US forces in combat in Iraq again (not related to genocide threat)

[morningfog]

U.S. Warplanes Strike Militants in Iraq

American warplanes struck Sunni militant positions in northern Iraq on Friday, the Pentagon and Kurdish officials said, confirming the first significant American military operation in the country since United States forces withdrew in 2011.

Two F-18 fighters dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs on a mobile artillery target near Erbil, according to a statement by Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary. Militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria were using the artillery to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, “near U.S. personnel,” Admiral Kirby said.

The strike followed President Obama’s announcement Thursday night that he had authorized limited airstrikes to protect American citizens in Erbil and Baghdad, and, if necessary, to break the siege of tens of thousand of refugees who are stranded on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq.

* * *


Kurdish fighters, known as pesh merga, have been hard pressed in recent days by the militant fighters, who have seized several towns near Erbil from the Kurds and took the Mosul Dam, one of the most important installations in the country. The airstrike appeared intended to help stem the tide.

“The airstrikes are being led by the U.S.A., and pesh merga are attacking with Katyusha,” said Halgurd Hekmat, a spokesman for the Kurdish fighters, referring to a type of Russian-made tactical rocket.

* * *

Britain, a close ally and coalition partner of the United States in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Friday that it would not take part in military action there now but would provide humanitarian aid and technical assistance. Turkey, a NATO ally that borders northern Iraq, said on Thursday that it, too, would step up humanitarian aid to the region, news agencies reported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/world/middleeast/iraq.html?_r=0

Pay close attention. Obama focused his speech on the potential genocide of the Yezidis. Who could oppose that? But, it is the other grounds for a strike being used here, because the US saw a threat to its interests. This strike was to protect US "personnel and facilities" in Erbil.

[morningfog]

1. What US personnel are in Erbil? Are they at the Mosul Dam?

Is the Mosul Dam a US "facility?"

[TwilightGardener]

2. You don't think we should protect our personnel in Erbil?

[morningfog]

4. We shouldn't have any personnel there.

[TwilightGardener]

6. But we do. Diplomatic personnel and military advisors were moved there.

We can't just keep running. Neither the US nor the rest of the world can run away from this problem.

[renegade000]

8. we're not supposed to have diplomatic relations with the Kurds?

we have a consulate in Erbil.

[morningfog]

13. So we bomb anywhere anytime there is a threat "near" a US consulate?

[renegade000]

24. well, i guess we can have Erbil become the new Benghazi

and waste the next two years with endless congressional hearings and Fox news obsessions about that...

but seriously, i don't know if you've looked at a map of the current political situation in Iraq lately, it's a giant mess (caused by the folly of the previous administration). ISIL is making incursions into the territory controlled by ethnic groups it is hostile to, they are the aggressors, and i don't see anything wrong with helping the Kurds defend themselves.

[Laelth]

53. Erbil houses our diplomatic mission to the Kurdish Autonomous Region.

We need diplomats in the Kurdish zone, don't we?



-Laelth

[The Magistrate]

3. Like Money, Sir, Destruction Of Military Assets Is Fungible

Military capability degrades as a whole, and particularly in regard to heavy weapons possessed by capture. This is well within the parameters set in President Obama's speech last night.

[morningfog]

5. I didn't suggest it wasn't.

As I said last night, his parameters could cover all of Iraq at any given time. It was completely open ended bookended with genocide.

[The Magistrate]

10. Then No Point In Hinting At 'Bait And Switch' In A Header, Sir

The policy announced is being executed.

[morningfog]

14. I just want to keep track of the reasons for our attacks.

This is just the first of what will no doubt be many, and with open end.

[Fred Sanders]

9. "Near U.S. personnel" is obtuse and ever so fungible.....no debating the wide latitude that gives.

[stevenleser]

18. Alas, the range of modern artillery makes it less obtuse and fungible.nt

[Fred Sanders]

20. I notice the advancements in military hardware also, the better it gets the more civilians die.

[bigtree]

17. certainly within the President's order

. . . and destruction of weaponry and the opponent's weapon supply and capability is certainly reasonable.

