The battle for Mosul

For discussion on international politics and world affairs.
User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:47 am

I know what my position was. My concept of troops leaving Iraq was in the context of nation building. I said a base or two in Iraq would be the perfect platform for power projection in the region. And easier to resupply than Afghanistan which is land locked.

I don't think anyone seriously denies that Neocons no longer want to eliminate Assad- even if by democratic elections. Can you give me a link where they gave it up? I support using all tools available to the government. I advise against occupation and nation building because the US does not do that well. And the tribes in the ME and SWA aren't interested in it.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:10 am

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/1 ... ng-in-Iraq

From NOPD to we should have kept Americans in harms way in the form of "two bases."

Evolution.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:12 am

Peter1469 wrote:I know what my position was. My concept of troops leaving Iraq was in the context of nation building. I said a base or two in Iraq would be the perfect platform for power projection in the region. And easier to resupply than Afghanistan which is land locked.

I don't think anyone seriously denies that Neocons no longer want to eliminate Assad- even if by democratic elections. Can you give me a link where they gave it up? I support using all tools available to the government. I advise against occupation and nation building because the US does not do that well. And the tribes in the ME and SWA aren't interested in it.


Can I give you a link to where they gave up?

:roll:

I can give you a link to Peter1469's NOPD. To his "about time" we left Iraq.

You've evolved for two reasons, Pete. Reality...and Uncle Ransom.

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:33 am

I said their governance problems were not our problem. NOPD.

It isn't. The Neocons are wrong to insist others practice Jeffersonian Democracy.

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:09 pm

Commentary from the European Council on Foreign Relations: Battle for Mosul- so far so good.

More on the battle

The battle is going slow, but that was expected. The question is what happens after. Too many competing interests are involved.

______

Alongside the Iraqi federal troops leading the campaign, there are Kurdish Peshmerga, Shia and Sunni paramilitaries, special forces from the US and UK, advisors from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Turkish troops. Added to this constellation, there are also Kurdish PKK guerrillas who are present in both Kirkuk and Ninewa provinces. Baghdad has refused direct military air support from Moscow, Abu Dhabi and Amman because juggling the various actors and interests is simply too complicated for a weak state to handle. Even minority communities in Iraq, such as the Christians, Ezidis and Shabak have military units that are split between the central government in Baghdad and the regional government in Erbil.

For now, all these guns are pointing in the same direction, but after ISIS suffers an inevitable military defeat, the guns could start pointing in all sorts of directions. And contrary to much of the prevailing commentary, the fallout will not be contained to Shias against Sunnis or Arabs against Kurds, but rather all against all. It will be intra-ethnic and intra-sectarian tensions that will largely determine the prospects for post-ISIS stability in Iraq.

The good news is that there is an agreed military Plan A, which twelve days on has gone surprisingly well and even exceeded the expectations of the US-led anti-ISIS global coalition. Everyone knows where they are supposed to be and where they are not supposed to go, which sounds straightforward but is an accomplishment in an operation as complex as this. The coordination between Iraqi federal troops and Kurdish regional troops is particularly encouraging and impressive. There is an unprecedented level of cooperation between these two forces and many hope this will continue long after the liberation of Mosul itself.

The bad news is that everyone also has a Plan B.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:05 am

Peter1469 wrote:I said their governance problems were not our problem. NOPD.


But, their governance problems including their military fleeing ISIS Toyotas became our problem, Peter. Furthermore, that wasn't my recollection, nopd was in response to rising violence by extremist elements in Iraq, elements who became the Islamic State.

It isn't. The Neocons are wrong to insist others practice Jeffersonian Democracy.


You speak to 'what next' after ISIS is extracted from Mosul and its' strongholds across the Levant often. What isn't next, Sir, would be to disregard for example the Iraqi government and their governing problems. Rather, I would hope you would support and train and facilitate their military. I would hope you'd allow them to govern themselves rather than insist on a democracy as I do, but keep US troops in Iraq to aid in those efforts.

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:34 am

How do we keep the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds from fighting with each other?

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:36 am

That is what I mean by what next. We could win their war for them. But the region will remain in collapse.

That takes us back to LTC T.E. Lawrence.

UncleRansom
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:30 am
Location:
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby UncleRansom » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:13 am

Peter1469 wrote:That is what I mean by what next. We could win their war for them. But the region will remain in collapse.

That takes us back to LTC T.E. Lawrence.


As long as you and Lawrence of Arabia understand that nopd is no longer an answer to the question 'what's next', we can continue to intelligently discuss options from here.

User avatar
Peter1469
Forum Framer
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:19 pm
Location: NOVA
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 270 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Re: The battle for Mosul

Postby Peter1469 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:35 am

My answer is containment.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests