- 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
Posted on 3/2/15 at 7:59 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm not - but, I will say - them not being held back by our suicidal, anti-victory rules of engagement gives them at least 1 advantage we didn't have.
Can you elaborate?
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:00 am to windshieldman
quote:
Are the Kurds taking part in the invasion or just Iraqi military?
I damn sure hope so...the Kurds are the only reason ISIS doesn't have more territory...those folks have balls...
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:03 am to blacktoothgrin12
The ROE in place during our time in Iraq was very restrictive. That is not the case for the IA.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:05 am to blacktoothgrin12
I've been speaking with a friend in special forces on the ground in Northrtn Iraq about the Kurds. He says, the Kurds will fight with the right weaponry but they are a myth. We spoke at length about the Kurds retreating into the mountains when ISIS went on the offensive. Recently they have had some success but their military reputation is way overblown.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 8:06 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:07 am to TOKEN
The Peshmerga are a legitimate fighting force. The Kurdish army is not the same thing. Ask your buddy about the Pesh.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 8:09 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:07 am to blacktoothgrin12
quote:
Can you elaborate?
Our Rules of Engagement are suicidal and anti-victory - they imply a rational way to chain the dogs of war that doesn't exist in the real world.
Once you tell soldiers that they cannot kill civilians or damage property (even inadvertantly), you've already lost the war - particularly to an enemy more than willing to kill civilians and use houses of worship as sanctuaries.
No such rules of engagement were in place for wars in which we were successful, such as the U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.
(And I don't mean that we should target civilians or places of worship, but when the shooting starts - it's on.)
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 8:08 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:08 am to Ace Midnight
The worst part of the ROE was when it went from perceived threat to actualized threat. Unless they were shooting at you, you couldn't do shite.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 8:09 am
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:09 am to touchdownjeebus
quote:
The worst part of the ROE was when it went from perceived threat to actualized threat. Unless they were shooting at you, you couldn't fo shite.
Soldiers are not police officers. War is not law enforcement.
When politicians started treating things like this, we took victory off the table. Fighting for the status quo, in a defensive posture - the logical end of that is defeat and surrender.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:12 am to TheDude321
quote:We've been training them for months, and probably arming them as well. Once they fold tent, US will have to send our own troops in. That is a given.
The U.S. is acting in a "supporting" role. We'll see just how supportive soon...probably satellite spying and air cover, at the very least...
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:12 am to Wtodd
quote:
I'm having a difficult time thinking the Iraqi military could be involved in a "big" invasion much less being successful. I hope they are but not holding my breath.
Well, the fact that they are "invading" their own country tells me all I need to know about the military there.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:27 am to GeeOH
ISIS is not some elite fighting force. They are a bunch of thugs. If the IA can maintain their bearing, they will beat the shite out of them.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:38 am to touchdownjeebus
I think the IA needs to FIRST realize we ain't fighting for them anymore and if they don't want to be ISIS's bitch, they need to "man up".
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:57 am to Wtodd
We will still have operators on the ground and will supply air support and Intel, I'm sure.
ISIS is full of jihobbyists and kids. I would bet less than 30% of their fighting force is legit.
ISIS is full of jihobbyists and kids. I would bet less than 30% of their fighting force is legit.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 8:58 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Our Rules of Engagement are suicidal and anti-victory - they imply a rational way to chain the dogs of war that doesn't exist in the real world.
Once you tell soldiers that they cannot kill civilians or damage property (even inadvertantly), you've already lost the war - particularly to an enemy more than willing to kill civilians and use houses of worship as sanctuaries.
I remember when my uncle, who was a Marine fighter pilot & flew 2 tours in Vietnam, spoke of this in reference to that clusterfrick, he was highly frustrated, not surprisingly. He didn't talk about Vietnam much, but when he did, this was his major point of contention.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:17 am to TT9
quote:
TT9
quote:
Fox News reports
then it probably isn't happening.
I couldn't agree more. I need a news agency I can depend on to give me the whole true story. It's CBS for me, pal. How about you?
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:27 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Once you tell soldiers that they cannot kill civilians or damage property (even inadvertantly), you've already lost the war - particularly to an enemy more than willing to kill civilians and use houses of worship as sanctuaries.
Eh, I see the point I guess. My umbrella was the absolute right of every soldier to defend himself and the ROE was under that umbrella.
I did a year in Iraq and had one ROE briefing on day one in country, all other briefings were mission specific. I did a year in Afghanistan and did not have a ROE briefing. The focus was accomplishing the mission not obsessing over the ROE.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I don't think an attack by Iraqi forces on parts of Iraq occupied by a terrorist group strictly qualifies as an "invasion" - unless you're recognizing ISIS as a state now.
I think the areas that the Iraqis are attacking are completely controlled by ISIS.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:33 am to Lakeboy7
Our real problems with ROE in Afghanistan and Iraq had more to do with where and when we could use air and supporting arms. Late in the Afghan war you needed regimental approval for even a 60mm mortar strike.
Also, troops were highly restricted on when and where and for what reasons they could enter a house or place of business. A squad leader on patrol could not randomly stop and search a house if he suspected it of having bad guys or weapons. Intel had to be passed all the way up and then the go ahead had to come all the way back down.
Also, troops were highly restricted on when and where and for what reasons they could enter a house or place of business. A squad leader on patrol could not randomly stop and search a house if he suspected it of having bad guys or weapons. Intel had to be passed all the way up and then the go ahead had to come all the way back down.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News