical to fighting ISIS in Iraq.

I'd argue that the US absolutely has an interest in Iraq. There's no denying we set the conditions for much of the problems currently ongoing. For that reason I believe there was a debt that the US was just in it's efforts to destroy ISIS. Iran wants more than secure Iraq.. we all know that, but Iraqis burned down their diplomatic building in Basra just last summer and their party was not welcomed into the office during the election.. actually a very nationalistic view was seemingly most popular.

Lol at pretending the US is some gentle giant out to help when its the one that fucked Iraq in the first place. Both Iran and the US have their own strategic interests in Iraq that the Iraqi people may not exactly sign off on. Difference is the Iraq mess is on Iran's border and they have a far stronger cultural tie than the US. They have far more right to be in the country than we do.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Shia militas fought in the offensive leading up to the battle of the city itself; they fought in the campaign but was denied to participate in the urban combat by US demand.

I figured that would be for fear of reprisals by Shiites against Sunnis but could it be the US wanted to prestige of taking Mosul for its more favored Iraqi factions?

 

[Islam Imamate]

hullo Kafir-kun,

what argument?

i'm merely stating the facts.

Candidate and then President Obama was not compelled to stay in Afghanistan by the hawks. that is simply not accurate. in 2008, Afghanistan was the "good war" for the Obama team.

and my citing of Mrs. Clinton, clearly one of the most hawkish of Democrats, was only to show that the commitment to Afghanistan was broadly shared. it wasn't just a few nutty guys on the right (ie Mr. Bolton).

- IGIT

I'm not talking about Afghanistan though, I'm talking about Syria. Though we should leave Afghanistan as well regardless of what Mrs. Clinton ever said.

 

[Fronk]

I figured that would be for fear of reprisals by Shiites against Sunnis but could it be the US wanted to prestige of taking Mosul for its more favored Iraqi factions?

Going by Shia involvement in other hard fought urban battles like Tikrit and Ramadi the second option seems more likely. The level of reprisal by the (shia) PMU was always comparably low, especially taking into consideration the wholesale terror carried out by ISIS against their community. The US always took a cautious stance on PMU involvement but knew its importance. When the battle of Mosul city was to begin the reconstruction of the Iraqi army, if you can call it that, was at a level that PMU involvement was no longer essential to victory. So the US pushed for their exclusion.

 

[IGIT]

I'm not talking about Afghanistan though, I'm talking about Syria. Though we should leave Afghanistan as well regardless of what Mrs. Clinton ever said.

hi Kafir-kun,

my apologies. the discussion seemed to be kind of wide ranging, and i thought the poster (madmick?) was talking about afghanistan. that is whom i was responding to.

regarding Syria, without even bothering to take a look back at what Mrs. Clinton did or didn't say, i'm sure she advocated for either direct or indirect military intervention there.

from all evidence, Mr. Obama didn't want to get involved there (and generally speaking, he kept his powder dry), and i think this was the geopolitically correct choice. Syria falls under the Russian sphere - they even have a naval port there, and i didn't see this changing, no matter what Bibi yearns for.

- IGIT

 

[Islam Imamate]

Going by Shia involvement in other hard fought urban battles like Tikrit and Ramadi the second option seems more likely. The level of reprisal by the (shia) PMU was always comparably low, especially taking into consideration the wholesale terror carried out by ISIS against their community. The US always took a cautious stance on PMU involvement but knew its importance. When the battle of Mosul city was to begin the reconstruction of the Iraqi army, if you can call it that, was at a level that PMU involvement was no longer essential to victory. So the US pushed for their exclusion.

I do remember reading that while Shiite reprisals were a big fear in the fight against ISIS by the PMUs it didn't happen as often as was feared.

As an aside what do you mean exactly by the reconstruction of the Iraqi army? I'm not familiar with all the nitty gritty details of the conflict, just some bigger picture stuff. I'm assuming you mean after the army was melted by ISIS there was cleaning up to do.

 

[Fronk]

I do remember reading that while Shiite reprisals were a big fear in the fight against ISIS by the PMUs it didn't happen as often as was feared.

As an aside what do you mean exactly by the reconstruction of the Iraqi army? I'm not familiar with all the nitty gritty details of the conflict, just some bigger picture stuff. I'm assuming you mean after the army was melted by ISIS there was cleaning up to do.

