U.S. Now Using Apache Helicopters to Attack ISIS in Iraq

[Baclava]

Source: ABC



WASHINGTON — The U.S. has begun using Apache AH-64 attack helicopters to strike at ISIS targets inside Iraq, the first time the aircraft have been used for offensive strikes since arriving in Baghdad in early July.

Their use opens up a new capability in the airstrike campaign against ISIS in Iraq, but one that also comes with risks, as they could be vulnerable to ground fire.

A defense official confirms that Apache helicopters were used this weekend as part of four airstrikes on a large ISIS force northeast of Fallujah. The attack was conducted in coordination with Air Force fighter aircraft that supported the operation.

A press release by U.S. Central Command said the air strikes near Fallujah “struck two mortar teams, a large ISIL [ISIS] unit and two small ISIL units.”



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/10/u-s-now-using-apache-helicopters-to-attack-isis-in-iraq/

---

Cue up the Wagner

[Ex Lurker]

1. Yeah, the fixed wing aircraft are basically invulnerable to anything ISIS is likely to have

The only risk is mechanical failure. Helicopters are a whole different matter.

[cstanleytech]

6. True they are vulnerable to small arms fire however in this case it might not even have been a risk

depending on what weapons they used they could have been miles away from danger.

[Baclava]

11. Usually 30mm gunfire and Hellfire missiles....they can see their targets

[cstanleytech]

17. The question isnt what they used in Afghanistan but rather what did they use to accomplish this one

and if its just hellfires they could have been 6 - 7 miles away which is well out of range of most small arms.

[freshwest]

23. Okay, I watched that and then found this on the same page:

This does not make sense to me, they don't look like soldiers. They shot all these guys and then sent three hellfire missiles to 'engage' a building?

There is some mention of RPGs and AK's given as the reason, but I don't see that during that sequence.



That's enough bad stuff for this evening...

[AnalystInParadise]

39. I was in Iraq (Baghdad)

during this incident. Insurgents are not soldiers (why would insurgents look like soldiers?).
Secondly they have several AK-47's and an RPG-7 in the first two minutes (I am an Intelligence Analyst by trade and have done some imagery analysis over my career, those are definitely weapons in the first two minutes)
Thirdly, our rules of engagement during the surge were this: If we spotted MAM's (Military Aged Males) and we saw they were carrying weapons, we were free to engage them (kill them) without PID (Positive Identification). In other words if our pilots, Abrams drivers, foot patrols, Humvee turret gunners, etc saw you and saw what they thought was a weapon, they were free to kill you. Those rules of engagement are almost identical to the rules of engagement in Eastern Afghanistan right now.

[EX500rider]

71. Not to mention I believe the entire thing took place at 1:30am..

....during a curfew, that's why the streets are so empty.

Most groups of men out at that time, especially carrying weapons were up to no good.

Was a bad idea for the Reuters reporters to embed with them and it was a bad idea to bring your kids along.

[caraher]

84. Nope

Look at the shadows. This is daytime. Wikipedia says,

According to the U.S. Army investigation report released by the United States Central Command, the engagement started at 10:20 Iraqi local time and ended at 10:41

[AnalystInParadise]

41. The money shot

is from the 2:04 mark until the 2:24 mark. In those twenty seconds I saw 2 AK-47's and one RPG-7. Given the rules at the time, those were viable targets. If you want to talk about the van that is shot up later I can also give you the reasons why according to our Rules of Engagement that was also not an issue. There is more than enough to find in the Iraq War that is illegal, this video is nothing of the sort. In each and every TOC (Tactical Operations Center) there is a JAG (Judge Advocate General, a lawyer) officer. He or she watches that video feed and gives the green light to allow the attack to commence or tells them it is legally not feasible. That is the reason for all the radio chatter. As the report is called in, the JAG officer is watching and that person gives permission. The JAG officer is present to make sure we are not violating any laws. You can hear all the chatter asking for permission.........This is about as textbook as an Apache attack on a viable target is.

[Sunlei]

49. about 13.25-13.32 "movement in the van, looks like a kid"

Must be horrible for an entire generation of children in those countries.

[Islandurp]

77. I believe this is the airstrike that killed a couple of reporters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

[AnalystInParadise]

82. Who were travelling

with armed insurgents in a free fire zone. The reporters really should have chosen who they were travelling with more carefully

[freshwest]

14. Couldn't they be downed by an RPG? Or whatever else they salvaged from the Iraqis?

They're not able to go up as high as fighter planes with oxygen. Asking since it seems the pilots and crew would be in much more danger in a helicopter.

