Iraq's Air Force
In all the pontificating on what now should be done (and what should have been done previously) in Iraq, one subject oddly never seems to be on the table. I find this a bit strange, because it really should be a subject worthy of debate -- if only to add to the finger-pointing about what could have been done to avoid the current situation. From hawks to isolationists, though, nobody seems to ever bring up the possibility of Iraqis performing their own airstrikes. To put this another way: where is the Iraqi Air Force?
What really made this strange, while listening to all the different points of view bandied about on the weekend political chatfests, is that there were even new Iraqi propaganda videos to provoke the debate, and yet in all the commentary they were barely even mentioned. The choices discussed were mostly: American boots on the ground (or not), and American airstrikes (piloted or by drone). Other subjects discussed were: Iran's military help inside Iraq, the capabilities of ISIL, what the Sunni and Shi'ite militias were doing, and what America should also do (or not do) in Syria. Not discussed were the Iraqi propaganda videos, and what they might mean or not mean.
Iraq released two or three of these videos over the weekend, which all purport to show the same thing: a target being hit (and obliterated) by a precision munition dropped or fired from the air. These videos have been a common sight in warfare ever since the first Bush's war in Iraq, but as I mentioned they are impossible to now verify. Were those targets really what the Iraqis said they were? Did they really target ISIL fighters who were killed? Were these videos really shot by the Iraqis, or were they old footage from either training exercises or just recycled from some past conflict? Were the videos even shot in Iraq? There are plenty of questions which remain unanswered about the veracity of the videos, in other words. That's fine -- it means that whatever conclusions can be drawn should be couched in "if the videos are true" language. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore or brush off what the videos might mean. Because they raise an important question.
Where is the Iraqi Air Force? What does the Iraqi Air Force consist of? How many attack helicopters and attack fighters does it have in flyable condition? Most importantly, how many trained pilots does it have who can fly combat missions?
So far, the answer seems to be that the Iraqi Air Force is mostly theoretical. They have placed orders for dozens of planes and helicopters, but probably only have a few they can now use. ABC reported recently that they had just run out of Hellfire missiles, and that they only had two modified planes that could deploy them. But the much more important question is how many capable pilots they have -- because airplanes and helicopters may be quickly delivered, but pilots need to be trained.
This is where a round of finger-pointing might need to take place. If there are only a handful of Iraqi pilots who have been adequately trained, the next question becomes why there are so few, after so long? Iraq was always going to need at least a defensive air force. That's pretty obvious. The plan to get American troops out of Iraq has always been to "get them to stand up, so we can stand down." That meant training not only footsoldiers, but also whatever naval and air forces the country also needed to defend itself and the integrity of its borders.
How long does it take to train an air traffic controller? How long does it take to teach someone to fly? How long does it take to turn an ordinary pilot into a jet fighter pilot or an attack helicopter pilot? How long does this all take, even with necessary remedial training in other basic subjects? How long did America train Iraqis to take their country back?
America spent, by most estimates, between one and two trillion dollars in Iraq. That's "one million million dollars." Why was none of this earmarked (as in other foreign policy deals) to be turned right around and spent on American planes and helicopters from military contractors? Why don't the Iraqis have a fleet of at least a couple dozen older fighters and bombers by now?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not making the argument here that everything would be hunky-dory in Iraq right now if they did have a more advanced air force. Syria has air power, which has given it a definite edge in its fight with its own rebels -- but not a decisive edge (the rebels still exist; indeed, this is where all the ISIL fighters now in Iraq just came from). Air power doesn't always win the war, in other words. But it might come in handy when attempting to counter a blitzkrieg advance by the opposition.
It should at least be a topic for conversation, as we all try to figure out what the best course of action in Iraq now is. If Iraq has dozens of qualified pilots and is just waiting for aircraft to be delivered, that is a solvable problem. Crank the factories up, borrow a few odd planes from here and there that can be hastily repainted and quickly delivered, and the problem is solved for the short-term. Likewise for missiles and guided bombs.
If Iraq doesn't have dozens of pilots, well, that's a serious problem of shortsightedness. Why doesn't it? It's been three or four years since America started disengaging militarily in Iraq, and three or four years seems adequate to train just about anyone to be a fighter pilot. Was this shortsightedness on the part of the Iraqis? On the part of the Pentagon? On the part of President Obama, or President Bush? Or Maliki, for that matter? There might be plenty of finger-pointing to go around, as with just about everything about Iraq.
As to the videos released this weekend, they are propaganda and thus are intended to send a particular message. The videos sent the most obvious message to Iraqi citizens: "Iraq's military is strong, and we can perform airstrikes." But might they not be sending a similar message to the outside world? The message to America might be: "The Iraqi Air Force could make a difference, if you'd quickly send us some missiles and all those planes and choppers we ordered." This message might be disbelieved or debunked (or perhaps strongly advocated, by others), but so far it has largely just been ignored.