I think what the op is alluding to, at least what I would like to amplify, is that the deliberate insertion of military personnel and their civilian support does require defense of those assets and equipment, but it shouldn't become a primary reason for the military action, lest the operation becomes a self-perpetuating defense of it's own activity.

Of course, these forces are presumed to be in defense of the broader effort to provide military support to the Iraqi forces as they defend against attacks on the civilians who are besieged in the higher elevations by the insurgent forces.

That said, I think it is important to try and keep some accounting of where that humanitarian mission the President described converges, or diverts from the altruistic into the original deployment which I believe was, essentially a defense of Baghdad and the Maliki regime; inaccurately defined, perhaps, but mainly a civil war between Iraqis.

The WH is insisting that there isn't an intent to widen their goals, but they have reserved any decision to do so on 'developing conditions,' rather than flatly rule that out.

As you know, there was more opposition to that possibility, and the bulk of support they are getting from folks here and elsewhere who have resisted the initial deployments has been tempered, by some, in favor of supporting the humanitarian mission identified by the President as preemptive strikes against potential 'genocide,' or the targeting of a particular group of civilians because of their ethnicity, in this case.

If the mission devolves into something else, it would raise questions again of the U.S. role in the larger fight against this insurgent group. Already, we see the administration conflating the combatants (valid or not) with the specter of 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq.

It's not a stretch to reason from that association they are making with al-Qaeda that our overt, direct military action might not end on that mountain's edge - but may well be folded into that wider mission that many folks out here objected to at the outset of this deployment.

To the op's point (I think) the protection of the US military assets shouldn't become our main objective. In my view, neither should a wider mission against insurgent forces threatening the autocratic and partisan Maliki regime be our military goal or ambition of active US force deployed or employed there.

It's not hard to reason that we may already be beyond the point where opponents of the original operation who've accepted military strikes in defense of this one group of civilians can properly or effectively oppose future action against the insurgents with the administration and military using the same 'humanitarian' justification for ordering even more military strikes.

[The Magistrate]

22. We Can Speak Clearly, Sir, I Expect, To One Another

Breaking the drive north by I.S.I.L., and rolling it back a bit, is the only thing which can remove the threat highlighted in our President's speech last night. Our people in Erbil are there to provide assistance, by way of intelligence and communication, to the attempt of Kurdish troops to do just that. The Kurdish forces are a good deal more reliable than were the troops of Shia Baghdad in the west of the country among a hostile population. It is not unreasonable to suspect that, if the power of artillery, and of motorized mobility, is stripped from I.S.I.L. fighters, Kurdish troops will be able to secure their own land and drive them out. With them will go the threat which has galvanized popular interest.

[bigtree]

27. that's a reasonable expectation

. . .I would note that there may be a question of the reliability or effectiveness of the Peshmerga, essentially the Kurdish army, in maintaining that rollback. Indeed, it's a question right now why those forces have been ineffective in protecting these civilians on their own, or in concert with other Iraqi forces - or are seen as such - when ISIS/ISIL has been described as a relatively small force... even with the weaponry the insurgents seized, they are less experienced and less equipped than those Kurdish forces were advertized as being.

One explanation why they haven't been sufficient in resisting the insurgents may well be that the capability of the Kurdish force has been inflated in reports beyond their actual ability.

[The Magistrate]

29. When It Comes To Cases, Sir, 'Peshmerga' Are Green

There are officers with experience of combat at higher ranks, but not so much in the fighting line. No matter how well trained and motivated they may be, green troops are at a disadvantage against veterans, and the I.S.I.L. fighters are veterans in large part. What shocks green troops most is artillery and sudden changes of front. At this point, the I.S.i.L.people are fighting in conventional mobile style in fairly open ground, and so are quite vulnerable to air attack. Green troops, and militias, can stiffen up if they have some time, and a scent of victory.