In Vietnam, my BNL in the USAF was a gunner on this plane, AKA ghost plane, Spooky and 'Puff the Magic Dragon' and they went low to get their targets.. A nasty job, in retrospect. He did save the lives of servicemen when they were called into duty. It allowed them to get close up, like an Apache could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_AC-47_Spooky&printable=yes

I don't see where they are being used now, except there is a note they were last used by the USAF's Tactical Air Command. I don't know how any of that was reorganized.

Expect the Kurds know how to make use of any thing they can get their hands on, they seem to have the wherewithal to make war on ISIS, as well as an incentive.

My apologies, my reply to you is taking into account the comment above about planes, too. And I was editing while you mentioned Hellfire missiles, too.

Any information would be appreciated from either one of you...

[GGJohn]

26. Oh man,

you bring back memories, I remember Spooky circling overhead keeping the NVA and VC off of us a couple of times when we got in the shit.
We had a saying, Where Spooky goes, nothing grows.

[freshwest]

33. He didn't talk about it much, because of what he was literally *doing* you know?

His fingerprints were burned off because the gun barrel was red hot, but he had to keep firing. Anything that moved was his target and he kept on his mission.

I was unable to grasp that mentality as a teen, but since then, I have. It's 'not about you' when one does things, that to us civilians seem so insane.

He didn't hang around vets, or get into that, just did his time and came home to marry and get a job and live his life. One time years later we were with a group of people and the plane came up in discussion.

A guy at another table, a total stranger, ran up to him in tears and hugged him. He said Puff the Magic Dragon and him, had saved his life. It was moving to me, and made him feel better.

In the long run, my BNL is losing his life. To Agent Orange, and never being able to sleep right since the sixties. It's killing him, but he says he just did his duty.

Thanks for telling me your memory. It makes it seem to worth it to him and others like him.

Life is a dangerous adventure.

[GGJohn]

34. I'm very sorry to hear of his health problems

tell your BNL thank you for his service and keeping untold numbers of us alive while doing his duty.

[freshwest]

35. You bring tears to my eyes. I'll tell him. It was easier for us at home to decide what was wrong.

About the war. It's not the same as being on the battlefield.

[GGJohn]

36. Also tell him,

Welcome Home Brother from one vet to another.

[freshwest]

68. I just called him and told him all you said. He was grateful to be remembered by other veterans.

I looked up active aircraft in Wikipedia. The version of Spooky he flew is now gone, but replaced with another called Spooky:

Lockheed AC-130 Spectre / Spooky / Ghostrider / Stinger II



Picture says 'AC-130H Spectre jettisons flares' but why it would, IDK.

The Lockheed AC-130 gunship is a heavily armed ground-attack aircraft variant of the C-130 Hercules transport plane. The basic airframe is manufactured by Lockheed, while Boeing is responsible for the conversion into a gunship and for aircraft support.[1] The AC-130A Gunship II superseded the AC-47 Gunship I during the Vietnam War.

The gunship's sole user is the United States Air Force, which uses AC-130H Spectre, AC-130U Spooky, AC-130J Ghostrider, and AC-130W Stinger II variants for close air support, air interdiction and force protection. Close air support roles include supporting ground troops, escorting convoys, and flying urban operations. Air interdiction missions are conducted against planned targets and targets of opportunity. Force protection missions include defending air bases and other facilities. AC-130Us are based at Hurlburt Field, Florida, while AC-130Hs and AC-130Ws are based at Cannon AFB, New Mexico.[3] The AC-130s deploy to bases worldwide in support of operations. The gunship squadrons are part of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), a component of the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM).[4]

This sounds very much like my BNL was doing. Although he didn't volunteer to be weapons expert. Testing when he joined the Air Force (he knew he'd be drafted and wanted a choice) showed he'd be good with computers. But they didn't need that, so he was trained on weapons instead. This is how these are used for today:

All of the weaponry aboard is mounted to fire from the left (port) side of the non-pressurised aircraft. During an attack the gunship performs a pylon turn, flying in a large circle around the target, allowing it to fire at it far longer than a conventional attack aircraft. The AC-130H Spectre was armed with two 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannons, one Bofors 40mm autocannon, and one 105 mm M102 cannon, although after 1994 the 20 mm cannons were removed for most missions. The upgraded AC-130U "Spooky" has a single 25 mm GAU-12 Equalizer in place of the Spectre's twin 20 mm cannons, an improved fire control system, and increased ammunition capacity. New AC-130J gunships based on MC-130J Combat Shadow II special operations tankers were planned as of 2012[update]. The AC-130W is armed with one 30 mm Bushmaster cannon, AGM-176 Griffin missiles, and GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_AC-130&printable=yes

GG.