This seems a bit strange -- the absolute silence on this issue from just about everyone concerned. When it comes to ground forces, we debate the viability (and desirability) of the Iraqi army, the Sunni militias, the homegrown Shi'ite militias, and the Iranians on the ground. But when it comes to air power, the only choices even discussed are American airstrikes versus nothing. The finer points of American air power are discussed -- drones versus piloted aircraft, having special forces and intelligence on the ground for targeting -- but never once does anyone bring up the concept of "why aren't the Iraqis doing their own airstrikes?" Or even "hey, did you see those videos -- what do you think about them?"
It seems like at least a partial answer to future military strategy for Iraq would be to sell them planes, sell them fighters, and train them to fly. We can bicker over why that hasn't adequately happened yet, but we should at the very least be trying to factor it in to future equations. So far, though, from the politicians to the media, I haven't heard anyone even bring it up yet. Where are the voices crying for the Iraqi Air Force to "stand up" in the midst of all the hand-wringing over the possibility of American airstrikes?
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think at least part of the problem is that the Iraqi Air Force(IAF) hasn't really existed as an institution since 1991 or so. Throw in a bit of de-Baathification in 2003, and you're left with an operational force of 35 in 2004.
A quick perusal of their Wikipedia (for that's worth), from which most of the material seems to be dated 2008 or 2009, so only 6 or 5 years out of date. Suggests a current jet fighter fleet of 0 with another 30 or so "on their way." With all to be delivered by 2018 and the first planes in 2014. They seem to have a fair bit of lighter craft though, helicopters and prop planes and other stuff that fills a transportation and recon role.
If Iraq doesn't have dozens of pilots, well, that's a serious problem of shortsightedness. Why doesn't it? It's been three or four years since America started disengaging militarily in Iraq, and three or four years seems adequate to train just about anyone to be a fighter pilot. Was this shortsightedness on the part of the Iraqis? On the part of the Pentagon? On the part of President Obama, or President Bush? Or Maliki, for that matter?
The first part of your statement answers the WHO'SE TO BLAME question...
Michale
CW,
We just invaded Iraq and many are arguing we should do it again. Are you really wondering why we didn't build up Iraqi air forces?
The real reason nothing like the Biden plan was implemented, was our desire to strip the Sunni of power. We had no problem guaranteeing Kurds enough autonomy and income to win support for a federalist system, but we WANTED the Sunni to be oppressed by the Shia.
Just as we wanted Iraq to be able to police itself internally, but have very limited ability to project power and defend itself. While "freeing the Iraqi people" has become the default excuse for our invasion, it was never the reason. We didn't tear Iraq's military power down just to put it back. This country still fears Muslims, and still covets Arab oil. Iraq is still Muslim, and still has oil.
I was hoping to get a consensus on what Obama should do in Iraq??
Should the US just leave things alone???
Or should the US take action??
I have a feeling I know why no one wants to commit.. :D
Michale
The real reason nothing like the Biden plan was implemented, was our desire to strip the Sunni of power. We had no problem guaranteeing Kurds enough autonomy and income to win support for a federalist system, but we WANTED the Sunni to be oppressed by the Shia.
Yea....
And the US commits terrorism every day... :^/
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1385275/zirah-moslem-jihadist-t-shirt-yours-13-facebook.jpg?w=720&h=509&l=50&t=40
Better hurry up and get yours...
This country still fears Muslims, and still covets Arab oil. Iraq is still Muslim, and still has oil.
Well, if the Loony Left would let the US exploit it's OWN resources, we wouldn't have to depend on MidEast oil...
But the Loony Left are champions of stepping on their own wee-wees and dragging the country down with them...
As far as "fearing" Muslims. Assumes facts not in evidence...
No one "fears" Muslims.. It's the Islamo terrorists that are of concern...
Unless you are claiming that ALL Muslims are terrorists...
Michale
This country still fears Muslims, and still covets Arab oil. Iraq is still Muslim, and still has oil.
So, you are saying that Obama fears Muslims and Obama wants Iraqi oil..
Is THAT what you are saying, LD??
Hmmmmmmmm????
:D
Michale
Well, it's clear that the Iraq mess is taking it's toll on Obama's approval ratings..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Obama is down to 41.6% approval... That's a HUGE drop....
Michale actually called it this time!! Who woulda thunked it!!! :D
Michale
Obama is down to 41.6% approval... That's a HUGE drop....
Michale actually called it this time!! Who woulda thunked it!!! :D
Let me save ya'all the trouble...
"Well, Michale.. Even a busted watch is right twice a day..."
:D
Michale
As I see it, the Iraqi Air Force is symptomatic of a much deeper problem.
"The plan to get American troops out of Iraq has always been to "get them to stand up, so we can stand down.""
As in so many things post-Saddam, this turned out to be slogan masquerading as a plan.
There had been a plan for reconstructing Iraq, but it was abandoned when Paul Bremer replaced Jay Garner in May, 2003. What started out as policy of rehabilitating Baathist institutions turned into demolition and and rebuilding from the ground up. This was a much more ambitious task that was cobbled together on the fly. It involved a lot contractors and money, with very little close supervision or coordination. It threw a lot of Iraqis out of work and replaced them with novices collecting paychecks. The result was resentment and incompetence, rather than reform and reunification.
