IS(IS) is clearly making a big push toward Baghdad

[cali]

Bombing has been ineffective, to date, at halting IS(IS) advances.

Islamic State militants have taken control of key cities in Iraq’s western province of Anbar and have begun to besiege one of the country’s largest military bases in a weeklong offensive that’s brought them within artillery range of Baghdad.

The Islamic State and its tribal allies have dominated Anbar since a surprise offensive last December, but this week’s push was particularly worrisome, because for the first time this year Islamist insurgents were reported to have become a major presence in Abu Ghraib, the last Anbar town on the outskirts of the capital.

“Daash is openly operating inside Abu Ghraib,” according to an Iraqi soldier, who used a common Arabic term for the Islamic State. “I was at the 10th Division base there two days ago, and the soldiers cannot leave or patrol,” he said, asking that he be identified only as Hossam because Iraqi soldiers are barred from speaking with foreign reporters. “Daash controls the streets.”

Hundreds of miles to the west, Islamic State forces continued their push into the Syrian Kurdish city of Kobane, where it appeared unlikely that Turkey would intervene to stop the advance. Kurdish officials from the town said the Turkish government had yet to respond to their pleas for weapons, and reports from the Turkish-Syrian border said there was no evidence Turkey was preparing to take action.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/03/242105_islamic-state-reportedly-on-baghdads.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

[Atman]

1. "They're an hour away from Baghdad!"

I read that last week. It's a very long hour. Be afraid! Be very afraid! They'll be coming ashore in America in 40 minutes! I swear!

[cali]

2. No. The headlines last week were they're within a couple of miles of Baghdad

and this has jackshit to do with fear mongering or being afraid. It does have something to do with the military expertise and efficacy of IS(IS) as well as the apparent relative inefficacy of our military intervention.

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. so what's the solution?

Let them take Baghdad?

[cali]

5. I don't have a solution. I do have a shit load of evidence

that our military intervention in the past and currently has not improved ANYTHING.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. So just throw in the towel and give up?

wave the white flag and stand by while the massacres occur?

Yeah there won't be any blowback from that AT ALL!

[Bigmack]

8. How about we let the rest of the world decide for themselves.....?

If it's to be massacre... I'm outraged, sad, etc, etc..

But.

WTF can we do about it? That's not the question of an isolationist, that's the question of a realist.

We have spent $Billions training the Iraqi army. I read this AM that ISIS has captured an entire regiment of Iraqi tanks. How the fuck do you capture a regiment of tanks?
"Want to buy some Iraqi rifles...? Never fired, and only dropped once."

We have bombed/droned the shit out of them, and still they come.

"Boots on the Ground" hasn't done shit to change the picture in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Why would it work now?

ISIS represents a threat to us only in that they may spawn small cells that will come to the US for terrorist strikes. "Boots on the Ground" over there won't change that.

This country fought a war against itself.... 600,000 Americans were killed. There were atrocities and the murder and abuse of prisoners, there were attacks on and destruction of civilian centers, there were hundreds of thousands of displaced people.... and yet, no country invaded to straighten out our situation. Would we have welcomed such an invasion during our civil war?

If the Muslim extremist element is as fragmented as it seems to be, wouldn't the best action be.... no action? Let them absorb as much territory as they can and start fighting among themselves?

And finally... We Can't Afford It! We've already flushed $6 Trillion down the toilet in the Sandbox. We can't afford to flush any more.

So... Do we stand by and wave the white flag? Or do we further degrade our country economically? Wouldn't it be better to put our money into our own country...and it's defense, rather than its offense?

`I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar soaked fingers out of the business of these (Third World) nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own. And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the `haves' refuse to share with the `have-nots' by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don’t want, and above all don’t want crammed down their throats by Americans.' –
Gen. David Shoup, United States Marine Commandant Medal of Honor recipient. 2 Purple Hearts
I’m proud to say that Gen. Shoup was my Commandant during the first part of my time in the Corps.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. except for the fact that the rest of the world HAS decided....that ISIL has to GO!

or have you missed THAT part of the equation this time?

Again.....YOUR answer means risking sitting back while another Rwanda occurs......nooooo no blowback from that AT ALL

[Bigmack]

12. This country is the King of blowback...

Every thing we do blows back at us. And everything we don't do.

There are consequences to backing off and let the rest of the world take care of ISIS. If the rest of the world feels so strongly about them, those countries are welcome to do what they can. IF they can.

There are bigger consequences to yet another invasion, though. More recruitment for the extremists, worse blowback, more US blood and treasure pissed away. As I said, we can't afford it.

My US Civil War analogy holds.... the rest of the world apparently just sat back and let us massacre each other. How would we have responded to an invasion from outside intent on stopping our fratricide?

