What's the US endgame for this war in Iraq?

[morningfog]

Currently, we engaged in a new war in Iraq to stop the advance of ISIS into Ebril, because the US has personnel and facilities there. This suggests the US will fight to stop such an advance indfinitely. It also suggests the US will take the same steps wherever ISIS is operating "near" US personnel and facilities in Iraq.

How long is this commitment? Weeks? Months? Years? How will success be measured? When ISIS is on the run?

We have now taken on ISIS as a war enemy. ISIS drew us in without even having to leave Iraq. And don't be fooled. This is not a continuation of bush's war. This is a new war of choice.

[leftstreet]

1. Obama: 'This Will Be A Long-Term Project'

August 9 2014

President Barack Obama made a statement from the White House on Saturday to discuss the ongoing military operations taking place in Iraq to combat jihadists affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS or ISIL). In his statement, Obama reiterated his claim American airstrikes and humanitarian efforts are focused on two "immediate" goals — protecting diplomatic personnel and military advisors in the Iraqi city of Erbil and providing aid and protection to members of the Yazidi religious minority trapped on a mountain in the northern part of the country by ISIS fighters. However, the president declined to commit to a specific timetable for military operations in Iraq.

"This will be a long-term project," Obama said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admits-us-underestimated-isis-2014-8#ixzz39wmp1bAy

[abelenkpe]

2. Is that why?

We couldn't abandon those facilities and evacuate the personnel? This isn't about rescuing innocent hilltop girls from the nefarious designs of extremists?

[Electric Monk]

3. Roughly half again as long as US troops are stationed in Germany or Japan?

[Boom Sound 416]

4. We're still there, so that's an indefinite half I presume

[Phlem]

5. The "Terrorist Boogeyman" will live forever.

I think we all new this when the term "Fighting Terrorism" was coined. It will always be something, FOREVER.

[jaysunb]

7. +1 n/t

[pinto]

6. There is no endgame for the US. It's up to Iraq. Their game, their endgame.

We are buying the Iraqis some time and the refugees from the ISIS brutalities some hope for survival. The first is a stretch, given the disarray in Iraq. The second is essential.

Don't be fooled by the overblown rhetoric. We need level heads on our end of the discourse. Not hyperbole, fear mongering or simplistic knee jerking at each and every blurb that comes over the 24/7 cable outlets.

"When many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action," Obama said.

[RobertEarl]

8. Ya know what's (not) cool?

ISIS has a bunch of US weapons that we left behind. OOOPs!

[pinto]

9. Yeah, yet - We left them with Iraqi military. They left them behind or lost them to ISIS.

[RobertEarl]

10. So we also failed to properly train Iraqi soldiers?

OOOps!
"Depends on what the meaning of IS, IS?"

[roamer65]

11. A regional ME war, possibly morphing into WW3.

The genie is now out if bottle and no one will be able to get it back in.

The destruction of Sykes-Picot means the ME will rearrange based on ethnicity and religion. That means war.

[Autumn]

12. That will be up to a few president down the line to decide.

This will last.

[customerserviceguy]

13. Leave it for Hillary to solve?

That's the only outcome I see.

[JackRiddler]

14. Oh great.

Or Jeb, don't forget. At least in the currently prevailing narrative of Bush-Clinton 2016.

[customerserviceguy]

15. The way I see it

Nothing that we do for the next two years is going to make a damned bit of difference, and I don't see anyone stopping Hillary from running, winning the nomination, and winning the general election.

What other possible outcome is there?

[JackRiddler]

16. What other possible outcome was there in 2006?

Never mind, Obama's first appointment was Emanuel and most of his key choices were either Bush holdovers or Clinton revivals. So I guess, in a sense, it's six of one, half dozen of the othe.

[customerserviceguy]

17. Yes, especially in the military area

I suspect the new president figured that military affairs were his weak suit, and he kept a lot of Dubya's team in his government to avoid being called 'soft', and this is the result we get.

We're lousy at being the world's policeman, and we're no better at being the world's babysitter. Let the parties in the ME sort it all out themselves, it's not our problem.

[flamingdem]

18. I think that the objective is to take out weaponry

and tanks, etc. I'm sure they can make a pretty good dent into their forces. Then they want to give cover to the Kurds, give them better weaponry and direction no doubt from US advisors - the type that live for this stuff and get paid, not soldiers btw.

This is while other players ramp up. If they can't contain them it will be a big problem for them so they should find the motiviation. And in the case of the Iraqi army they should pay the soldiers, they don't, much, currently.

[bigtree]

19. excellent question, morningfog

. . . where does it all end? How far will we allow direct military action against this insurgent group. Is it just in the Kurdish region? The President has also included defense of Baghdad in his order.

Is this a case where every new expansion or escalation can now be justified along the 'humanitarian' defense of this one group of Kurdish civilians besieged on the mountain? President Obama has already said that he feels he has enough authorization already to initiate airstrikes wherever he sees fit. Where are the boundaries?


Now that folks supported direct U.S. strikes for this humanitarian cause in Iraq... Are they all-in?

We Break the World. . . Help Repair It