Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

IRAQ 3?

Old 18th Aug 2014, 19:54
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,038
And the duty spearhead battlegroup is preparing for deployment into Poland, talk about spreading forces thinly.
Dont'cha know that we have the world's fourth largest defence budget? Ergo there must be lots of troops, tanks and aircraft sitting around doing not a lot...


Hat, coat, door
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2014, 20:08
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 26
Posts: 259
Dont'cha know that we have the world's fourth largest defence budget? Ergo there must be lots of troops, tanks and aircraft sitting around doing not a lot...
Sounds about right. It would be nice if the current government stopped destroying the UKAF.
Typhoon93 is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2014, 20:17
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,489
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Saudi et al are part of the problem, not the solution. Where do you think the extreme ideology and the funding come from?
Not the Governments, of course. Just some of the hyper-rich individuals of a particular offshoot/sect of Islam.

Now ICBA to read all of this link (which doesn't work - Google Shia–Sunni relations ) ... it just indicates how bizarre some of the disagreements are. The fact remains that that are all, of whichever sect, making the Catholic/Protestant conflicts of the last millennium look like a squabble over who should have the last potato at Sunday Lunch.

Last edited by MPN11; 18th Aug 2014 at 20:36.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 05:09
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
Interesting article from that clear thinker, General Mike Rose saying what a lot of us have been saying.

I fear our panic stricken politicians are leading us into another bloody shambles in Iraq, by GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE | Mail Online

Last edited by 500N; 20th Aug 2014 at 05:36.
500N is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 05:28
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 81
Posts: 429
Good article.

Bob C
Robert Cooper is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 07:52
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,385
Probably best CGS we never had, and stepson of one of my favourite authors, John Masters
Wander00 is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 08:01
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
I was always surprised he never got the top job but being outspoken
might have cost him.

Had a hell of a run as a Soldier - Ireland, Iranian Embassy, Falklands, Bosnia.

I think he was the General who refused to obey and order from ? someone in NATO ? and got away with it. A while since I read it.
500N is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2014, 08:11
  #128 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,193
No, that was General Mike Jackson
ORAC is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 01:26
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: AndyCappLand
Age: 98
Posts: 7,646
We never learn. I've filched from Wiki:

"In 1843 British army chaplain G.R. Gleig wrote a memoir of the disastrous (First) Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. He wrote that it was....." :

"......a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, was acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated.[11]" (Sound familiar ?)

And now we hear, in all the Media, the universal lament about What Must be Done, and Should be Done, and What Needs to be Done, and the assembled Might of the UN and Security Council has been invoked, and evildoers tremble (?). And our Home Secretary announces that Further Legislation will be introduced..... (Small Mouse pipes up: "But who'll Bell the Cat ?" )

The brutal fact is that President Assad will have to be brought on board before anything can happen, for we cannot, and President Obama will not, put "boots on the ground", and ISIS will not be defeated in any other way. That we do not like him, and that he was yesterday's "baddie", is irrelevant. Seventy years ago we did not like Stalin very much, but we were glad to have Russia as our "Gallant Ally".

And:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." - (Winston Churchill).

Your enemy's enemy is your friend !
Danny42C is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 06:00
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
The problem is, we should never have encouraged the Syrian opposition in the first place. Assad and his regime where fairly benign by middle eastern standards, and would have evolved on a much shorter time scale than most of the other states In the middle east.

Him and his missus loved a bit of the western way, so was easily manipulable within reason.

Now whats done is done, and frankly needs to be fixed. Personally I would like to see some groveling back up to him and Western boots on the ground.
Personally I think stop fighting against him, and our troops on the ground in Northen Iraqi.
rh200 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 06:17
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
rh

You might get your wish.

The Chairman of the Joint chiefs effectively said that IF ISIS threatened the US, then he thinks the US should go in and take them out lock stock and barrel in Syria and Iraq including boots on the ground and he would think the US Pres would think and do likewise.

He also said that at present it is a local issue but if the US did go in he would hope Saudi, Jordan one other would join the effort.

That's the most forthright thing I have seen said in a long while.
500N is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 09:00
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Danny42C View Post
Your enemy's enemy is your friend !
Danny, with all due deference and respect, I think in 2014 things aren't quite so simple anymore.

Lets take the last 40 years. Vietnam and South East Asia I don't even consider.

We have the US arming, training and assisting the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the USSR...including one Osama bin Laden.

The less extremist ones later just joined the Taliban.

We have the US arming and assisting Saddam's Iraq against the Ayatollah's Iran....an Iran armed with F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats that the US armed the Shah's Iran with in the first place.

Libya, Syria, Israel, the list goes on.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend anymore. In fact, he may become a far worse enemy than my enemy.

That doesn't answer anything, I know. It's just a fact.
Hempy is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 19:19
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,435
I wish to point out that some serious trouble began in Bosnia and other parts of "Former Yugoslavia" which elicited international/forgeign intervention.

NATO and US and various other sorts of troops and other assistance were still there in the mid 00's, and IIRC still in 2008.

Iraq is as yet not quite as mature as the Former Republics in terms of stabilizing their internal issues, so if any foreigners are to go in and or remain in Syria and / or Iraq, you would expect it to be for at least as long as in Bosnia, if not longer, since both Iraq and Syria a quite a bit bigger as problems to resolve goes. The US was in Iraq for 7-8 years ... and that was very expensive in terms of blood and treasure, as well as still a work in progress at best.

Maybe our governments ought to take a good hard look at the various lessons of the Former Yugoslavia break up issues and see what that predicts for any international efforts in Syria and / or Iraq.

I say this because one of my key frustrations with the Bush(43) administration is that Bosnia was still ongoing when we went into Iraq in 2003, and it was bloody obvious to me that the lessons of the ongoing in Bosnia seemed to not be folded into the plan for Iraq ... I think because it was "Clintons' war" and they didn't like Bill Clinton. A data point in support of my guess here is how General Shinseki was treated when he tried to tell DoD and President how much effort it would take to achieve their objectives. His premature departure speaks volumes to me, particuarly since he was doing his job as Chief of Staff of the Army in doing a thorough staff estimate on the Op Plan. (Some very good friends of mine spent far too many seven day weeks in DC/Pentagon working on that matter ... )

Further comments vigorously
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2014, 19:33
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
General Shinseki
Not listening to him cost the a heap of troops, a lot of time, money and effort and Ultimately Iraq itself.

The Sec being pig headed.
500N is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 00:39
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
Posted this on the Ukraine thread, all interrelated.

What a wicked web we weave.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Monday. Asked specifically whether the U.S. would have permission to act in Syria, she said: "I think when American lives are at stake, when we're talking about defending our own interests, we're not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime."
I wonder how she would feel if Russia openly conducted air strikes in Ukraine to protect its interests?

To be honest, the sudden expansion of ISIS just as the Ukraine thing hotted up, makes me wonder if they had a little guidance from Russia. It sure has the Yanks tied up in a bit of a not. Though the ISIS bit does give Obama a excuse to not get to involved in the Ukraine issue.

Maybe we should just start a combined thread named "Obamas Dyke and how many fingers does he have?" (no not his wife)".
rh200 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 02:12
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Seems the UAE does have cojones...

BBC reporting I identified jets made air strikes on Libya without us approval. Fragments of GBU bomb casing found.... Us not happy that fighters they have sold are being used
dagenham is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 02:24
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 55
Posts: 4,245
Us not happy that fighters they have sold are being used
I did chuckle at the comment "without US consultation" in the newspaper report here in Aus.

Other reports say the UAE and Turkey reports are not true.
500N is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2014, 18:31
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: AndyCappLand
Age: 98
Posts: 7,646
Stiil, small voice: "ISIS seems to have turned into ISIL overnight. What might this signify ?"
Danny42C is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2014, 15:34
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Asia Pacific
Age: 48
Posts: 1,761
I say this because one of my key frustrations with the Bush(43) administration is that Bosnia was still ongoing when we went into Iraq in 2003, and it was bloody obvious to me that the lessons of the ongoing in Bosnia seemed to not be folded into the plan for Iraq ... I think because it was "Clintons' war" and they didn't like Bill Clinton.
Your view of history seems to differ from my recollection; the problems with Bosnia stemmed from the fact that Bill Clinton wouldn't get involved in Bosnia and it was only after he'd zipped up the Lewinsky saga (pun intended) and there had been several dozen massacres and atrocities committed that the Dayton Accord was agreed and the US put boots on the ground in the Balkans as part of NATO.

For 2 years or so, Bill Clinton avoided any attempt to deploy ground troops and US involvement was nearly entirely aerial.

Therefore, any reference to the Balkans as 'Clintons War' would be a little disingenuous.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2014, 16:17
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,435
Minigun, you are somewhat mistaken. The Lewinski saga came AFTER the US was already in Bosnia, boots on the ground. Check, your years, mate, the winter of 1995 is when US Army units road the rails and roads into Bosnia, and the fall of 1995 was when Dayton Agreement got hammered out. The blue dress and the blow job was after that, and the criticism on him was more closely linked to later operations in terms of that whole "wag the dog" mess. The year 1998 was when the Monica thing came to a head, so to speak.

Clinton wanted to get into Bosnia to help out sooner than he was able to. He tried to but he ran into trouble with Congress, blue helmets (backlash from the mess in Somalia, see also the Michael New case) and the funding of US ops (no the world's policeman anymore, Cold War is over) between 1991 and the eventual decision to get involved after the Dayton Agreement.

One of many problems to overcome with Congress vis a vis a Bosnia operation sooner was the already fecked up UN RoE dual key stupidity. The more rational argument was that you can't keep the peace if there is not first a peace keeping agreement. (That was actually a good point). Dayton put that to bed and in we went, under NATO RoE and not so much UN interference in basic functions. Note that in September of 1995 USS Normandy launched Tomahawks on Serbian air defense positions, which got the French and Russians crying for some political reason or other. That was also under Bill Clinton, and Admiral "Snuffy" Smith.

There were other issues that got domestic political opponents arguing against direct intervention. Some of this stemmed from Bosnia being the usual messy UN operation (UN was into Bosnia long before the US showed up with big units in NATO ... and there were some US support folks supporting UNISOM and UNPROFOR previously ...).

Before our boots were on the ground in Northern Bosnia, ops as Sharp Fence and Maritime Guard finally merged to become Operation Sharp Guard. (The arms embargo on FY had been supported by the US for some time).

It was very much "Clinton's War" to some partisans in the GOP, as was the Kosovo thing. The fact that he finally got some bipartisan support after a few years of trying is, of course, overlooked by same partisans in the GOP ... my own criticism of Clinton on Bosnia at the time was the impression he left of being led around the world by the nose by one CNN reporter named Christiana Amanpour. I am off topic, so I'll save that for another time.

The President who unequivocally would NOT go into Bosnia was President George H W Bush. He passed the torch, as well as the mess in Somalia, to Clinton in January of 1993.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.