I don't see how it could be as bad as that one, but it can still lead to bad outcomes. For me, the worst case scenario would be for Blue Force to continue using the technique, while Red Force reads its own news clipping, sees what's going on and while cleaning up it's act also mounts misinformation ops. Off the top of my head, possibilities include:
Dangle a really juicy carrot to lure a Special Forces op into an ambush (some very good men die very bad deaths);
Lure in a strike against innocent civilians (something like an orphanage, hospital, etc) to score propaganda/political points;
Lure in a strike against indigenous anti-IS assets, attempting to drive a wedge into a shaky alliance-of-convenience while weakening the local competition.
Granted, all of the above is highly unlikely, but still -- knowing that opforce command thinks you're a moron can give you a big leg up in an info op.
And the not-really-irony-but-incongruity-isn't-as-cool-sounding-and-you-know-what-I-mean-anyway of a general saying what he said while doing what he did is so very, very
BBC.com wrote:Exclusive footage reveals how Islamic State wields power over people's everyday lives in Iraq's second city, Mosul, a year after it was captured. Secretly filmed videos obtained by the BBC's Ghadi Sary show mosques being blown up, abandoned schools, and women being forced to cover up their bodies. Residents said they were living in fear of punishment according to the group's extreme interpretation of Islamic law. They also described IS preparations for an expected government offensive.
BBC.com wrote:Exclusive footage reveals how Islamic State wields power over people's everyday lives in Iraq's second city, Mosul, a year after it was captured. Secretly filmed videos obtained by the BBC's Ghadi Sary show mosques being blown up, abandoned schools, and women being forced to cover up their bodies. Residents said they were living in fear of punishment according to the group's extreme interpretation of Islamic law. They also described IS preparations for an expected government offensive.
BBC.com wrote:Exclusive footage reveals how Islamic State wields power over people's everyday lives in Iraq's second city, Mosul, a year after it was captured. Secretly filmed videos obtained by the BBC's Ghadi Sary show mosques being blown up, abandoned schools, and women being forced to cover up their bodies. Residents said they were living in fear of punishment according to the group's extreme interpretation of Islamic law. They also described IS preparations for an expected government offensive.
That's both horrifying and about what I expected.
And yet the Iraqis as a whole don't seem to want to stand against these people.
BBC.com wrote:Exclusive footage reveals how Islamic State wields power over people's everyday lives in Iraq's second city, Mosul, a year after it was captured. Secretly filmed videos obtained by the BBC's Ghadi Sary show mosques being blown up, abandoned schools, and women being forced to cover up their bodies. Residents said they were living in fear of punishment according to the group's extreme interpretation of Islamic law. They also described IS preparations for an expected government offensive.
That's both horrifying and about what I expected.
And yet the Iraqis as a whole don't seem to want to stand against these people.
Which Iraqis? They are not "a whole." The Shiite government in Baghdad, which comprises most of the army, has little stomach for holding or re-conquering Sunni lands...and many Sunnis prefer ISIS to their Shiite overlords.
BBC.com wrote:Exclusive footage reveals how Islamic State wields power over people's everyday lives in Iraq's second city, Mosul, a year after it was captured. Secretly filmed videos obtained by the BBC's Ghadi Sary show mosques being blown up, abandoned schools, and women being forced to cover up their bodies. Residents said they were living in fear of punishment according to the group's extreme interpretation of Islamic law. They also described IS preparations for an expected government offensive.
That's both horrifying and about what I expected.
And yet the Iraqis as a whole don't seem to want to stand against these people.
Which Iraqis? They are not "a whole." The Shiite government in Baghdad, which comprises most of the army, has little stomach for holding or re-conquering Sunni lands...and many Sunnis prefer ISIS to their Shiite overlords.
The Kurdish peshmerga units have shown they are willing and able to engage IS in defense of Kurdish territory, but even if they were willing to mount an offensive to retake Sunni territory from IS, as far as I know they lack the resources to do so.
I'm not sure that I believe that ordinary Sunnis are all that fond of IS, but I do believe that they are not eager to be "liberated" by the Shia militias that will be involved with any offensive mounted by the Iraqi army. With good reason.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
BBC.com wrote:Exclusive footage reveals how Islamic State wields power over people's everyday lives in Iraq's second city, Mosul, a year after it was captured. Secretly filmed videos obtained by the BBC's Ghadi Sary show mosques being blown up, abandoned schools, and women being forced to cover up their bodies. Residents said they were living in fear of punishment according to the group's extreme interpretation of Islamic law. They also described IS preparations for an expected government offensive.
That's both horrifying and about what I expected.
And yet the Iraqis as a whole don't seem to want to stand against these people.
Which Iraqis? They are not "a whole." The Shiite government in Baghdad, which comprises most of the army, has little stomach for holding or re-conquering Sunni lands...and many Sunnis prefer ISIS to their Shiite overlords.
BBC.com wrote:A fake battle, invented in a hail of tweets by a London man, has tricked both so-called Islamic State's supporters, and their opponents, supporters of Shia militia fighters in Iraq. It was supposedly an intense battle involving Islamic State and Shia and Iraqi government fighters. Soon after the news broke, Twitter users that back anti-IS forces claimed a famous victory. "Big celebrations in Karbala after the freedom of Shichwa," said one. Another claimed "10,000 refugees flee Shichwa to Karbala" and rumours spread that neighbouring countries were being dragged into the fighting: "Disaster: the Saudi Army must quickly mobilize to the Iraqi border." But the battle of Shichwa never actually happened - in fact, Shichwa isn't even a real place.
Meanwhile, in Northern Syria Kurdish forces are taking ground from IS; Turkey is not impressed.
BBC.com wrote:Kurdish fighters are reported to be moving in on the north-east Syrian town of Tal Abyad, which is held by Islamic State (IS) militants. Thousands of civilians have fled to a nearby border crossing with Turkey, and some have managed to cross to safety. The advance by the Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG) has been supported by Syrian rebel groups and US-led coalition air strikes. Tal Abyad is strategically important for both sides. For the IS militants, it controls a major supply route to their headquarters at Raqqa, 80km (50 miles) to the south, reports the BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut. For the Kurds, capturing Tal Abyad would help them link up the other pockets they control along the Turkish border, from Iraq in the east to Kobane in the west, which has long been their dream, our correspondent adds.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
hepcat wrote:Don't interpret that as acceptance though.
Sounds like acceptance to me.
Then you're not listening.
I am listening. The Iraqi people seem to like ISIS better then us. They want ISIS? Fine. Let them have ISIS. Lets do something good with all the money we are using to fight ISIS, like anything else. Here's a novel idea: Lets take all the money we are throwing away on the middle east and funnel it into alternative energy research, or hell, just buy every US citizen a Ford Fusion, flip the finger to the whole goddamned fractious, petty, tribalistic, idiotic region and let them fight their own battles. We continue to allow our government to justify widening a conflict in Iraq that cannot be won.
Resignation is not acceptance. When a group of armed folks show up and start shooting people who don't do what they tell them, most folks who haven't known anything much better just keep their mouths shut.
hepcat wrote:Resignation is not acceptance. When a group of armed folks show up and start shooting people who don't do what they tell them, most folks who haven't known anything much better just keep their mouths shut.
Functionally, it's the same.
Oh and I think that if we stepped out of the region, ISIS might be the thing to make the middle east finally put their differences aside, at least till ISIS is gone.
The way things are going now, we have a lot of these people publicly cursing us and privately begging us to stay. Until we stand down the region will continue to depend on us to play whack a mole with Islamist groups, and we will continue to give them a reason to do so.
Drazzil wrote:
Here's a novel idea: Lets take all the money we are throwing away on the middle east and funnel it into alternative energy research, or hell, just buy every US citizen a Ford Fusion, flip the finger to the whole goddamned fractious, petty, tribalistic, idiotic region and let them fight their own battles. We continue to allow our government to justify widening a conflict in Iraq that cannot be won.
Think about that for a minute. I'm pretty sure about greater than half of the potential outcomes of that strategy involve nuclear conflagration in the region. That's not good for anyone on the planet, no matter how isolationist they may want to be. Sure, oil started our troubles in the region but it's the NBC specter that now keeps us interested.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Our media is drumming for war once again as Obama uses the continued threat of ISIS to halt and reverse the draw down and exit of US troops.
The military industrial complex wants our armed forces to fight and die in a fruitless pointless war so that the 1% can collect dividends. Do you really think we will ever be free of Iraq, Afghanistan or the latest Islamic boogeyman? The only way we win this conflict is not to play. We the citizenry will not do that until there is a major movement in this country, just like the Vietnam protests.
Drazzil wrote:
Here's a novel idea: Lets take all the money we are throwing away on the middle east and funnel it into alternative energy research, or hell, just buy every US citizen a Ford Fusion, flip the finger to the whole goddamned fractious, petty, tribalistic, idiotic region and let them fight their own battles. We continue to allow our government to justify widening a conflict in Iraq that cannot be won.