[GGJohn]

69. The flares would be to draw off any heat seeking SAM's or AAM's fired at the aircraft.

[freshwest]

74. Oh, wow. Thanks for explaining. I certainly don't know about this stuff, although my brother is...

retired USAF and has talked about some of the aircraft with enthusiasm. He lives in a small town that is mostly air force retirees. But it's always been in one ear and out the other with me.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Stay safe, guys.

[Kaleva]

3. +1

[scarletwoman]

4. Aw, geeze. How long until one of those gets shot down?

And the crew gets killed or captured?

And then watch the American people start screaming for "boots on the ground."

[still_one]

5. They are going to do what they need to prevent the takeover of Bagdad

[scarletwoman]

7. Right. It will be boots on the ground next. nt

[cstanleytech]

18. If the air support solely fails I suspect you might be right which is why imo we all should be

supporting it because if it fails we risk being dragged into another vietnam.

[scarletwoman]

22. In my strictly personal opinion, from the moment the decision was made to start an air war

against IS, we have risked "being dragged into another vietnam."

[cstanleytech]

25. No, from the moment Bush decided

destabilizing the region we have had the rish.
Right now Obama is imo try to make it so we dont end up there.

[scarletwoman]

27. Well, yeah - we can go back and back. Like, to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

There have been consequences upon consequences for many long years now.

The fact is, the decision to mount this current bombing campaign was Obama's decision, and the consequences arising from that decision are what we have to deal with now.

[Lenomsky]

32. I can't decide if a good idea or not ..

More hardware - big deal I couldn't care less.
The very act of bombing and killing a few tanks or whatever - does it actually serve a purpose?
Does Obama think so or is he being forced by Public Opinion and Political types to do something?

Kids with guns on the ground is my prediction. Polls soared in UK to about 70% agree with bombings but then that Taxi Driver Aid Worker from Manchester got beheaded and you know was an innocent bloke trying to help Muslims and worked for an Islamic Charity - I'm torn now !?!?!?

[cstanleytech]

45. It serves a potential purpose which is to try and slow the spread of a group

that has shown that it wont hesitate to murder innocent civilians.
It cannot of course stop them itself, thats going to take the local people and governments of the region to get their acts together pull their heads out of their ass and commit the forces needed themselves to put a stop to it.

[Lenomsky]

89. Which won't happen ..

To many factions in that area - I've decided we need UN or let them get at it.

No matter how many trillion we throw at it it's down to the locals so we should invest in anything other than bombs (They are expensive and pretty much useless in this type of conflict.)

[amandabeech]

16. Yup.

The question is will the Iraqis fight for Baghdad?

If they won't, should we?

[scarletwoman]

19. See: Vietnam.

[amandabeech]

20. Oh, I remember that well. It didn't work out.

Just like this Iraqi adventure isn't working out, no matter who is in the White House.

The Apache simply isn't made for extracting large numbers of people from the embassy roof.

I suggest that we get as many Chinooks over the ASAP, if that has not happened already.

[scarletwoman]

21. I imagine our people in the Green Zone have their evacuation plans well in hand. nt

[amandabeech]

24. I certainly hope so.

The news is all about attacking Syria, and there isn't as much about the possibility of the fall of Baghdad.

It lends credence to the theory that our latest involvement has much more to do with toppling Assad than it does protecting Iraq.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. That was exactly my thought.

Exactly.

[scarletwoman]

9. Yup. This ain't our first rodeo...

[Exultant Democracy]

12. Yep, the camels nose is under the tent already. Hope I'm wrong

but unfortunately all my worst predictions in Iraq have come true from day one.

[scarletwoman]

13. I'd be happy to be wrong, too.

But if past history is anything to go by, unfortunately, we won't be.

There's a certain inevitability about this war shit.