On a semi-related note, The Atlantic has published an article on Saudi covert support of ISIS.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/
How did the the militants make such rapid advances into the Sunni heartland of Iraq? I suspect it's because Sunni's invited them in, with the help of Saudi Intelligence. I further suspect that advance ISIS parties have been in the heartland for months, laying low, getting into position, recruiting and training locals.
{{ssssiiiiggggghhhhhhh}}
OK, let's just save everyone a lot of typing..
It's ALL Bush's fault... ALL OF IT.. Obama is completely, unequivocally and utterly blameless...
He has absolutely NO BLAME WHATSOEVER...
Happy??
NOW.....
Obama is the President.. Not Bush...
So what is **OBama** going to do to fix the problem??
Aside to David...
Did I call it or what???
When Democrats can pin the blame on the other side of the aisle, then blame is the only game in town.. NO ONE on the Left wants to talk about fixing the problem... When the Left thinks that the Right is to blame, then the ONLY issue is who's to blame..
Michale
NO ONE on the Left wants to talk about fixing the problem.
You're a funny one, Michale.
Everyone here (and that I know) seems like they're perfectly willing to talk about solutions.
I think the answer has to head in one of two directions. One, separate regions . The Sunnis and Kurds have no faith in the Maliki government. He's proven he's not trustworthy to form a coalition government.
Two, a new coalition government. Use #1 to force #2. That is, leverage the possibility of #1 to diplomatically bring about a true coalition government.
A few thoughts early on a Tuesday morning anyways.
-David
NO ONE on the Left wants to talk about fixing the problem.
You're a funny one, Michale.
Everyone here (and that I know) seems like they're perfectly willing to talk about solutions.
Really??
I have asked at LEAST a dozen times in the past week...
WHAT SHOULD OBAMA DO TO FIX THE PROBLEM..
All I got back were variations on the IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT theme...
I think the answer has to head in one of two directions. One, separate regions . The Sunnis and Kurds have no faith in the Maliki government. He's proven he's not trustworthy to form a coalition government.
Two, a new coalition government. Use #1 to force #2. That is, leverage the possibility of #1 to diplomatically bring about a true coalition government.
So, what should OBAMA do???
I understand why no one wants to commit themselves....
I really do...
But it's quite tedious, don'tcha know....
Michale
Well, it's clear that the Iraq mess is taking it's toll on Obama's approval ratings..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
Obama is down to 41.6% approval... That's a HUGE drop....
Holy crap!!!
Obama's approval is dropping like a lead anchor..
He's down to 41.3%
Michale
What to Do?
Exactly what we're doing right now, a diplomatic push to cobble together a coalition government. Make sure everyone has a stake and that they're all sitting at the same table. Hopefully this will pull more moderate Sunni factions out of ISIS orbit, since their grievances will be given a legitimate hearing. Also John Kerry was just in Baghdad, so we're obviously pushing there. Then some military support for the Iraqi armed forces, we can quibble over specifics, but since all of that will be classified anyway we'll just have to roll with the fact that 300 (give or take) advisers have been sent to that front.
As far as ISIS itself, I must be the only person on the planet that thinks that not arming the "moderate" Syrian opposition was a good idea. You only have to look at the Iraqi army, which has all the advantages of state support, command, control and logistics and they still basically just handed their weapons over to ISIS.
So Yah, lets try and effectively arm hundreds of tiny groups, who have no central control or ideology, and further attempt a top-down creation of a resistance front that is friendly to the US at the same time! What could go wrong? See Afghanistan 1980s. Obviously ISIS (or any of the other myriad jihadist groups) won't just kick the shit out of a well armed but weak group and steal all of their equipment.
To get back to the IAF, we can pretty squarely put blame for that on a lack of strategic thought among US planners for the war to begin with. Creating a modern, 21st century air force is no small task. Not only are fighter pilots incredibly time intensive to train, (4 year degree, OCS, flight school and plane specific training just be barely competent) But you need an huge behind the scenes apparatus of flight controllers, mechanics, guards and logistics services, all of whom need to be trained and sustained. Even if we had the plan and the will in place in 2004, we would still be looking at substantive results a decade or two down the line. Suprise, suprise! Bush went short term and then handed over a shit sandwich.
It's really just a specific case study in why Iraq has been such a mess. To do the job properly, you would have had to sell the American public on how long it would actually take and cost. Bush did the exact opposite (we'll be greeted as liberators!) and now the American Public is something like 80% opposed to military action in the middle east.
Why is Bush to blame? Because he sold a war to the American public that would take decades, require hundreds of thousands of troops (over its entire course), cause tens of thousands of casualties Iraqi and American and several trillion dollars to wage properly. And instead waged an incompetent effort on the cheap that was sold on lies about WMDs.
And that's another thing, American public opinion is chaotic and hard to hear on a lot of issues, but one thing they are united on is NO MOAR WARS. Regardless of it's merit, in a democratic republic that cannot be ignored.
{{ssiiggghhhhhh}}
As I said...
When Democrats are at fault, it's ALL about fixing the problem..
