BREAKING NEWS: 275 U.S. Miltary Personnel Heading to Iraq

  • 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by BranKetra (47947 posts) -

This just in:

Congress has received war powers documents from the president authorizing the use of American military forces to assist the Iraqi military in their battle against Isis forces going throughout Iraq. This is counter to what President Obama said previously in that aid would be sent from the U.S. to Iraq, but not troops.

Source: CNN live television about three minutes ago.

UPDATE: CNN has confirmed U.S. and Iran have discussed joint-effort to combat Isis forces.

UPDATE June 19th, 2014: U.S. Sending Troops as military advisers to help train Iraqi forces. U.S. Troops "Not returning to combat."U.S. prepared to use "targeted" and "precise" military action to support Iraq if necessary

UPDATE June 20th, 2014: First U.S. advisers to be deployed are highly trained senior special ops soldiers with experience in Iraq.

Source: Former Major General Spider Marks on CNN live television

What do you all think?

#2 Posted by plageus900 (984 posts) -

Fuck.

#3 Posted by outworld222 (2367 posts) -

K. Here's what I think. See warfare doesn't work. You remember a general by the name of General Shinseki? He said it's going to take 500,000 Troops minimum for Iraq to turn into a "democracy."

See its not going to work with 275 troops. Because typical warfare doesn't work these days. I don't see how 275 troops is gonna quell this insurgency. I'd love someone to explain something I'm not seeing to me though.

#4 Posted by foxhound_fox (87396 posts) -

Guerilla warfare is a never-ending fight. I hope those troops stay safe.

#5 Edited by BranKetra (47947 posts) -

@outworld222 said:

K. Here's what I think. See warfare doesn't work. You remember a general by the name of General Shinseki? He said it's going to take 500,000 Troops minimum for Iraq to turn into a "democracy."

See its not going to work with 275 troops. Because typical warfare doesn't work these days. I don't see how 275 troops is gonna quell this insurgency. I'd love someone to explain something I'm not seeing to me though.

I imagine they will be there for advisory positions unless they are all similar to John Matrix. We will learn at some point in time.

#6 Posted by ad1x2 (5490 posts) -

Well, one of the younger guys that worked under me was pissed he joined too late to get his combat patch, maybe this will finally make him happy (assuming it turns into a larger deployment and he gets to go).

Of course, I've already been there and done that. Also, that's money that could go towards other things, such as higher pay raises for troops back at home.

#7 Edited by airshocker (28864 posts) -

Unless every single one of these guys is Spec Ops I don;t know what they can realistically do. We already tried advisers with the Iraqi security forces and two of their divisions routed when the enemy was coming towards them.

#8 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17380 posts) -

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

#9 Posted by Open-Casket (72 posts) -

Canada will send 3 soldiers with muskets. I already asked Harper if they could go.

#10 Posted by ad1x2 (5490 posts) -

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

It makes more sense than them trying to embed with Iraqi forces especially since more of the troops would probably be killed by insiders than actual enemy insurgents. Guess waiting and seeing is what we should do for now.

#11 Posted by airshocker (28864 posts) -

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would make much more sense.

#12 Posted by SUD123456 (4401 posts) -

Well I think you should never trust initial reports from the media and this is another example of why that is so.

#13 Posted by Jebus213 (8720 posts) -

We should just nuke Iraq.

The resulting glass produced would be of more worth to the world than Iraq as a nation.

#14 Edited by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

And so it begins...

#15 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would make much more sense.

how many personnel would be sent/needed if air missions were going to be conducted in Iraq?

#16 Posted by airshocker (28864 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would make much more sense.

how many personnel would be sent/needed if air missions were going to be conducted in Iraq?

Well, we're already in the process of sending the USS George HW Bush. So if they did need air support it would come from that or Bagram AFB in Afghanistan.

#17 Posted by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

At least Obummer is smart and sending support to protect the embassy personnel...so we won't have another episode like in Benghazi.

#18 Edited by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@BossPerson said:

@airshocker said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would make much more sense.

how many personnel would be sent/needed if air missions were going to be conducted in Iraq?

Well, we're already in the process of sending the USS George HW Bush. So if they did need air support it would come from that or Bagram AFB in Afghanistan.

im wondering numbers wise though, how many military personnel are needed (ballpark) to support a mission similar America's in Libya? More than a thousand?

#19 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20823 posts) -

Pay raises would be nice ad1x2 but I do feel guilty what my current per diem rate is right now where I'm at.

