Can you explain why you think Franks was a great general?

  What was the plan to handle Iraq after we got to Baghdad. Seriously why do you think he was a great general? What great battles or campaigns did he win? What is the standard for being  a great general? Surely you have to win, something, at some point to make  the title great General. It cant all be posing and posturing and P.T.....


 The plan for after Baghdad (or lack thereof) was Franks job, not the Sec Def. Franks reports to the president not the Sec Def. Franks had a staff full of highly trained military planners and his failure to plan is solely his responsibility.

  What's the deal with numbers? That's sort of like asking what's the deal with strategy, or end states, or commanders intent.

  Numbers, having lots of troops doesn't mean you'll succeed.

   

  So even if were not prepared and we don't have a plan we can still win if we just have "more" troops then the original plan? Cool what is the magic ration? Should the next CENTCOM commander just reflexively double the number of troops needed and skip planning altogether?

  General Garner, was a great General, totally got the call on what to do in Iraq and really should have been in charge. Ive heard he had problems with Powel and Franks and that was why Bremmer was brought in.



 

  Obviously you've never met any of these guys. I am adamantly opposed to genocide but the Yezidis are shit eating devil worshipers (seriously) and after centuries of inbreeding have serious physical/psychological issues that make them entirely unsuitable for training. The Peshmerga on the other hand would clean ISIS clock if they the equipment and didn't think Maliki would stab them in the back and try to re take Kirkuk while they were out fighting in the west.

  Also the situation with Turkey and the Kurds have changed substantially over the years. The Kurds in Turkey make up a strong voting block with the current government and Turkey has signed an agreement with the KRG over oil.

Agreed.

This world is run by ignoramuses and tyrants.

 It surely will be if we cant handle a bunch of unwashed, latently gay, murder monkeys from setting up their own country and striking out at us.

  Bomb them any place they mass in the north, and then any place they mass in the south once the Iraqi government dumps Maliki.

More boots are on the ground in Iraq right now than at the start of Afghanistan.

Absolutely.  We were highly effective in Afghanistan with just CIA/Special Ops running the show.  Things didn't start going to shit until State and Pentagon brass started getting their claws into it.



Every single dead jihadi is a victory for us and it comes at minimal risk.



 

Exactly. It was pretty effective to use foreign fighters backed by our airpower to take out our combined enemies, but it was fucking retarded to try and nation build.

We should have just stuck to smaller SF units based in areas where we were supported by the locals let the locals do the heavy lifting (regardless of their moral system), give them some air support when needed and then separately have our SF troops go out only at night to murder our own high value targets.

We are not and should not be a colonial power, as fucked up as the local belief systems could be we should not try to enforce our beliefs on them (their country their rules), we should have been there for only one reason to kill our enemies (Bin Laden, Al Qaeda), not to spread democracy.

ISIS is bringing total war. Thus in return they should get it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

If all you want to do is help the indigenous forces win tactical and operational victories, it works fine.  The advisors increase their confidence so they don't break and run; to be successful the enemy must form in a conventional formation and in turn the USAF can bomb them as they are easily targeted.

If you are supporting a guerrilla band, like the Northern Alliance in 2001-2002, it works well...up to the point when you want them to do something they don't want to do...like capture Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Then it fails completely and you will wish you had US boots on the ground.  

If you have a government and an army on your side, and if they generally share the same goals as you, yes, it works.

In the 1972 Easter Offensive the NVA tried to overrun South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese Army, the ARVN, held up...okay...just long enough for US advisors to help call in very big airstrikes and pound the NVA to dust.

The NVA tried it again in 1975 and with no US Advisors and no airpower the ARVN folded.

A very small amount of US advisors with lots of air support would have stopped ISIS early in their attacks.  The problem, clearly, is that stopping the ISIS doesn't necessarily mean Maliki and the ISF will do what you want, but it is probably better then having your allies fold like wet cardboard...unless you completely don't give a damn at all what happens.