Think about that for a minute. I'm pretty sure about greater than half of the potential outcomes of that strategy involve nuclear conflagration in the region. That's not good for anyone on the planet, no matter how isolationist they may want to be. Sure, oil started our troubles in the region but it's the NBC specter that now keeps us interested.
So we send in the CIA to go get em, has to be cheaper then an endless war.
Drazzil wrote:Our media is drumming for war once again as Obama uses the continued threat of ISIS to halt and reverse the draw down and exit of US troops.
The military industrial complex wants our armed forces to fight and die in a fruitless pointless war so that the 1% can collect dividends. Do you really think we will ever be free of Iraq, Afghanistan or the latest Islamic boogeyman? The only way we win this conflict is not to play. We the citizenry will not do that until there is a major movement in this country, just like the Vietnam protests.
Vietnam was a 2-party proxy war. Us against he Soviets, using Vietnam as our playground. The exit of either side would mean the end of the war.
Today's Middle East is different. If we take our ball and go home, they will keep playing. And there are several sovereign nations involved. Keep in mind, we're not just there for the "Islamic boogeyman." We're there for Israel and Africa and Europe and Asia. It may not be our backyard but it is theirs.
The military industrial complex prints money no matter what. They're not the key driver in this.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Drazzil wrote:
Here's a novel idea: Lets take all the money we are throwing away on the middle east and funnel it into alternative energy research, or hell, just buy every US citizen a Ford Fusion, flip the finger to the whole goddamned fractious, petty, tribalistic, idiotic region and let them fight their own battles. We continue to allow our government to justify widening a conflict in Iraq that cannot be won.
Think about that for a minute. I'm pretty sure about greater than half of the potential outcomes of that strategy involve nuclear conflagration in the region. That's not good for anyone on the planet, no matter how isolationist they may want to be. Sure, oil started our troubles in the region but it's the NBC specter that now keeps us interested.
So we send in the CIA to go get em, has to be cheaper then an endless war.
The CIA is already there. But who should they go after, exactly, to end this thing?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Drazzil wrote:Our media is drumming for war once again as Obama uses the continued threat of ISIS to halt and reverse the draw down and exit of US troops.
The military industrial complex wants our armed forces to fight and die in a fruitless pointless war so that the 1% can collect dividends. Do you really think we will ever be free of Iraq, Afghanistan or the latest Islamic boogeyman? The only way we win this conflict is not to play. We the citizenry will not do that until there is a major movement in this country, just like the Vietnam protests.
Vietnam was a 2-party proxy war. Us against he Soviets, using Vietnam as our playground. The exit of either side would mean the end of the war.
Today's Middle East is different. If we take our ball and go home, they will keep playing. And there are several sovereign nations involved. Keep in mind, we're not just there for the "Islamic boogeyman." We're there for Israel and Africa and Europe and Asia. It may not be our backyard but it is theirs.
The military industrial complex prints money no matter what. They're not the key driver in this.
Hey I have an idea. Why not just hand the whole middle east back to Russia? We have this war that we don't want anymore and Putin seems to want a war. Seriously Russia, China and India all are way closer to the middle east then we are, and have a vested interest in not allowing the Middle East to become a radioactive parking lot.
Drazzil wrote:
Here's a novel idea: Lets take all the money we are throwing away on the middle east and funnel it into alternative energy research, or hell, just buy every US citizen a Ford Fusion, flip the finger to the whole goddamned fractious, petty, tribalistic, idiotic region and let them fight their own battles. We continue to allow our government to justify widening a conflict in Iraq that cannot be won.
Think about that for a minute. I'm pretty sure about greater than half of the potential outcomes of that strategy involve nuclear conflagration in the region. That's not good for anyone on the planet, no matter how isolationist they may want to be. Sure, oil started our troubles in the region but it's the NBC specter that now keeps us interested.
So we send in the CIA to go get em, has to be cheaper then an endless war.
The CIA is already there. But who should they go after, exactly, to end this thing?
Sorry if I'm being dogmatic here folks. I just think that there *has* to be a better way of dealing with ISIS other then throwing time, lives and money down this endless quagmire that we still call a country. We are going to lose if we stay, we are going to lose if we go, so I think we should just go. I still think the middle east will step up and handle ISIS if we just stop hand holding them.