#20 Posted by gamerguru100 (10463 posts) -

LMFAO, 275 guys? That's it? You've gotta be shitting me. Please tell me you're shitting me. What a waste of time. What the hell are 275 guys gonna do against this insurgency? And why the fuck are we still hanging out in the Middle East with thumbs in our asses? The region is fucked, and there's nothing NATO or the UN can do about it. They're stuck in 700 AD and they're gonna stay that way. Let nature take its course and let these people wipe themselves out.

#21 Posted by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

LMFAO, 275 guys? That's it? You've gotta be shitting me. Please tell me you're shitting me. What a waste of time. What the hell are 275 guys gonna do against this insurgency? And why the fuck are we still hanging out in the Middle East with thumbs in our asses? The region is fucked, and there's nothing NATO or the UN can do about it. They're stuck in 700 AD and they're gonna stay that way. Let nature take its course and let these people wipe themselves out.

I have no doubt in my mind that there will be more to follow. Give it a few weeks...

#22 Posted by killzowned24 (7298 posts) -

Got to teach them how to get r done again. We trained them + gave tech and still getting their butts whooped by like 1k soldiers vs 30k. LOL

#23 Posted by bobaban (10545 posts) -

275 is smart. Lets more support be drawn up.

It's just the start of a snowball.

We just need to lava bomb the entire middle east.

#24 Posted by BossPerson (9432 posts) -

Got to teach them how to get r done again. We trained them + gave tech and still getting their butts whooped by like 1k soldiers vs 30k. LOL

they didn't "get their butts whooped" - they just laid down their arms and went home as they have no desire to fight for a central government they hardly believe in.

#25 Posted by killzowned24 (7298 posts) -

@killzowned24 said:

Got to teach them how to get r done again. We trained them + gave tech and still getting their butts whooped by like 1k soldiers vs 30k. LOL

they didn't "get their butts whooped" - they just laid down their arms and went home as they have no desire to fight for a central government they hardly believe in.

Iraq's armed forces

"Organized, trained and, to some extent, equipped by the United States, the Iraqi military was a competent force when the United States pulled all its forces out in 2011.

But over the past several years Maliki has been accused of appointing political cronies to key leadership positions and the military has ceased to conduct regular training. Sunnis have said the army is little more than another Shiite militia and have little confidence in its ability to protect them. Many units simply collapsed when insurgents attacked Mosul and other cities in Iraq."

#26 Posted by gamerguru100 (10463 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@gamerguru100 said:

LMFAO, 275 guys? That's it? You've gotta be shitting me. Please tell me you're shitting me. What a waste of time. What the hell are 275 guys gonna do against this insurgency? And why the fuck are we still hanging out in the Middle East with thumbs in our asses? The region is fucked, and there's nothing NATO or the UN can do about it. They're stuck in 700 AD and they're gonna stay that way. Let nature take its course and let these people wipe themselves out.

I have no doubt in my mind that there will be more to follow. Give it a few weeks...

It wouldn't matter if we deployed our whole army there. Nothing would change. Hell, the more troops we send there, the more flared up the region gets. They're simply living in a different time period than the West, so any attempt at introducing the 21st century to them is futile.

#27 Posted by uninspiredcup (7674 posts) -
@Jebus213 said:

We should just nuke Iraq.

The resulting glass produced would be of more worth to the world than Iraq as a nation.

Exactly. Because America was founded on lollipops and unicorns.

#28 Posted by Jebus213 (8720 posts) -
@Jebus213 said:

We should just nuke Iraq.

The resulting glass produced would be of more worth to the world than Iraq as a nation.

Exactly. Because America was founded on lollipops and unicorns.

Might as well be at this point.

#29 Posted by ferrari2001 (16768 posts) -

Unless every single one of these guys is Spec Ops I don;t know what they can realistically do. We already tried advisers with the Iraqi security forces and two of their divisions routed when the enemy was coming towards them.

These specific troops are probably taking more leadership and coordinating roles in Iraq's war effort. The problem with the Iraqi forces is they are basically falling apart when the enemy approaches with no clear chain of leadership allowing enemy forces to move through the country. The US troops will likely take lead positions, keeping the Iraqi squads together. That mixed with Iranian forces moving into the country the insurgents should have a far more difficult time capturing any more ground. That is assuming the strategy works.

#30 Posted by Behardy24 (2744 posts) -

Hope everyone stays safe and this situation gets over with quickly with the least damage done on all fronts.

#31 Posted by ad1x2 (5490 posts) -

@airshocker said:

@BossPerson said:

@airshocker said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would make much more sense.

how many personnel would be sent/needed if air missions were going to be conducted in Iraq?

Well, we're already in the process of sending the USS George HW Bush. So if they did need air support it would come from that or Bagram AFB in Afghanistan.

im wondering numbers wise though, how many military personnel are needed (ballpark) to support a mission similar America's in Libya? More than a thousand?

Depending on how much aircraft they want to send, could be a few hundred if you count support personnel. Although if you want to get technical, if they send UAVs you could count them even though the actual pilots could be thousands of miles away and going home to their wives (or husbands, this is the post-DADT military) every night.

In terms of actual ground troops, as long as they stick to air support no boots even need to touch the ground and like another poster said that 275 could be more security for the US Embassy in Baghdad for all we know. With increased security you have more shifts and out of 300 troops, 100-150 of them could be on shift at any given time with the rest on break.

#32 Edited by ad1x2 (5490 posts) -

Pay raises would be nice ad1x2 but I do feel guilty what my current per diem rate is right now where I'm at.

When I was in San Antonio for six months I got $66 a day for food, but I didn't feel bad considering that my wife was over 700 miles away. It paid for my Xbox One and PS4 in two weeks, so I didn't turn it down.

#33 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20823 posts) -

Nice. Right now they giving us 140 a day and I still got 4 months left here. Long hours though but still 140 a day. And I'm single.

#34 Edited by BranKetra (47947 posts) -

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would be interesting for international relations. At one point, President Obama says the United States will aid Iraq without troops. Then, military personal will be sent by him to aid Iraq. Finally, they go to Iraq only to aid our own embassy.

From my perspective, that seems it would be an irresponsible way to go about things.

#35 Posted by CommandoAgent (737 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:

We should just nuke Iraq.

The resulting glass produced would be of more worth to the world than Iraq as a nation.

Seems there are still some NeoCons left.

#36 Posted by airshocker (28864 posts) -

im wondering numbers wise though, how many military personnel are needed (ballpark) to support a mission similar America's in Libya? More than a thousand?

Well apparently those 275 troops are actually part of an amphibious assault ship. So what they'll have are a couple of companies of marines, a small air wing, and support personnel.

#37 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150085 posts) -

Well Obama is a hypocrite.

#38 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17380 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would be interesting for international relations. At one point, President Obama says the United States will aid Iraq without troops. Then, military personal will be sent by him to aid Iraq. Finally, they go to Iraq only to aid our own embassy.

From my perspective, that seems it would be an irresponsible way to go about things.

They aren't going into the country to aid Iraq. Technically these troops won't even be in Iraq considering the US embassy is American territory.

There's nothing about this that is irresponsible. Getting involved in the sectarian war in Iraq is a completely separate issue from protecting the US embassy in Baghdad.

#39 Posted by Jebus213 (8720 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:

We should just nuke Iraq.

The resulting glass produced would be of more worth to the world than Iraq as a nation.

Seems there are still some NeoCons left.

I'm nowhere close to being a NeoCon.

#40 Posted by BranKetra (47947 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would be interesting for international relations. At one point, President Obama says the United States will aid Iraq without troops. Then, military personal will be sent by him to aid Iraq. Finally, they go to Iraq only to aid our own embassy.

From my perspective, that seems it would be an irresponsible way to go about things.

They aren't going into the country to aid Iraq. Technically these troops won't even be in Iraq considering the US embassy is American territory.

Exactly.

There's nothing about this that is irresponsible. Getting involved in the sectarian war in Iraq is a completely separate issue from protecting the US embassy in Baghdad.

Although President Obama stated that the U.S. will aid Iraq, in reality we are only ultimately aiding our own people and interests there in Baghdad. Maybe the press has been giving an inaccurate message. If they did then they should have been more clear for the sake of their consumer base, but if not then the president should not have had any conflict in his messages. The latter scenario would indeed be irresponsible because at one point, he stated we will be doing one thing for Iraq, later something else, and finally it was revealed that those two-hundred and seventy-five troops will be aiding U.S. citizens. That would be similar to a CEO of a business with multiple buildings across the world saying to the U.S. during a recession that they will aid our country by bringing over one thousand workers to here to boost productivity, but with a focus on his or her business. When they finally come, they successfully improve begin improving the company, but they are only paid in Bitcoin.