[GGJohn]

28. Those Apache Longbow's?

They're not that easy to shoot down, even with an RPG, they can take alot of battle damage and still keep on flying out of the area of danger.
They're also very agile, fast and heavily armed.

[Xipe Totec]

10. Wait, I think I've seen this movie.

[GGJohn]

29. Whole different chopper.

A Blackhawk is nothing like a Longbow, it's not near as agile, fast, nor as heavily armed, plus the Blackhawk is a utility helo, while a Longbow is a dedicated attack helo designed specifically for close ground support and armored vehicle busting.

[Xipe Totec]

30. So, I guess, everything will be just fine then.

Different chopper, different outcome.

Question:

Why didn't they use Apache helicopters in Mogadishu?

If the chopper makes all the difference, why use the 'inferior' Black Hawk?

[GGJohn]

31. You'll have to ask Pres. Clinton that question.

But, to be fair, the mission called for dropping the Rangers into the operation area and the Blackhawk is ideally suited for that whereas the Longbow isn't.

[freshwest]

37. Stupid question. Could the names of these be less dramatic and aggressive?

Why so... provocative?

Why not just call them by numbers?

Who thinks this stuff up and is it appropriate?

Or is it way the hell gone past irony or propriety?

Guess I wouldn't wanna be killed by something named the Peace Rose:



I oughta leave this thread alone, but I can't resist it.

[GGJohn]

38. For reasons unknown to me,

the military have named their helos after Indian tribes, I understand they consulted with the different tribes and received their permission to name the helos after them.
We have the Kiowa scout helo, the Blackhawk, the Apache, the Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne.

I think it embodies the warrior spirit of helos.

[freshwest]

42. Thanks for the info, and all you've said on the thread.

[Jackpine Radical]

52. Don't forget those two lesser-known tribes--

The Hueys and the Jolly Green Giants.

(Sorry…)

[GGJohn]

53. I believe that those were before the military decided to name their helos after Indian tribes.

And I do have first hand experience with the Huey's and the Jolly's.

[Jackpine Radical]

56. I do with Hueys & Shithooks.

The JG's were Marine choppers, as I recall.

[GGJohn]

59. You're right, the Jolly's were Marine helos, and I always thought they were ugly as hell.

[Jackpine Radical]

62. Yes indeed. Nothing jolie about a Jolly (if you don't mind a bilingual pun).

More than anything, they just looked antiquated, even though they had been in production less than 10 years when I was seeing them in RVN.

[hack89]

61. The Huey's official name was the Iroquois

The Jolly Green Giant was an Air Force helo - I guess they don't like Indians.

[Jackpine Radical]

63. Having flown quite a few missions in Huey slicks (!st Cav),

I don't think I ever knew they were officially "Iroquois."

But then I never really got the point of jumping out of a perfectly good helicopter into a rice paddy full of people who didn't like me anyway.

[hack89]

64. My Dad did two tours in VN with the 1st Cav

he was a Chinook mechanic.

One of the more memorable helo rides I ever took was a low level flight over Tokyo in an Air Force Huey.

[BobbyBoring]

60. Sheesh!

And they want the Redskins to change their name?

[bpj62]

66. Apaches in Mogadishu

People always blame Clinton for the whole "Blackhawk Down" fiasco and it isn't his fault. George Bush agreed to sending in the Marines and then the Rangers and special forces under very strict guidelines. We could not bring any armor heavier than the Humvee and we were limited in the air power that we could use as well. The Apache saw extensive action in Desert Storm so it was a platform that had already been combat tested. We just couldn't use it in Somalia. After the 19 Rangers were killed Jesse Helms introduced a bill in Congress that cut off funding for the Somalia operation and Clinton decided wisely to pull out the troops. as for the Blackhawks being shot down both were in a stationary/hovering position when they were hit in the rear rotor. A RPG is not laser guided so hitting a fast moving helicopter would be very hard. The Longbow Apache is a stand off weapon that can deliver its payload from a safe distance. It also has a 30 millimeter chain gun that is controlled by the pilots head movements. it is an excellent night fighter and it is not a weapons system that I would want to be on the wrong end of.

[GGJohn]

70. +1000.

[tabasco]

79. While he's at it, he can ask President G.W. Bush

why he sent our dumb asses over there in the first place, with a month left in his presidency, thereby leaving a steaming shitty pile for Clinton to clean up.