[bigtree]

34. again, a reasonable view. Thank you for your answers

[EX500rider]

39. The Kurds were stretched thin in the area while building a new border..

August 3, 2014: ISIL seized the Mosul Dam on the Tigris River. This is the largest dam in Iraq and because of shoddy construction during the 1980s requires constant maintenance to prevent it from failing. If the dam did come down over half a million Iraqis could die from the flood and subsequent water shortages. The Kurds had been defending the dam since the Iraqi Army ran away in early June. ISIL also seized two nearby Kurdish held towns. This was not unexpected because the Kurds stretched themselves thin by trying to replace the Iraqi Army while also building and defending a new fortified border to incorporate Kirkuk and nearby oilfields. The Kurds asked for air support from the United States but have not gotten it. The Americans have shipped in ammo and light weapons and some additional American trainers and advisors. ISIL hit the Kurds with multiple columns of vehicles carrying armed men. This force included some suicide bombers and there were more ISIL gunmen coming from more directions than the small Kurdish force could handle. After a day or so of holding ISIL off the Kurds were ordered to withdraw and they did that in an orderly fashion. The Kurds are now organizing a counterattack force and again asking Iraq and the U.S. for some air support.

http://strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20140807.aspx

[bigtree]

44. thanks for that perspective

. . . I think that assessment is mostly correct.

I also don't believe that's the only area in Iraq in which members of the population or the resources they rely on to survive are threatened by this insurgent group. The dam is important because of speculation that it could be destroyed and decimate much of their opposition's populace and territory.

I'm sure that's not the only place where ISIS/ISIL threatens the wider Iraqi populace.

[Fred Sanders]

7. America is using "near U.S.personell" as the justification for air strikes, eh? Kind of like reverse

human shields.

Plant a few near some other areas of Iraq, space them out every 20 miles or so, then bombs away for anyone "near U.S. personnel".

Am I the only one this cynical?

[The Magistrate]

11. Except That Is Not What Is Being done, Sir

Erbil is in essence the capital of Kurdistan, with which we have long had friendly relations, and the natural and proper station for diplomatic and advisory personnel. People are not there as part of policy of scattering them about the country-side like grass seed.

I would quarrel with your claim to be cynical, citing Mr. Shaw's comment: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

I submit your observation cannot meet the enabling qualification....

[Fred Sanders]

12. The power not to get a joke and turn ones own misunderstanding into a treatise is what is cynical.

Citing Fred Sanders.

[The Magistrate]

15. Bob Would Be Ashamed Of You, Sir

"If you can't tell shit from Shinola, don't order tuna fish in a French restaurant."

[Fred Sanders]

16. So Bob's your uncle?

[The Magistrate]

19. Sold My Soul Long Ago, Sir

[stevenleser]

21. This OP should be titled "I'm hunting for a reason to be outraged"

It should be self deleted.

As several folks have now pointed out to you

#1 - we have diplomatic staff and others there as part of normal relations with the Kurds

#2 - this is within the parameters of the Presidents announcement last night

#3 - no American troops are being sent, these are folks already there

Etc

[bigtree]

23. I don't think that's fair

. . . no more fair than post titles in support of this operation should be defined as 'hunting for a reason to bomb Iraq.'

[stevenleser]

26. If those supporting it were reaching in their justifications like this, they would deserve similar

comments.

The situation we have here sucks to use a scientific term. There are no good options. Idiot boy screwed us in 2003.

Reaching for reasons to be mad at the Presidents decisions is bullshit. I'm sorry if that seems unfair. No one has come up with better ideas.

[morningfog]

28. This is not our fight.

Move the US personnel out, we've watched the advance, this isn't a surprise.

[msanthrope]

33. It is our fight....see below. nt

[stevenleser]

40. Idiot-boy's war crime made it our responsibility. We screwed that country.

ISIS and the crimes they are committing would not be happening without the US's 2003 invasion.

We can stay out of a lot of things regarding Iraq, including a generalized civil war and degeneration into a failed state, but not a genocide in the making that is our fault.

[morningfog]

45. We rightfully withdrew our troops. We should stay out.

[bigtree]

30. it's not bullshit Steve

. . .what I find 'bullshit' is the shouting down with expletives any attempt to define the mission or determine its limits; or determine if the President's own definition of those limits is being adhered to.