You post did not deal with the fact that the US has been involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for over 10 years... with the finest trained troops, highest tech weapons, unlimited supplies, control of the air, etc... and still the insurgents expand their territory. What makes you think a new invasion would work? There was never more than about 25,000 Taliban, and ISIS has about 40,000. We sent 2.3 million Americans to the Sandbox... and with all that, they are winning.

Isn't it just possible that even the mighty United States can't bend the will of every country and every person to our way of thinking?

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. You always expect NO blowback?

you expect living in this world to be easy? You expect Presidentin' to be easy? Difficult positions must be taken. I for one DO NOT want to sit back and let a massacre happen....Ask the Kurds about that....

[Bigmack]

21. Easy...?

$6 Trillion pissed away... 7,000 dead American troops...hundreds of thousands of dead innocents? For nothing!

Easy..?

If you don't want to sit back...by all means figure a way to go. There are Marine recruiters just waiting for you.

I've done my futile war... a war begun and carried on - and on - to keep people safe. Or defend Democracy. Or defeat an ideology that is no longer extant.

Your turn.

[cali]

13. uh, no , they really haven't. gross exaggeration

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. Uh yes they have....France, Belgium, Great Britain, 5 Arab Nations etc....

about the only ones NOT interested are China and Russia.....hmmmm ain't THAT interesting?

[cali]

11. oh for the love of reason. I didn't say give up and I've elaborated

in other posts some of the things I think would be helpful.

now continue with your ill thought out rah rah stuff. It's what you do- and nothing but. If the President says so, you take it as gospel. sad.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. then WHAT are you saying?

I have asked....

[cali]

18. and I've posted in other threads directly to YOU.

and you fricking know that. go back and find them, Vanill.

[VanillaRhapsody]

20. No I am asking you today....what is your solution.....what is YOUR plan....and what becomes of ITS

aftermath?

I see you griping and complaining......but what is your alternative plan and what is the consequences of THAT decision

[cali]

22. I've done this little dance with you before. go do your own work, 'nilla, and frickin' find it.

I've given you my thoughts about measures I think we should take. I really find your game playing disgusting. stop being lazy and find the answers I've given you re this very same question on at least 2 occasions. I'm will NOT do YOUR work for you. Not a fucking chance.

Got it?

Oh, and you are the queen griping and complaining.... about anyone with the temerity to criticize policies of the President you adore and worship.

bye, Van.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Yeah "I'm" the game playing one.....

GMAFB...

[GP6971]

28. In this situation

attacks from the air are effective, but with no effective ground troops to take advantage and follow up the strikes, it's a wasted effort.

[Chathamization]

4. Two maps that help explain the situation

"ISIS" territory in Iraq:



Ethnic map of Iraq:



If militants do enter Baghdad and engage in fighting there, I imagine it will be similar to the fighting that occurred in Baghdad before Sunni Arabs were ethnically cleansed from much of the city. It seems unlikely that Baghdad will "fall" to them (and the idea that Irbil was going to doesn't seem based in reality at all).

The media's unwillingness or inability to distinguish between ISIS proper (which is supposed to have between 20,000 and 31,500 members) and the broader Sunni Arab anti-government insurgency (including groups like MCIR that were involved in the fall of Mosul) makes it difficult to gain a good understanding of what's actually happening.

[jwirr]

6. I wonder if there is a point when they have won and there is nothing anyone can do about it?

[MoonRiver]

9. That is certainly what they're hoping for.

[jwirr]

25. I know and the maps are beginning to look like it, especially with todays head lines about Pak.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. There is no way the U.S. and its allies would let Iraq fall to ISIS./NT

[cali]

19. and that may well take a large number of those boots.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. EVERYBODY PANIC!

[cali]

27. sorry, no panicking. tough on you that you don't like the facts known

poor you. terrified it will reflect badly on the President you abjectly worship and adore. awww.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. bwhahahaha!

[Cleita]

26. Is Baghdad Bob there? Or did we kill him? eom

[Zambero]

29. 60 nations cannot stop the advance of 30,000 militants?

Something isn't adding up.

[cali]

30. why? the Iraq armed forces are a miserable mess

Syria is caught in a vicious civil war with ever shifting alliances. There are no other armed forces involved other than bombing from the air. What doesn't add up?

[Zambero]

31. Absolutely correct. Still not adding up.

A coalition of 60 nations have (supposedly) stepped up to stop the advance of ISIS, but what is being offered up by them apparently isn't making up for the inability of the dysfunctional Iraqi army, Kurdish support notwithstanding. All this international "support" from 60 nations to stem the tide of 30,000 ISIS ground forces, which isn't a very large force considering the size of the affected area. So realistically, if they cannot be picked off from the air, then what option is left, other than a return to Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld "boots on the ground", or throwing in the towel altogether? I hate to say it, but given the past track records of occupying and intervening nations in this region (to include the USSR as well as the USA), pouring more lives, arms, and treasure into this quagmire may not be affecting any final outcome.