Drazzil wrote:Sorry if I'm being dogmatic here folks. I just think that there *has* to be a better way of dealing with ISIS other then throwing time, lives and money down this endless quagmire that we still call a country.
ISIS isn't limited to one country. That's part of the problem.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Drazzil wrote:Sorry if I'm being dogmatic here folks. I just think that there *has* to be a better way of dealing with ISIS other then throwing time, lives and money down this endless quagmire that we still call a country.
ISIS isn't limited to one country. That's part of the problem.
Lawbeef. How do we handle ISIS then? Commit to an endless war with nebulous goals? When do we leave?
You're asking for answers to questions that can't even be defined properly. Sadly, that makes definitive answers almost impossible. Russia and North Korea are still problems, and they're defined nations. The Middle East isn't even that in terms of who the enemy is.
Drazzil wrote:Sorry if I'm being dogmatic here folks. I just think that there *has* to be a better way of dealing with ISIS other then throwing time, lives and money down this endless quagmire that we still call a country.
ISIS isn't limited to one country. That's part of the problem.
Lawbeef. How do we handle ISIS then? Commit to an endless war with nebulous goals? When do we leave?
I don't know. But I know that we can't and won't just abandon the region completely. You're the one proposing a solution. I don't have to come up with a better one to say that yours won't work.
Still, let's see. ISIS needs to lose sources of income. We need to stop them from obtaining weapons and equipment and money to pay fighters. That means limiting their territorial gains and stopping the flow of money. It also means thins like a tighter control on weapons we allow other rebels to obtain. All this is difficult and I don't have a magic bullet but there it is. Much of this doesn't require actual engagement but some of it does. I would have the US maintain air control and superiority and only commit ground troops where they are required to maintain that air superiority. Let allies in the region and various rebel groups do the dirty work but when they ask for air support, we give it to them unreservedly.
We also have to keep in mind that as the opportunity to fight conventionally with AK-47s and RPGs dries up, there will be some that turn to unconventional means directed against western civilian targets. This is an unfortunate reality in today's world.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
LawBeefaroni wrote:I would have the US maintain air control and superiority and only commit ground troops where they are required to maintain that air superiority. Let allies in the region and various rebel groups do the dirty work but when they ask for air support, we give it to them unreservedly.
This is the crux of the problem. Many of the people living in those countries won't even fight for themselves. The Iraqi army is a disaster. There are too few who will fight and the allies in the region won't commit. If they won't commit and the army we helped build and arm won't fight, what are we supposed to do?
No. I'm not isolationist on this, I just don't see us taking the necessary steps under this administration, because this administration allowed this to happen in the first place by withdrawing too quickly, not ensuring a Status of Forces agreement was in place to withdraw slowly and not let a power vacuum happen, and setting free the current leaders of ISIS who were in Iraqi jails in Feb 2009. The current US political leaders repeatedly dismissed what the military leaders recommended to prevent this from happening and have continued to dismiss them on the best ways to prevent ISIS from expanding. "JV" is a popular quote which didn't come from the Joint Chiefs.
This doesn't even go into the massive draw down in the military over the past 7 years which severely limits options for deployments until troop levels are restored, or risk reducing security in other areas around the world.
You could have just replied "THANKS OBAMA!" you know.
I always chuckle whenever a die hard conservative tries to lay all the blame on the current administration. Memory can be such a short, and selective, thing.
LawBeefaroni wrote:I would have the US maintain air control and superiority and only commit ground troops where they are required to maintain that air superiority. Let allies in the region and various rebel groups do the dirty work but when they ask for air support, we give it to them unreservedly.
This is the crux of the problem. Many of the people living in those countries won't even fight for themselves. The Iraqi army is a disaster. There are too few who will fight and the allies in the region won't commit. If they won't commit and the army we helped build and arm won't fight, what are we supposed to do?
No. I'm not isolationist on this, I just don't see us taking the necessary steps under this administration, because this administration allowed this to happen in the first place by withdrawing too quickly, not ensuring a Status of Forces agreement was in place to withdraw slowly and not let a power vacuum happen, and setting free the current leaders of ISIS who were in Iraqi jails in Feb 2009. The current US political leaders repeatedly dismissed what the military leaders recommended to prevent this from happening and have continued to dismiss them on the best ways to prevent ISIS from expanding. "JV" is a popular quote which didn't come from the Joint Chiefs.
This doesn't even go into the massive draw down in the military over the past 7 years which severely limits options for deployments until troop levels are restored, or risk reducing security in other areas around the world.