#41 Edited by Flubbbs (2916 posts) -

lol and Obama literally said ' no boots on the ground' just a few days ago

#42 Posted by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

lol and Obama literally said ' no boots on the ground' just a few days ago

What Obama says and does are two separate things. I think that was his campaign slogan this past election, wasn't it? :/

#43 Posted by Master_Live (14077 posts) -

#44 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17380 posts) -

@BranKetra said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would be interesting for international relations. At one point, President Obama says the United States will aid Iraq without troops. Then, military personal will be sent by him to aid Iraq. Finally, they go to Iraq only to aid our own embassy.

From my perspective, that seems it would be an irresponsible way to go about things.

They aren't going into the country to aid Iraq. Technically these troops won't even be in Iraq considering the US embassy is American territory.

Exactly.

There's nothing about this that is irresponsible. Getting involved in the sectarian war in Iraq is a completely separate issue from protecting the US embassy in Baghdad.

Although President Obama stated that the U.S. will aid Iraq, in reality we are only ultimately aiding our own people and interests there in Baghdad. Maybe the press has been giving an inaccurate message. If they did then they should have been more clear for the sake of their consumer base, but if not then the president should not have had any conflict in his messages. The latter scenario would indeed be irresponsible because at one point, he stated we will be doing one thing for Iraq, later something else, and finally it was revealed that those two-hundred and seventy-five troops will be aiding U.S. citizens. That would be similar to a CEO of a business with multiple buildings across the world saying to the U.S. during a recession that they will aid our country by bringing over one thousand workers to here to boost productivity, but with a focus on his or her business. When they finally come, they successfully improve begin improving the company, but they are only paid in Bitcoin.

First off that is one of the most nonsensical analogies I have ever heard.

To your broader point, Obama has not given any definite statements regarding military action in Iraq since this ISIS had started taking over major Iraqi cities. Obama has been consistent in saying that his administration is considering all options - he hasn't even guaranteed that the US will help the Maliki government at all. The only definite statement Obama has made is that he won't be sending US troops into combat in Iraq, which is very different from sending troops in to guard and protect the US embassy.

Nor have I seen the media misrepresent the administration's actions and statements - I was watching CNN yesterday when they broke the news about these troops going to the embassy in Baghdad and there was no erroneous mention of Obama asking congress to authorize "war powers" or the suggestion that these troops were being sent there to assist the Iraqi military in their fight against ISIS. I have no idea where you got that impression from.

#45 Posted by Motokid6 (5132 posts) -

All the wars and money in the world will not help these archaic people. They will continue to relapse back to their twisted, oppressive ways for the rest of time.

A nuke is not the solution. Once one nuke is detonated at this point in time kiss civilization as we know it goodbye. Just send in armies of drones if we MUST do something. This is what happens when you give cavemen power and guns.

#46 Posted by thegerg (14718 posts) -

@BranKetra said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would be interesting for international relations. At one point, President Obama says the United States will aid Iraq without troops. Then, military personal will be sent by him to aid Iraq. Finally, they go to Iraq only to aid our own embassy.

From my perspective, that seems it would be an irresponsible way to go about things.

They aren't going into the country to aid Iraq. Technically these troops won't even be in Iraq considering the US embassy is American territory.

Exactly.

There's nothing about this that is irresponsible. Getting involved in the sectarian war in Iraq is a completely separate issue from protecting the US embassy in Baghdad.

Although President Obama stated that the U.S. will aid Iraq, in reality we are only ultimately aiding our own people and interests there in Baghdad. Maybe the press has been giving an inaccurate message. If they did then they should have been more clear for the sake of their consumer base, but if not then the president should not have had any conflict in his messages. The latter scenario would indeed be irresponsible because at one point, he stated we will be doing one thing for Iraq, later something else, and finally it was revealed that those two-hundred and seventy-five troops will be aiding U.S. citizens. That would be similar to a CEO of a business with multiple buildings across the world saying to the U.S. during a recession that they will aid our country by bringing over one thousand workers to here to boost productivity, but with a focus on his or her business. When they finally come, they successfully improve begin improving the company, but they are only paid in Bitcoin.

First off that is one of the most nonsensical analogies I have ever heard.

To your broader point, Obama has not given any definite statements regarding military action in Iraq since this ISIS had started taking over major Iraqi cities. Obama has been consistent in saying that his administration is considering all options - he hasn't even guaranteed that the US will help the Maliki government at all. The only definite statement Obama has made is that he won't be sending US troops into combat in Iraq, which is very different from sending troops in to guard and protect the US embassy.