[Diclotican]

47. Xipe Totec

Xipe Totec


One reason they do not use Apache Helicopters in Mogadishu - is maybe because the Apache Longbow was not ready going into service at the time ?... It might not have been a mature platform for going to war yet - as this platforms tend to grow rather slowly - even if the original design is from the early 1980s...

Even the F16, who is counting 30 year now - have matured greatly from the mible fighter jet it was in the early 1980s - to a advanced fighter it is today...

Diclotican

[EX500rider]

73. Different job...

The Blackhawks were delivering troops for a rooftop insertion when shot down, they carry troops, the Apache's don't.

And I bet they DID want some Apache's in theater but there were some refusals of heavier weapons like M-1 tanks somewhere up the chain of command. (probably the White House) They didn't want to "escalate" matters.

[Downtown Hound]

75. They used Cobra attack helicopters in Mogadishu

They may not be Apaches, bu they still packed quite a punch. If you've seen the movie then you may remember the scene of Somalis getting strafed by two American helicopters during a nighttime raid. Those were Cobras.

But if you really want to learn about Mogadishu, then read the book Black Hawk Down and forget the movie. The book is way better and much more accurate. It also switches back and forth between the Somali and American points of view, something completely lacking from the movie. And yes, it talks about the use of Cobra helicopters during the battle.

[GGJohn]

83. Those helos that straffed the rooftop were not Cobras,

they were MH-6's, a varient of the Vietnam war era OH-6 observation helos.

This is an AH-1 Cobra:


This is an MH-6, Little Bird, which was used during the Blackhawk down incident:

[tabasco]

78. Apache helicopters are not used for transporting troops

Hope it helps.

[Xipe Totec]

80. No, it doesn't, but thanks anyway.

The point missed in all these replies is that we are putting troops, yet again, in harms way with limited rules of engagement.

I don't care if it's a Black Hawk, an Apache, A Dreadnaught, or a Piper Cub. If one of those ships goes down for whatever reason on enemy territory, we are totally fucked.

Clear?

[tabasco]

81. Your post:

Question:

Why didn't they use Apache helicopters in Mogadishu?

If the chopper makes all the difference, why use the 'inferior' Black Hawk?

Consider a class to improve your communication ability. Online courses are available for free!

[jmowreader]

85. Apaches can't carry anything but bullets and missiles

If you want to carry troops, the Blackhawk is your aircraft.

[Blue_Tires]

50. More like this, I think:

[cosmicone]

15. ISIS is evil

Just drop a bunch of huge daisy-cutters and show no mercy.

[AnalystInParadise]

40. And kill the tens of thousands of Sunni civilians

acting as Human shields around ISIS fighters......Not the smartest move.

[cali]

43. Disgusting. Unacceptable.

Huge daisy-cutters would kill thousands of innocent civilians. Your suggestion is sick shit and EVIL,

[Feral Child]

58. That kind of attitude

is what got us into this quagmire. Bush depended on that attitude. Please educate yourself on the subject you're advocating. The slaughter of innocents will only cause more Muslims to become Jihadists.


I saw that mentality in Viet Nam, we know how that turned out. Millions dead, the communists took over the country anyway and, no, the dominoes didn't topple.

[Downtown Hound]

76. Since Somalia and Vietnam have both been mentioned in this thread

I find it worth mentioning that one of the main reasons the Somalis turned against the U.S was a botched mission in which roughly 100 civilians were killed by U.S helicopters. And call me crazy, but I highly doubt that the U.S. burning up South Vietnamese villages with Napalm while committing numerous other atrocities won us many friends there either.

In other words, in addition to your post being reactionary, backwards, cruel, and more belonging to freeperville than DU, your suggested suggested course of action is also self-defeating and guaranteed to fail.

[ozone_man]

90. Makes one wonder why we are waging war on Syria/Assad

when ISIL is the alternative. Really Obama? You let ISIL happen on your watch, with Bush's help of course. But weakening Syria to let ISIL in makes no sense to me.

Unless it is a bogeyman created to allow U.S. entry into Syria, a bit like OBL was a useful bogeyman, who we helped create. I have always suspected that the master plan is to keep this region in total turmoil, and weak, until we really need their oil. An oil reserve essentially. That and a gateway for oil pipelines to Europe through Syria.

[OakCliffDem]

44. We are now at the end of the begining

Helicopter gunships were designed for close in fire support of GROUND TROOPS.

The Army is stretching its legs. Our soldiers' boots are once again going to be dirtied by dust from Middle East combat.