When the GOP is at fault, it's all about fixing the blame...
Michale
Why is Bush to blame? Because he sold a war to the American public that would take decades, require hundreds of thousands of troops (over its entire course), cause tens of thousands of casualties Iraqi and American and several trillion dollars to wage properly.
Of course, the little FACT that Democrats were also completely on board with the intelligence and the actions in Iraq doesn't enter into your analysis at all does it??
So, AGAIN... As I said..
When there is a GOP POTUS, *everything* is the POTUS's fault...
When there is a DEM POTUS, *nothing* the the POTUS's fault...
I wish you people could take a step back from your partisan rhetoric and see how completely and utterly ridiculous ya'all sound...
Democrats are as much the owners of the 2nd Iraq War as Bush is..
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
I can't believe not ONE person, not even JON STEWART has made the connection between ISIS (The Iraqi kind) and ISIS (The Saturday morning kids show)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072516/
:D
Michale
I wish you people could take a step back from your partisan rhetoric and see how completely and utterly ridiculous ya'all sound...
Democrats are as much the owners of the 2nd Iraq War as Bush is..
But have no fear, my fellow Weigantians..
I'll always be around with the facts.... :D
Michale
It's funny how the Left all rushed to fall all over themselves to declare that Biden was right about Iraq...
How many from the Left were inclined to say that Romney was right about Russia??
{{cchhhiiirrrrrrppppppp}} {{chirrrppppp}}
Funny, iddn't it?? :D
Michale
I can't believe not ONE person, not even JON STEWART has made the connection between ISIS (The Iraqi kind) and ISIS (The Saturday morning kids show)
You're dating yourself. ISIS is the spy agency Archer works for :)
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/280/7/b/isis_badge__sterling_archer_by_pinkfizzypops-d4c5e6i.jpg
So, what should OBAMA do?
What he's been doing. Calling for a coalition government.
-David
p.s. This just in. Virtually everyone in our country finally agrees on something. 71% now think the Iraq War wasn't worth it.
You're dating yourself.
Which IS legal in Alabama and Florida.. :D
ISIS is the spy agency Archer works for :)
Never heard of it... There is No Such Agency.. :D
p.s. This just in. Virtually everyone in our country finally agrees on something. 71% now think the Iraq War wasn't worth it.
Were any of the polled those who had been raped or murdered by Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS)??? If not, then I would say their opinions are not really relevant...
I am also constrained to point out that hind-sight is ALWAYS 20/20...
Maybe if Democrats had given that kind of input BEFORE the 2nd Iraq War started..... well, things might have been different..
But they didn't so it's iddn't..
Michale
Which IS legal in Alabama and Florida.. :D
Heheh ... :)
The Syrian AF is bombing ISIS targets in Iraq. The conflict is now well and truly regional
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-aircraft-bomb-sunni-militant-targets-inside-iraq/2014/06/24/2ea61b70-fbdc-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html
CW- "It seems like at least a partial answer to future military strategy for Iraq would be to sell them planes, sell them fighters, and train them to fly."
I see the Iraqi air force as a very low priority in this conflict. A mismatch between the kind of force the rump government of Iraq is fighting and the kinds of aircraft and munitions that rump Iraq can both use effectively and support over the long term. The civil war in Iraq looks to be a long one.
Now, the US and NATO used air power very effectively as a force leveler between the(relatively) well armed Libyan forces, with armor and artillery, versus (mostly) lightly armed insurgent militia types. But, only a well financed, technically cutting edge, highly professional military force can pull this off.
There are only a few types of missions a small, low tech Iraqi AF might be able to reasonably be expected to undertake: close air support, battlefield recon,interdiction, and troop transport. History tells me the costs would be high and the effectiveness low. The ARVN air force is a cautionary example.
Close air support is basically expensive aerial artillery. Against the light infantry of ISIS, conventional artillery would be much better investment. Unless the Iraqi air force can stay high and deliver precision munitions, man portable missiles and light anti aircraft artillery (cheap and plentiful) are likely to cause unacceptably high attrition. Especially among attack helicopters which by nature operate low and slow.
Aerial battlefield recon, to spot for artillery and airstrikes, would be nice, but again, if you don't have very sophisticated platforms, the units that do this must fly low and slow.
Aerial interdiction could be very effective against columns of ISIS pickup trucks, but you run into the aerial reconnaissance dilemmas
of low/slow once again.
Aerial troop transport could be useful for inserting the higher quality Iraqi infantry into battle, but this requires a lot of practice flying nap of the earth, with night goggles. Unless you are willing to fly into the nap of the earth a lot.
What the Shiite government needs is motivated militia (which it has) and good leadership (which it seems it doesn't). The US can't do much about the latter. The US really doesn't have good military options, or perhaps a better way of stating it, the US public isn't willing to pay the price of implementing good military options. The US public doesn't like long wars on foreign soil.
The US really doesn't have good military options, or perhaps a better way of stating it, the US public isn't willing to pay the price of implementing good military options.
Truer words were never spoken..
As a society, Americans can be very short-sighted..
Michale
"How many from the Left were inclined to say that Romney was right about Russia?"
Because he wasn't right, just this week the Russian parliament revoked its authorization of force in Ukraine. Further, the regular Russian military has been withdrawn from the Ukrainian border. We DO have a low intensity civil war in eastern Ukraine, but that's a far cry from Russian tanks rolling across the border. Basically sanctions worked in preventing further Russian jack-moves.
As James Carville once said, "I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
Putin messed with the stock market porrtfolios and pocket books of his oligarch supporters and got burned.
Because he wasn't right, just this week the Russian parliament revoked its authorization of force in Ukraine. Further, the regular Russian military has been withdrawn from the Ukrainian border. We DO have a low intensity civil war in eastern Ukraine, but that's a far cry from Russian tanks rolling across the border. Basically sanctions worked in preventing further Russian jack-moves.
All of which can be explained by Putin merely moving his chess pieces while Obama plays tiddley-winks...
Romney WAS right..
I know that you can't even THINK that, let alone articulate it, but it is a fact nonetheless..
Like I said, ya'all could save a LOT of typing if you simply respond, "Obama and the Democrats are ALWAYS right..." to everything..
Because that is, in effect, what ya'all are saying anyways... :D
Michale
I feel obligated to note that I'm one the American Public that doesn't like long wars furthering marginal objectives on foreign soil.
I know you can't do cause and effect, but seriously, take a look at the MICEX index, it's a half way decent way to get a bird's eye view of the Russian economy. It will tell you the when Putin started agitating in Ukraine stock prices fell off of a cliff, he backed off, and then they started to recover.
It's not that Obama is always right, it's that you live in fantasy world were basic information becomes a left wing conspiracy. You can bloviate about "chess" all you want, but the FACTS are that Putin took a massive economic gamble in the Ukraine, it backfired HARD and he had to change course rapidly in order to avert an obviously self-inflicted catastrophe.
But sure keep on quoting Limbaugh, talking points are so much more convincing than cold hard economic data.
I feel obligated to note that I'm one the American Public that doesn't like long wars furthering marginal objectives on foreign soil.
I am reminded of an interview I did for LAPD...
During the Q&A session, the Sgt asked me, "Do you mind getting punched, kicked and spit on??"
Me, being the young gung-ho grunt I was said, VERY EMPHATICALLY, "NO SIR!!!"...
The Sgt asked, "What kind of moron are you?? ANYONE would mind that!!"....
I thought for a split-second and said, "Well, of course, I would MIND it. But I wouldn't let THAT stop me from doing my job."
I got a "Good answer" for that... :D
"Sgt Spartan!! How can you justify destroying a $7 million dollar mini mall to rescue a girl whose ransom was only $25,000 dollars?
"FUCK YOU, LADY!"
"Ha! Good answer!"
-Demolition Man
:D
My point??
No one "likes" war, long or otherwise..
The test of character is the lengths one will go to to AVOID war...
Do I need to pull out my "Miserable Creature" quote?? :D
Michale
YoYo,
It's not that Obama is always right,
Yea???
Prove it...
Give me a POLICY decision that Obama has made that's wrong... A decision having NOTHING to do with politics or Republicans...
Betcha a thousand quatloos you can't do it..... :D
Of all the people here, only BASHI (of all people) has stated unequivocally that Obama and the Democrats are wrong on a policy position..
I know, BASHI! Right??? :D
You can bloviate about "chess" all you want, but the FACTS are that Putin took a massive economic gamble in the Ukraine, it backfired HARD and he had to change course rapidly in order to avert an obviously self-inflicted catastrophe.
And yet, Putin still has the Crimea, a HUGE Strategic asset....
And Obama is standing there like a doofus with his dick in his hand....
As much as it pains me (ME of all people) to say, Putin wiped the floor with Obama...
But sure keep on quoting Limbaugh, talking points are so much more convincing than cold hard economic data.
I have never, nor will I ever listen to Limbaugh.. Since you recognize what I said as a Limbaugh quote, it's obvious that, of the two of us, you are the only one who listens to Limbaugh...
:D
Michale
Awwww carp!!!
It's not that Obama is always right,
Yea???
Prove it...
Give me a POLICY decision that Obama has made that's wrong... A decision having NOTHING to do with politics or Republicans...
Betcha a thousand quatloos you can't do it..... :D
Of all the people here, only BASHI (of all people) has stated unequivocally that Obama and the Democrats are wrong on a policy position..
I know, BASHI! Right??? :D
Michale
Of all the people here, only BASHI (of all people) has stated unequivocally that Obama and the Democrats are wrong on a policy position..
Of course, the usual caveats are in place... :D
Michale
"I have never, nor will I ever listen to Limbaugh.. Since you recognize what I said as a Limbaugh quote, it's obvious that, of the two of us, you are the only one who listens to Limbaugh."
Ehh, It's more that I just keep tabs on him, he's truly painful to listen to, as his show is basically a string of logical fallacies strung together by hate and vitriol. However, he does set the talking points for a large part of the Republican noise machine, the fact that you use these points and have no idea where they come from says a lot.
And in any case, Putin already HAD Crimea. It's the only seawater port for Russia that doesn't freeze over in the winter. He already had the bases, taking over the Crimea just added a whole bunch of population that can't feed or sustain itself without extensive subsidies and imports from Russia itself. But let reiterate this so you understand. Russian soldiers already were using Crimea as a strategic platform, "taking it over" just means that Russia and not Ukraine are responsible for a piece of land that has no value other than its location.
To make an analogy, It'd be like if the US annexed all of Cuba, and then tried to justify it by saying:
"Well Guantanamo bay was the only thing of strategic worth on the island, but we really really wanted to piss of the international community and tank our stock market, so we decided to try and govern the rest of the island."
"Are you going to do anything else with island usa?"
"No, Guantanamo Bay is the only thing that's of any conceivable strategic value, but Cuba irked us, so yah, TAKE THAT!"
"Won't governing Cuba be incredibly expensive and give no benefit other than what we already had?"
"You don't understand, Cuba IRKED us. We can't just let that slide by thinking rationally."
It was a move made out of pride and ego and in response the Russian stock market tanked.
As far as policy failures for Obama, I think a lot his decisions concerning wall street after we prevented it from cratering were and are mistakes. To big to fail should have been turned into too small to take us all with them, a lot people committed fraud and are still unpunished. Dodd Frank is basically just a crappier version of Glass-Steagal.
But then again, getting Republicans on board with the policy of "lets not all die in the flaming wreck wall street has put us in." Turned out to be, and still is, surprisingly difficult. You're an idiot if you opposed the bailout, but opposing reform that would make bailouts unnecessary is just mind boggling stupid. So basically, Obama put out the fire, left the underlying problems alone and moved onto reforming healthcare. I would consider that a policy failing, but it's not like he had the political capital to really spare anyway.
BTW, I deliberately ignored your last little "requirement." Talking about American politics while trying to fully ignore one half of the system and people involved is a bad idea. If you're talking about Republicans you have to think and talk about Democrats, and vice versa.
Basically, you're insisting that I craft with my argument while adhering to an arbitrary narrative standard. While talking about Obama while pretending republicans didn't exist might be interesting conceptually, it fails utterly to incorporate things like context and the ecosystem in which decisions were made.
So I won't. :-P
As far as policy failures for Obama, I think a lot his decisions concerning wall street after we prevented it from cratering were and are mistakes. To big to fail should have been turned into too small to take us all with them, a lot people committed fraud and are still unpunished. Dodd Frank is basically just a crappier version of Glass-Steagal.
Politics.... Obama didn't stick it to the Republican pigs/corporate scmbags good enough..
I am talking about a POLICY decision.. Like Gun Control.. Or putting out a welcome mat for illegals...
Stuff like that...
To hear ya'all tell it, Obama is perfect.. Never made ONE mistake.. The IRS, Fast/Furious, the VA, DOJ going after reporters, NONE of it was Obama's fault..
Yet, if it had been a GOP POTUS...
*ALL* of it would have been the POTUS's fault...
All I ask is that you hold a DEM POTUS to the same standard you would hold a GOP POTUS..
Apparently, that is too much to ask....
Michale
YoYoTheAssyrian,
As far as policy failures for Obama, I think a lot his decisions concerning wall street after we prevented it from cratering were and are mistakes. To big to fail should have been turned into too small to take us all with them, a lot people committed fraud and are still unpunished. Dodd Frank is basically just a crappier version of Glass-Steagal.
Au contraire!
Actually, Dodd-Frank is quite an accomplishment for the Obama administration, in general, and for Treasury Secretary Geithner, in particular.
I guess it shouldn't be surprising that so many people are obsessed with size but, as far as the fundamental elements of what caused the financial crisis of 2008 are concerned, the size of financial institutions ranks relatively low on that long list.
In any event, Dodd-Frank introduces a new concept: couldn't possibly be too big to fail! Of course, it will have to be put to the test but, the new capital requirements and rules of the road make it far more difficult for financial institutions to put themselves and, more importantly, the system as a whole, at risk.
However, if they should go down that dangerous road, Dodd-Frank provides for an orderly winding down of such outfits to put them out of their misery before they put the rest of us into ours. Barney Frank has a great phrase for this very important set of provisions: death panels. Heh.
As for Iraq's air force, "Iraq" doesn't really have an air force, does it?
And, it's a very good thing - for many citizens of the former Iraq - that the government in Baghdad does not have a competent air force at the ready. If that were the case, then it's not too hard to imagine how Maliki and his cohorts would use that kind of power to further oppress, repress and disenfranchise the Sunni minority and how we wouldn't need the religious ideology and/or stark brutality of an ISIS to get us where we are today.
I am totally mystified by the metaphor of Obama playing tiddlywinks while Putin plays chess. I think it's a slur, but how does this work?
The boards and pieces of the two games are completely different, as are the objectives and rules of play. If Obama is playing tiddlywinks and Putin (presumably shirtless) chess, then they aren't in competition with each other. Maybe somebody else (see below), but not each other. That doesn't seem right given the angry exchanges, sanctions incursions and G7 going to G8 and then back to G7 again.