I think it's irresponsible, especially among those who opposed the initial deployments and are now supporting this 'limited' humanitarian mission, to turn away from the actual conduct of our forces and refuse to discuss the parameters and the actual operation.

You may well be frustrated and have concluded that there are no easy answers. But, it's not sufficient to just say 'idiot boy screwed us' and let the chips fall where they may.

That might be sufficient for you, but it's 'bullshit' to define an attempt to measure the limits the President, himself, put on this order for airstrikes as mere opposition to the President.

[stevenleser]

41. This OP attempts to assert that we are going outside of the President's announced boundaries last

night. And it is bullshit.

It is an attempt to manufacture outrage.

[bigtree]

43. the only manufactured outrage I see is your own

. . .

[stevenleser]

46. I'm sure most people can see the OP for what it is. An attempt to Manufacture Outrage. nt

[bigtree]

47. give it a fucking rest

. . . all you're doing is repeating yourself.

No one is going to be bullied out of expressing themselves here by your opinion of this op.

[morningfog]

25. Feel free to trash it steve. No deleting, no reason to.

No outrage either. You are reading what isn't there. Watching closely and not surprised.

Your number three is wrong. Unless it wasn't American's flying the jets.

[bigtree]

31. no reason to delete, at all, morningfog

. . . your effort to determine where the humanitarian mission ends, and the original justifications opposed by a number of folks now supporting this action threaten to take over is a valid and useful one.

[msanthrope]

32. You know, I got arrested outside the fucking Iraqi Embassy in the 1980's protesting

our sale of chemicals to Saddam Hussein. Those chemicals were used to gas the very same place you now are writing about--Kurdistan. We kinda owe Kurdistan a big fucking debt.

You might have read about that case and my co-defendants.....

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_803

Seriously???? I'm reading on DU about how it's a bad thing to take out artillery?

[morningfog]

35. This is not the 1980s, not chemical weapons, not Saddam Hussein

[msanthrope]

37. It's still Kurdistan, and you know what? Taking out ISIS artillery is the most humane

fucking thing we could be doing.

You are complaining because Navy jets took out their artillery. Think about that.

You are complaining that two F/A 18s got in the air and made sure that the Sunni fundamentalists wouldn't be able to fire their artillery at civilians. Think about that.

You are complaining that we used our military hardware to take out a mobile artillery unit.....that was pointed at civilians. Think about that.

[morningfog]

38. I am opposing the renewed use if the US military

in Iraq. I am calling attention to the reasons given for this strike, so that we can keep track during subsequent strikes.

I fully support our military during true humanitarian missions, such as the aid drop. That is what we should be doing across the globe. I do not support the unilateral use of the US military in carrying out strikes anywhere.

[msanthrope]

42. Hey....morningfog....taking out artillery aimed at civilians IS true humanitarianism.

I mean, I'm sure everybody enjoyed the water and the MREs (insert laughter here) but I bet the civilians who are there are grateful there's a lesser chance of them getting shot to shit tonight.

[morningfog]

48. But that isn't the proffered justification. It is to protect US personnel and facilities "near"

ISIS, not Iraqi civilians.

I also don't think that emergency food and water aid to suffering people is anything to laugh at.

[msanthrope]

51. Yes....who do you think is delivering the aid? You take out the artillery so that

the incoming aircraft dropping the aid, and the people on the ground coordinating it, and our consulate are protected.

[RunInCircles]

36. Missing the point I think

Where are all of the Iraq Oil Wells Located?
What ever the stated reason ISIS is now threatening the area that produces most of Iraq's oil.

[neverforget]

49. Yeah, we're bombing ISIS to protect Erbil and not the Yazidi's stranded on Mt Sinjar

That is a big distinction.

[morningfog]

50. Even more, we are protecting US interests in Erbil and nothing more.

The speech was an announcement of a new Iraq war, wrapped in talk of genocide.

We may very well end up striking to protect the Yazidi. But, so far, all of the strikes, by jets and drones, have been to protect US interests in Erbil. We'll see where this goes, but it is open-ended as hell.

[woo me with science]

52. K&R Watch what they do, not what they say.

[woo me with science]

54. Important OP. Kick.

[woo me with science]

55. kick