Yes, the US and the Iraqi goverment scrambled to patch together a functioning army again after the initial collapse. The Iraqi army was rife with corruption and mismanagement at the beginning of the conflict, the "ghost army of mosul" and all that, which had lead to very low fighting readiness across the board, Iraq didn't even have a functioning air force back in 2014.
You can give the US credit here again, the reorganisation of the Iraqi army was swift and effective, by 2016 there was no longer a complete dependence on the special forces division outside of the PMU as an effective combat force.

 

[Mike Hagger]

Yes, the US and the Iraqi goverment scrambled to patch together a functioning army again after the initial collapse. The Iraqi army was rife with corruption and mismanagement at the beginning of the conflict, the "ghost army of mosul" and all that, which had lead to very low fighting readiness across the board, Iraq didn't even have a functioning air force back in 2014.
You can give the US credit here again, the reorganisation of the Iraqi army was swift and effective, by 2016 there was no longer a complete dependence on the special forces division outside of the PMU as an effective combat force.

While in shambles north of Bagdad - ISF in Baghdad were more prepared. They had not been "melted by ISIS", as ISIS had not arrived there yet. Between those ISF at formally Camp Victory and US bombs, as well as international support, began arriving halted ISIS's advance. That, and a thin supply line that relied solely on pillaging.

Following the halt at Baghdad. Iranian militia groups did advance, and take Samarra, maybe a few other victories during this late 2014-mid 2015 timeframe. However, thereafter the big cities were required using ISF or Kurds, including Tirkrit, Kirkut, Mosul, Baji. Out west, where ISIS still remains was also ISF, handful of militia groups as well.

Though, these militia groups were not solely Iranian backed as well, even some of the larger ones were Iraq backed, and likely US funded, US advised.

 

[Mike Hagger]

To give the US some credit, I really do think the experience of post-Baath Iraq played into the decision to never take a hardline stance on the overthrowal of the Syrian goverment. During the conflict there always existed that underlying openess to have state instutions preserved from a US point of view; "force to negotiate" or "Assad must go" basically. There are alot of other factors playing into US never commiting to regime-change but it played some role atleast.

About the Iraq-ISIS conflict you have to give credit to the Shia militias, without Sistanis fatwa to save Iraq (which meant to not only defend Shia areas), ISIS would have probably rolled into the center of Bagdad and cemented their rule over Sunni parts of Iraq. Progressively, under US pressure, the Shia-militas were forced into a more passive role but without them the situation would have been catastrophic. Iran and the PMU saved Iraqs existence as a state but US played a key-role in the defeat of ISIS basically. US firepower was crucial, especially when it came to levelling Mosul which saw the hardest and most brutal combat of any battle in this conflict; Syria included.

There is a reason ISIS only ever conquered Sunni areas. The Iraqi army, that was in many ways an army only on paper due to widespread corruption, rolled over but did it almost exclusively in Sunni towns and cities. Take the hard fought siege of Amirli as an example where the goverment fought back; by no coincidence a shia city.

ISIS only conquered the Sunni parts of Iraq. Kurds never fought outside of its own areas either (they get credit for the siege of Mosul, when the Peshmerga actually never fought in the city itself), which obviously shows the underlying weakness of the Iraqi state. Only the Shias initially shed blood for areas that wasn't "theirs" in the name of the preservation of the Iraqi state. Later on the Iraqi army and the Sunnis played a key-role too, like the "Golden Division" that saw bloody combat in every corner of the conflict; a unit marked by their hard stance on no secterianism from it's
soldiers and made up by members of every creed.

I missed this earlier, sorry. I would have replied.

You seem to know more than some on here about the details of ISIS in Iraq.

I could not agree more about Mosul, there is a reason I repeatedly harp on that particular moment. The battle was intense, and watching, literally watching, ISF retake the airfield was something I will not forget.. I have seen a few battles in my time, that was reminiscent of something the guys saw in Falluja a decade ago. ICTF and several other more "elite" units were decimated during Mosul, ISIS was very dug in.

Absolutely, the Iraqi Army in many of the places ISIS hit was not prepared, to put it mildly. Some still fought though, bitterly, that much did happen. ISIS while not very well trained had hardened leadership, they made good decisions, tactically. They hit the soft underbelly of the ISF which was a fight they won.