Perhaps they playing with themselves? Better than farm animals. Perhaps they are in a contest not to play with themselves, like that Seinfeld episode. Could this be an obscure analogy to nuclear deterrence? Too obscure.
Does it imply that Putin is a really good chess player and Obama sucks? Then phrase it "Putin is a grand master of geopolitical chess, and Obama sucks at geopolitical chess" Much clearer.
Does the metaphor mean that Obama's job requires no intellectual skill, while Putin's does? "Tiddlywinks is sometimes considered a simpleminded, frivolous children's game, rather than a strategic, adult game." says Wikipedia. But, as the all knowing WikiP notes "the modern competitive adult game of tiddlywinks made a strong comeback at the University of Cambridge in 1955." (The Cambridge in England, home to Sir Issac Newton, on the river Cam, not the one in Ohio, on Route 40/22). "The modern game uses far more complex rules and a consistent set of high-grade equipment." Complex rules! High Grade Equipment! This is the very stuff of Tom Clancy! Tiddlywinks combines strategic thinking and physical dexterity! Like bowling or curling. Chess combines strategic thinking with sitting.
So, where's the slur?
And yet, Putin still has the Crimea, a HUGE Strategic asset....
How so? Other than a 3rd rate beach resort and a bunch of pale Russian pensioners? A land locked naval base, with obsolescent ships?
It's not connected to Russia, it gets water and utilities from the Ukraine. It trades its wares mostly with Ukraine, not with Russia.
It's A Huge White Elephant.
YoYoTheAssyrian [1] -
I saw the info (what there was of it) on wiki, and thought about doing further research (looking at Jayne's, perhaps, or just calling up the Pentagon and asking them their assessment of Iraqi air power -- their PR office is actually very responsive, I've found), but I thought the key idea was more "why the heck isn't anyone even TALKING about it" rather than doing an in-depth analysis. One thing I noticed on wiki was the aircraft listed as "to be delivered in early 2014"... well, it's mid-2014, so what happened?
Michale [2] -
As I said, there's plenty of blame to go around. How long did Bush have to do this? Five or six years? So why didn't he? Lots and lots and lots of blame, all over the map.
LewDan [3] -
I don't fully buy that. We've long sold our "second-best" (or third- or fourth-best) generation of military hardware (tanks, planes) to countries in the region. That way, they can have a certain amount of power to project (to counter things like a blitzkreig rebel force), but they'll never threaten us, since our hardware is much further advanced.
Michale [4] -
We're not alone. NOBODY seems to have any answer to that question. Not Cheney (saw multiple interviews with him in the past week, he had no answer at all other than to gripe about the past and Obama), not any other GOPer, not any (to be fair) Dem. This seems to reflect public opinion -- nobody's happy about what's happening, but then again very very few are pushing a hawkish "send in some US troops" answer, either.
Michale [7] -
You're right, the Obama Poll Watch for June is going to be grim for Obama fans, but I distinctly recall you predicting "below 40%." I can look it up, if you need me to.
Heh.
TheStig [9] -
"The plan to get American troops out of Iraq has always been to "get them to stand up, so we can stand down.""
As in so many things post-Saddam, this turned out to be slogan masquerading as a plan.
Well, at least we didn't come up with a stupid name for it, like "Vietnamization." That's got to count for something, right?
:-)
Seriously, though, you're right -- Bremer has a lot to answer for. His "Iraq Order Number One" (I forget the actual name of it, but that's pretty close, I bet) was the biggest disaster in planning during the entire misadventure.
Thanks for that Atlantic link, I will check it out! The Saudi "look the other way" policy on Sunni support for terrorist groups is a BIG part of the problem, I agree completely.
Michale [11] -
No, I don't agree. As I said, there is plenty of blame to go around. Except maybe for Biden, at this point.
I believe the correct military term (under both Bush and Obama) is "Charlie Foxtrot," is it not?
:-)
And, as I said, no one on the right wants to talk about fixing the problem, either. In case you haven't noticed, they've been playing lots of blame game, too.
YoYo [15] -
Well done! We never learned the real lesson of the success during the surge: the biggest factor was the "Sunni Awakening" and the surge never would have succeeded without it. It's a longshot now, but then again, so is everything else.
I think the 300 (and I bet Michale will agree with this) were sent primarily as targeting teams, to "paint" targets with lasers, so our air power can hit the right targets. IF (that is) we decide to go ahead with airstrikes. Big if, that.
I remember wondering about the lack of training for the IAF, during the last few years of our active involvement, but when researching this article, I couldn't find the earlier article I am almost positive I wrote on the subject.
Michale [18] -
What gets me is the people who won't pronounce "Isis" the way it should be -- some spell it out "I-S-I-S" and I heard Cheney actually call them "isss-isss," but maybe he was just speaking in his native Parseltongue. Heh.
David [21] -
My wife watches Archer. Didja hear they're doing a "Flash" on the same network? But I have to admit, I thought what Michale thought... kinda dates us both, I know... but there it is... I remember the Isis show as being totally hokey and camp, but with some fine women's costumes. OK, so I was a adolescent male, so that may have had something to do with it, I admit...
