- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
White House backing away from airstrikes in Iraq.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:43 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:43 am
quote:
The White House is backing away from the idea of using airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq - at least for now.
quote:
"The president wants to avoid airstrikes for now in part because U.S. military officials lack sufficient information to hit targets that would shift momentum on the battlefield.
quote:
"The White House and Pentagon now hold a more skeptical view of the possible effectiveness of speedy airstrikes and instead are considering deploying U.S. special operations forces to provide intelligence and battlefield advice to the Iraqi military, the U.S. officials say. Such an effort, the officials hope, would allow Iraqi forces to mount a counterattack. Officials said Mr. Obama could follow up increased training and advising of Iraqi forces with airstrikes if deemed necessary, but that outcome isn't a sure thing.
Seems like a reasonable strategy to me.
ETA:No link because this is from a paid site. This is from a newsletter they send me.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 9:51 am
5
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:51 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Seems like a reasonable strategy to me.
Lets just let the Sunni Shia shite sort itself out. It will be a bloodbath and there will be outrage but its in our best interest.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 9:56 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Damn and Maliki had his hopes up for another rescue. Not this time Nouri.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:01 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Think this article was posted on here recently:
On Monday, U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending up to 100 Special Operations troops to Iraq in a training and advisory role. Although the White House said those forces would not be directly involved in combat, it was unclear whether they could be used to select targets or call in airstrikes.
Without forces on the ground to verify that U.S. airstrikes had hit legitimate military targets, the United States would become more vulnerable to enemy propaganda about mass civilian casualties, said Gary Roughead, a retired four-star admiral and chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011.
“The other side gets to generate the narrative, whether it’s fact or fiction,” he said. “Not having the ability to coordinate from the ground makes it very hard.”
For targets in populated areas, the United States would have to rely to a large extent on intelligence provided by the Iraqi military. Although the U.S. military could also turn to satellite imagery and airborne surveillance, having troops on the ground to coordinate with Iraqi forces would greatly lessen the odds of a mistake, said James O. Poss, a retired Air Force major general who helped oversee the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001.
“It’s the president’s decision, and it’s a pretty gut-wrenching decision to put a single soldier, airman or sailor on the ground,” Poss said. “But I think to have a much higher confidence in the targeting and the source of intelligence, a presence on the ground may be necessary.”
LINK
On Monday, U.S. officials said the White House was considering sending up to 100 Special Operations troops to Iraq in a training and advisory role. Although the White House said those forces would not be directly involved in combat, it was unclear whether they could be used to select targets or call in airstrikes.
Without forces on the ground to verify that U.S. airstrikes had hit legitimate military targets, the United States would become more vulnerable to enemy propaganda about mass civilian casualties, said Gary Roughead, a retired four-star admiral and chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011.
“The other side gets to generate the narrative, whether it’s fact or fiction,” he said. “Not having the ability to coordinate from the ground makes it very hard.”
For targets in populated areas, the United States would have to rely to a large extent on intelligence provided by the Iraqi military. Although the U.S. military could also turn to satellite imagery and airborne surveillance, having troops on the ground to coordinate with Iraqi forces would greatly lessen the odds of a mistake, said James O. Poss, a retired Air Force major general who helped oversee the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001.
“It’s the president’s decision, and it’s a pretty gut-wrenching decision to put a single soldier, airman or sailor on the ground,” Poss said. “But I think to have a much higher confidence in the targeting and the source of intelligence, a presence on the ground may be necessary.”
LINK
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:02 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:04 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Maliki
Could we have picked a bigger piece of shite?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:06 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
Could we have picked a bigger piece of shite?
Probably. There are lots of pieces of shite in Iraq.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:20 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Seems like a reasonable strategy to me.
Yup unless they make a move for the embassy.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:23 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Yup unless they make a move for the embassy.
Doubt they'll do that. If they do then they're retarded because that would force our hand and their little invasion would be destroyed in a matter of days.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:24 am to GeauxxxTigers23
I forget....who are we pulling for in this thing?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:25 am to Lakeboy7
quote:
quote:
Maliki
Could we have picked a bigger piece of shite?
In my view Maliki isn't unusual....I think any leader we installed would have been a "Maliki". It's a made up country that needs to be split up.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:25 am to LSURussian
The Kurds
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:26 am to LSURussian
quote:
I forget....who are we pulling for in this thing?
I don't know man. I think we should split the country up and be done with the place.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:26 am to LSURussian
quote:
I forget....who are we pulling for in this thing?
The most salient question of the day
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:27 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:30 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Okay, thanks.
The Kurds
Uh.....why are we pulling for them?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:31 am to LSURussian
quote:
I forget....who are we pulling for in this thing?
A draw
with no players left
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:32 am to LSURussian
quote:
I forget....who are we pulling for in this thing?
I don't know about you, but I'm pulling for a giant sinkhole.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:42 am to Godfather1
I can never remember if we like the Sunny Muslims or the shite Muslims.
One of their groups is massacring believers of the other group because they massacred believers of the first group previously.....
One of their groups is massacring believers of the other group because they massacred believers of the first group previously.....
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:53 am to LSURussian
Because they are the least assholish ones out of the groups in play
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:00 am to LSURussian
Hezbollah: Shia
ISIS: Sunni
Let the killing begin.
ISIS: Sunni
Let the killing begin.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:10 am to LSURussian
quote:Whomever the media tells you to. Now shut up and go watch more TV.
I forget....who are we pulling for in this thing?
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News