Nor have I seen the media misrepresent the administration's actions and statements - I was watching CNN yesterday when they broke the news about these troops going to the embassy in Baghdad and there was no erroneous mention of Obama asking congress to authorize "war powers" or the suggestion that these troops were being sent there to assist the Iraqi military in their fight against ISIS. I have no idea where you got that impression from.

"The only definite statement Obama has made is that he won't be sending US troops into combat in Iraq, which is very different from sending troops in to guard and protect the US embassy."

We'll see. Sending warfighters into such an unstable environment always presents a chance for armed conflict. A desire to avoid combat is in no way a guarantee that it won't happen.

#47 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17380 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@BranKetra said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@BranKetra said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I heard that this was just increases in embassy security.

That would be interesting for international relations. At one point, President Obama says the United States will aid Iraq without troops. Then, military personal will be sent by him to aid Iraq. Finally, they go to Iraq only to aid our own embassy.

From my perspective, that seems it would be an irresponsible way to go about things.

They aren't going into the country to aid Iraq. Technically these troops won't even be in Iraq considering the US embassy is American territory.

Exactly.

There's nothing about this that is irresponsible. Getting involved in the sectarian war in Iraq is a completely separate issue from protecting the US embassy in Baghdad.

Although President Obama stated that the U.S. will aid Iraq, in reality we are only ultimately aiding our own people and interests there in Baghdad. Maybe the press has been giving an inaccurate message. If they did then they should have been more clear for the sake of their consumer base, but if not then the president should not have had any conflict in his messages. The latter scenario would indeed be irresponsible because at one point, he stated we will be doing one thing for Iraq, later something else, and finally it was revealed that those two-hundred and seventy-five troops will be aiding U.S. citizens. That would be similar to a CEO of a business with multiple buildings across the world saying to the U.S. during a recession that they will aid our country by bringing over one thousand workers to here to boost productivity, but with a focus on his or her business. When they finally come, they successfully improve begin improving the company, but they are only paid in Bitcoin.

First off that is one of the most nonsensical analogies I have ever heard.

To your broader point, Obama has not given any definite statements regarding military action in Iraq since this ISIS had started taking over major Iraqi cities. Obama has been consistent in saying that his administration is considering all options - he hasn't even guaranteed that the US will help the Maliki government at all. The only definite statement Obama has made is that he won't be sending US troops into combat in Iraq, which is very different from sending troops in to guard and protect the US embassy.

Nor have I seen the media misrepresent the administration's actions and statements - I was watching CNN yesterday when they broke the news about these troops going to the embassy in Baghdad and there was no erroneous mention of Obama asking congress to authorize "war powers" or the suggestion that these troops were being sent there to assist the Iraqi military in their fight against ISIS. I have no idea where you got that impression from.

"The only definite statement Obama has made is that he won't be sending US troops into combat in Iraq, which is very different from sending troops in to guard and protect the US embassy."

We'll see. Sending warfighters into such an unstable environment always presents a chance for armed conflict. A desire to avoid combat is in no way a guarantee that it won't happen.

Sure, the line between combat troops and non-combat troops is blurred in such an unstable environment. My point was though is that what Obama is referring to when he says he won't send troops into combat in Iraq is that he won't send troops into Iraq for the purpose of rejoining the sectarian war that is going on. These troops aren't being sent into Iraq to wage battle against ISIS. Protecting the US embassy is a completely separate issue and has no barring on the strategic military decisions that the Obama administration has to make.

#48 Posted by Master_Live (14077 posts) -

Key Dems press action in Iraq

From the article:

Key Democrats offered support on Tuesday for President Obama to take military action in Iraq.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Obama should consider military strikes against advancing Islamist forces, and Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D) went even further, calling for direct action against Sunni jihadists marching on Baghdad.

The two Democrats are warning that the fall of the Iraqi government to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a Sunni group linked to al-Qaeda, would not only further destabilize Iraq, but would also pose a direct threat to U.S. interests in the region and beyond.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More info.

#49 Posted by BranKetra (47947 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu-: Stay classy. I already told everyone where that information is from: CNN live television yesterday before and during Crossfire.

#50 Edited by BranKetra (47947 posts) -

President Obama finished giving the press information around 1:00 o'clock CT. He said the United States is prepared to send military advisers to Iraq. They will help "train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces." As I speculated before, two-hundred and seventy-five U.S. troops in a combat situation of another country would best be utilized as advisory elements. President Obama emphasized that the U.S. is "not returning to combat." Him being honest is a very good thing.