In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, after being sought by the Bush Administrationand the Iraqi government. It included a specific date, 30 June 2009, by which American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities, and a complete withdrawal date from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011. On 14 December 2008 then-President George W. Bush signed the security agreement with Iraq. In his fourth and final trip to Iraq, President Bush appeared in a televised news conference with Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to celebrate the agreement and applauded security gains in Iraq saying that just two years ago "such an agreement seemed impossible".
President Obama's speech on 27 February 2009
On 27 February 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced his revision to the original date of withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. The revision was to extend the original date of 30 June 2009 for an additional 10 months, to 31 August 2010. After which all but a "transitional force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would be withdrawn from the Middle Eastern nation. President Obama reaffirmed commitment to the original complete withdraw date of 31 December 2011, set by the agreement between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government. President Obama defined the task of the transitional force as "training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq".
LawBeefaroni wrote:I would have the US maintain air control and superiority and only commit ground troops where they are required to maintain that air superiority. Let allies in the region and various rebel groups do the dirty work but when they ask for air support, we give it to them unreservedly.
This is the crux of the problem. Many of the people living in those countries won't even fight for themselves. The Iraqi army is a disaster. There are too few who will fight and the allies in the region won't commit. If they won't commit and the army we helped build and arm won't fight, what are we supposed to do?
No. I'm not isolationist on this, I just don't see us taking the necessary steps under this administration, because this administration allowed this to happen in the first place by withdrawing too quickly, not ensuring a Status of Forces agreement was in place to withdraw slowly and not let a power vacuum happen, and setting free the current leaders of ISIS who were in Iraqi jails in Feb 2009. The current US political leaders repeatedly dismissed what the military leaders recommended to prevent this from happening and have continued to dismiss them on the best ways to prevent ISIS from expanding. "JV" is a popular quote which didn't come from the Joint Chiefs.
This doesn't even go into the massive draw down in the military over the past 7 years which severely limits options for deployments until troop levels are restored, or risk reducing security in other areas around the world.
If we had bombed the shit out of Assad when rebel groups were begging us to, ISIS never would have risen to such prominence in Syria and wouldn't have spilled over to Iraq.
The state of the Iraqi army isn't just because we left when we did. We screwed that pooch way back in 2003. The 2003 Iraqi War was a clusterfuck. Do you remember the Provisional Authority? The Iraqi Interim Government? You want to talk about a power vacuum... It's not that they don't want to fight for themselves, they just don't want to fight for the US/NATO. And why should they?
And finally, it's not just "current US political" leaders who ignore military leadership. All US political leaders for at least the past 2 or 3 decades ignore military leadership when it's not politically expedient.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
When we decide to stop being the 900-pound gorilla with Hulk Smash military superiority. When your only tool is a hammer....
That said, we would love to have a reliable proxy like we tried to create in Iraq. Turns out that nation-states and standing armies don't rule that region. No non-state actor is deeply attuned to US interests and the US isn't backing their objectives, either. Probably a good thing since their objectives usually boil down to exterminating ancient rivals.
We can check out any time we like, but we can't ever leave.
FTFY. Otherwise, we'd be in Nigeria and the Sudan.
Edit - and all the people who were gob-smacked by the overthrow of the Shaw are dead, rather like Castro and Cuba. Iraq has been our proxy warrior against Iran for decades, and they've been happy do it.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Whether you're an average Joe, someone's mom, or a member of an extremist military group, bitcoin can be confusing. What is it exactly? How does it work? To help ISIS learn the answers to these questions, one Virginia teen used social media and blogging to explain the cryptocurrency's potential value as an anonymous payment option. Now he's pleading guilty to charges of conspiring to provide material support and resources to a designated terrorist group. Whoops.
Interesting to be guilty of a crime that essentially involves giving people information they could have found themselves via Google.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Whether you're an average Joe, someone's mom, or a member of an extremist military group, bitcoin can be confusing. What is it exactly? How does it work? To help ISIS learn the answers to these questions, one Virginia teen used social media and blogging to explain the cryptocurrency's potential value as an anonymous payment option. Now he's pleading guilty to charges of conspiring to provide material support and resources to a designated terrorist group. Whoops.
Interesting to be guilty of a crime that essentially involves giving people information they could have found themselves via Google.
I think it should be noted that he wasn't just some teenager teaching anonymous folks on the internet how to use bitcoin. He was on his way to join ISIS in Syria. That article kind of downplays that fact.
?