If you really really really want to use force to coerce and control  the people on the ground to do exactly what you want, then that is the time for conventional forces.  Do so when the cost is worth it to you. Because it will be high.

Bullshit.

Every dead jihadi is three more we indirectly create.

Give me the BE numbers.

Let's just turn the middle east into a glass scar on the face of the earth.

Can't be done for a thousand good reasons...

What is the plan B?

Send soldiers over there and tie their hands in engagements so they are big walking targets.

 

We should just step back and give the Kurds a tactical nuke, but tell the world we gave them a dozen.

They turn ISIS to glass, and no one fucks with them again, thinking they have 11 more.

They already are smoldering fuck holes.

What can we destroy that will tell them to stop?

The Mosul Dam?

Bullshit.



The people you speak of are already salafis who are just waiting for an opportunity/excuse.  If the 'jihadis' are alive, they are actively recruiting.  If they are dead, they are recruiting from beyond the grave.  The only answer is to keep their capabilities minimal through attrition.
 

Oh...attrition warfare is the plan?

How many $200 Rent-a-hajis do we smoke that equals one Humvee with four Joes in it?

because they weren't concerned with national borders, and crossed into pakistan with impunity.  And the pakistanis didn't do much to stop much less crush them.  There might have been some US military operations into pakistan, but it was little different that what happened in the vietnam war, with not being able to move large concentrations of forces and bomb with impunity to destroy the enemy no matter where it ran.

This is the way things will be from now on fighting the islamists, until some future leader sees that the enemy sees no distinction between national borders, there is only islam.

This would have been a perfect opportunity to use some form of germ/biological warfare...contaminate a few enemy fighters, they exfiltrate into pakistan, and soon the whole village that is harboring them is dead, or nearly wiped out.  Repeat until there is a de facto exclusionary zone so deep and so feared no one will cross it.
Do you want to play nice or save western civilization?

Actually yes, I have met many of the Yzedis. My interpreter was a Yzedi, and I spent about 3 months in Sinjar and 12 months in the surrounding area. They don't inbreed anymore than any of the rest of those goat herders. Actually, I found it was the Turkoman who were the biggest fans of man love Thursday and marrying first cousins. I'm pretty sure the Yzedi aren't actually devil worshipers. That's just what the Muslims think... They also think we are the devil. So according to them the Yzedi worship us?

It's good that Turkey is coming along with regard to the Kurds. I hadn't heard that, but haven't been following it very closely the last few years.

Never mind that. How do you effectively attrit an enemy with a small ground force supported by Air? Do you really think they will be driving around in big convoys with flags one week after the bombs start falling?

Apparently for most of GD that means you are really kicking ass and taking names. Because you dropped a few bombs, made a few cool youtube videos, and drove your enemy underground. And it was cheap and easy with minimal risk. The potus can give speeches about the big win in major combat ops.

This while your enemy hides, recruits, and waits you out for the inevitable reality that you are not committed, and won't decisively win. The minute the SF guys go home, and the planes quit bombing, you can claim another victory over America.

GD Strategy 101: Do what is easy and feels good right now, with no thought as to what comes next, or consideration for the limitations of a small force with air support.

As opposed to what?  The Clinton doctrine?  Sure.  Let's just ignore it and hope they don't become strong enough to bring the fight to our soil.  Worked great in the 90's.  Maybe if we're quiet enough, they'll just forget about the 'far enemy'



I said nothing about bringing in ground forces.  I'm talking about a handful of teams that are probably already in place.  A miniscule footprint.  There's risk involved in everything, especially working in special forces or CIA.  



I'm the last person that wants more involvement overseas but when a threat emerges you have to deal with it.  And the earlier, the better.  How many lives would have been saved if we had put even minimal effort into derailing the Taliban in its infancy?  The same goes for UBL and AQ.  





 

except bush's orders were: "capture or kill any AQ/Taliban by any means necessary."



they also had a SHIT TON of air cover.



 

'all our fault'  right.. gotcha.