Militia groups played their part - I don't and won't deny that. However, to say their involvement was the tipping point. Well, that's not correct. Defeating, stopping, and killing ISIS was the result of a multitude of factors. To which many can take some credit. Though, I believe militia groups would have been unable to retake those cities (Mosul Tikrit) alone. I believe it took almost an entire month to fully secure Mosul.

 

[Fronk]

While in shambles north of Bagdad - ISF in Baghdad were more prepared. They had not been "melted by ISIS", as ISIS had not arrived there yet. Between those ISF at formally Camp Victory and US bombs, as well as international support, began arriving halted ISIS's advance. That, and a thin supply line that relied solely on pillaging.

Following the halt at Baghdad. Iranian militia groups did advance, and take Samarra, maybe a few other victories during this late 2014-mid 2015 timeframe. However, thereafter the big cities were required using ISF or Kurds, including Tirkrit, Kirkut, Mosul, Baji. Out west, where ISIS still remains was also ISF, handful of militia groups as well.

Though, these militia groups were not solely Iranian backed as well, even some of the larger ones were Iraq backed, and likely US funded, US advised.

Don't get me wrong, painting the PMU's as an iranian puppet force is doing them a giant disservice, they are Iraqis first and foremost. Some groups within the PMU have closer ties to Iran, obviously, but they didn't mobilise because Khameini demanded it, it was the call of al-Sistani that saved Iraq at a decisive hour. Without that call I could see Iraq splitting into three parts honestly. The PMU's weren't the sole fighting force, in any theater, but they were crucial to the efforts, atleast up to Mosul; the second battle of Tikrit for example were the PMU's played a big role.

I mean you can even go as far as to say it was principal decision by the US to have the militas not take part in the battle of Mosul - as in showing Iraq now had a functioning army again- because not only were the "iranian puppets" not allowed to participate but other forces within the PMU like Assyrian groups weren't allowed to take part either, and they were from the region.

 

[Mike Hagger]

I mean you can even go as far as to say it was principal decision by the US to have the militas not take part in the battle of Mosul - as in showing Iraq now had a functioning army again- because not only were the "iranian puppets" not allowed to participate but other forces within the PMU like Assyrian groups weren't allowed to take part either.

100% that was the case - it was a signal. Also you probably won't read this, but logically it follows, the militia groups were decentralized and could be difficult to control. I think the coalition wanted the ISF to be the lead, with forces they specifically controlled. Really for a few reasons be predominately: legitimate security ought to be done by the ISF - or the authority of the Iraqi government is undermined. Then to ensure victories for the ISF.

Right now you can see what the byproduct of those groups was/is. The election was riff with militia group leaders left and right. But who won? The OG militia group leader Sadr and he did so on an anti-Iranian stance! Blew my mind. But it shouldn't have.

 

[Fronk]

100% that was the case - it was a signal. Also you probably won't read this, but logically it follows, the militia groups were decentralized and could be difficult to control. I think the coalition wanted the ISF to be the lead, with forces they specifically controlled. Really for a few reasons be predominately: legitimate security ought to be done by the ISF - or the authority of the Iraqi government is undermined. Then to ensure victories for the ISF.

Right now you can see what the byproduct of those groups was/is. The election was riff with militia group leaders left and right. But who won? The OG militia group leader Sadr and he did so on an anti-Iranian stance! Blew my mind. But it shouldn't have.

Yes, that blew my mind also to be fair and really shows the independence of Iraqi Shia.

 

[Mike Hagger]

Yes, that blew my mind also to be fair and really shows the independence of Iraqi Shia.

Many Iraqi's are a very proud Iraqi people. Some think that Iraqi's and maybe, Afghanis are alike, it's not the case. Where there is a lack of nationalism. While there are different sects within Iraq. A large population is extremely loyal to Iraq, and only to Iraq.

This is why when I last left my guys were bracing for a civil war... It sucks.

 

[djacobox372]

It's almost as if ISIS wants us to stay.

What does that say when neo-cons, neo-libs, and ISIS all want the US to stay in Syria?

It's like a axis of evil.

ISIS does want us to stay, because they can't defeat Assad and Russia on their own.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

What about Al Shabab? Why aren't they in Africa?

They are in Africa. US forces have been fighting Al Shabaab since 2009...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.85dc2f9efd12

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes, that blew my mind also to be fair and really shows the independence of Iraqi Shia.

Well they are still Arabs, gotta figure the ethnic/cultural divide with Persian Iran matters on some level.