[Baclava]

46. It certainly seems the "blowing up empty buildings from 30,000 ft" has run it's course

I expect the A-10's to show up next.

They wouldn't use the Apaches without Search & Rescue boots being ready to hit the ground at a moments notice.

[amandabeech]

54. One of the CNN military analysts said that the A-10s are going.

The guy also said that various Army units were getting the "get ready" message, too.

Isis is very close to Baghdad, and it sounds like we will not let that city fall even if we have to defend it ourselves.

The thought of the US army fighting door-to-door in Baghdad makes me ill. They might be shot at by ISIS and the local Shia militias, like those run by the Sadrites.

[Baclava]

86. Remember the history texts of them olde timey days when they had those '100 year' wars?

What goes around comes around.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

48. Just a matter of time until American servicemen are in the videos.

Boots "just above the ground", may as well be on the ground, because some of them certainly will be soon. The whole thing sucks donkey.

[Baclava]

51. maybe servicewomen too, female Apache pilots

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/42711081#42711081

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

55. Yes, when I say servicemen I mean men AND woMEN.

[Baclava]

87. of course you do....I just a had cool video I wanted to show

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

88. I wish they didn't block Youtube at work!

[amandabeech]

57. There seems to be very little information out there about what is going on near Baghdad.

It seems like the media attention is all on Kobane in northern Syria near the Turkish border. Certainly, visual media
sees a place where they can get actual battle footage from a spot safely inside Turkey, like CNN.

But what about the print portion of the media? The video isn't amazing from Baghdad, but Baghdad is the place where there are more Americans, in the white elephant embassy and elsewhere. If Baghdad were to be attacked with more than the car bombs, IEDs, and if CNN is right, mortars, that is the place where American boots will most likely be on the ground.

So why is there so little information or analysis?

[freshwest]

65. Because the media is being excluded, perhaps? Excellent point about physical safety of camera crews.

As far as print media goes we see what happens to journalists in the area. And print media has just about been wiped out in America, and most of the West. Even when the big named papers go online, they are part of the same corporate methodology as television, they want video in their articles.

If Iraqis aren't allowing transmission from the city of Baghdad and surburbs, it may be because they don't want ISIL to pick up on it and use it against them. ISIL uses a 'no quarter' battle plan and is advancing at great speed with lighter and faster forces and technology that many commentors don't expect them to have use of us, like fugitives in our own country employ.

ISIL has men ready to go and tare ready to wage a generational war through women, whether willing or not, as the means of reproduction for more fighters in coming years.

This will be going on for decades, but then, it was been going on before the Iraq War, just not directly covered in our media and under different names. It was long suppressed by strong nation states in the Middle East which are collapsing under the pressure of population and the need to get more land for living room.

That's just my fatalistic view of the situation.

[amandabeech]

67. It had occurred to me that the media had been asked to downplay whatever was going on in Baghdad.

Then after I wrote my earlier post, CNN came on live from Baghdad with Ben Wedeman doing the stand-up. He talked about the mortars landing in the green zone, and said that it was suspected that Shia radicals were behind it. I'm not so sure. He also said that he and a camera crew had gone out to the front line about a hour west of Baghdad, and that there wasn't that much going on. He said that there was some fire from the ISIS positions and that the Iraqi Army returned some fire.

My problem is the apparent mission creep. We know that there are "advisers" and mercs around. Last week the US 1st Army (The Big Red One) moved its headquarters to Baghdad. Now the Apache attack helicopters are there. Maybe the A-10s are coming. The next thing you know, there'll be 10,000 pair of boots on the ground. That's more like our descent into full fledged war in Viet Nam, rather than the "Shock and Awe" entry that shrub/darth/rummy had into Iraq. But the gradual slide of mission creep is just as real and can involve just as many people.

My Mom out in rural Michigan says that everyone she talks to is very worried about this whole thing, and she and many of her friends remember WWII and Korea as well as Vietnam.

[freshwest]

72. The difference between now and then, is interconnectedness.

Global ambitions are not confined to us. Others have their own plans. We aren't the only ones who have memories of past 'mission creeps.' And ISIL isn't creeping, they are galloping. The world is going to change, and we have yet to see what is on the other side of this.

Most want to define things in terms of the known, the safely dead and buried memes of history. The world doesn't play that way no matter what we want it to do. Nothing is ever settled, all is up for grabs every generation.