:-)
[OK, I'm going to post this. Don't want to lose it and have to retype it... but I will continue answering the rest in my next comment...]
-CW
Oh, general question [call this "intermission"]:
What did everyone think of the authenticity of those video releases? Think they're real? I have nothing to base an opinion on either way, but I was surprised that no one has even bothered to question them, personally, so I'd be interested in hearing what others think.
-CW
Michale [22] -
Were any of the polled those who had been raped or murdered by Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS)??? If not, then I would say their opinions are not really relevant...
Let me further rephrase that a bit: were any of them actually involved in SELLING WEAPONS to Saddam back then??? If so, I would say their opinions are nothing more than cheap revisionism. Do I have to dig up that photo of Rumsfeld shaking his hand? Really? How quickly we all forget...
TheStig [24] -
I see the Iraqi air force as a very low priority in this conflict.
OK, but I was more trying to address the long-term question -- the strategic impact, not just the tactical impact right now.
The rest of your comment is the best I've yet read on what it would take, and what the limitations would be. But I have to say -- the videos show either JDAMs or guided missiles (they'd have to be, with that precision), so how would that change the calculus?
YoYo [26] -
Also, both Russia and Obama achieved an objective this week, as all the declared chemical weapons in Syria are now out of the country. This isn't a panacea, but it is progress of a sort, even if it did get lost in the media shuffle.
Man, I shudder to think how many ground wars we'd still be involved in right now with either President Romney or President McCain. Can anyone even keep track? Six? Seven?
Michale [30] -
No one "likes" war, long or otherwise..
The test of character is the lengths one will go to to AVOID war...
Wait... what? Please expand on this theme, as it sounds like one I might actually agree with. Keep names (Bush, Obama) out of your answer, and stick with general principles, as I am truly interested to hear what you're actually saying here.
Michale [31] -
As much as it pains me (ME of all people) to say, Putin wiped the floor with Obama.
You mean, like he wiped the floor with Bush in Ossetia? Just sayin'...
YoYo [34] -
Good Cuba example. Just had to say that. I might have tried to use the Phillipines, or maybe Okinawa, but Cuba certainly works for your main argument.
:-)
TheStig [39] -
OK, I'll take a crack at this. The common expression is "playing chess while your opponent plays checkers" which signifies playing a game far advanced, but on the same playing field (a checkerboard = a chessboard). Michale takes this one step further, in an example of reductio ad absurdum, as tiddlywinks is even more of a "little kids'" game, rather than the advanced game of chess. By doing so, he blew away the "on the same playing field" part of the metaphor, but c'mon, you really did know what he was talking about, didn't you?
:-)
It's like when he says "that's comparing apples and battleships"...
By all that's holy, am I defending Michale's metaphors now? Man, I gotta get some sleep. All this comment-answering is obviously getting to me...
:-)
-CW
No one "likes" war, long or otherwise..
The test of character is the lengths one will go to to AVOID war...
Wait... what? Please expand on this theme, as it sounds like one I might actually agree with. Keep names (Bush, Obama) out of your answer, and stick with general principles, as I am truly interested to hear what you're actually saying here.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
In other words, a "PEACE AT ANY COST" philosophy is nothing more than slavery...
Michale
As I said, there's plenty of blame to go around. How long did Bush have to do this? Five or six years? So why didn't he? Lots and lots and lots of blame, all over the map.
I concede that. But no one here in Weigantia (save you) will reciprocate...
Every time someone brings up the 2nd Iraq war, it's always "Bush's war" thereby failing to acknowledge the FACT that it's as much the "Democrat's war" as it is Bush's...
It's all part and parcel to the same theme. Under a GOP POTUS, *everything* is the POTUS's fault..
Under a DEM POTUS, *NOTHING* is the POTUS's fault...
You're right, the Obama Poll Watch for June is going to be grim for Obama fans, but I distinctly recall you predicting "below 40%." I can look it up, if you need me to.
Oh I did.. And it's going to be close... :D
You mean, like he wiped the floor with Bush in Ossetia? Just sayin'...
Ossetia had no strategic value...
Other than that, you're right...
By all that's holy, am I defending Michale's metaphors now? Man, I gotta get some sleep. All this comment-answering is obviously getting to me...
hehehehehehe
Michale
CW-
"But I have to say -- the videos show either JDAMs or guided missiles (they'd have to be, with that precision), so how would that change the calculus?"
All the videos I've seem have the signature of Hellfire missile attacks. Small explosion on impact and/or a rocket boost. Depends on the video, and I believe a lot of the videos are a different view of the same event. The Iraqi AF has a small number of Apache attack copters armed with Hellfire.
The Hellfire gives the launch platform up to about 5 miles of standoff from the target, but the Apache is NOT a fire and forget weapon. It uses semiactive homing, something has to illuminate the target with either laser light or microwaves. That something can be the helicopter, or somebody on the ground. Either way, somebody has to first find a potential target and decide if it's hostile and worth attacking. Acquisition tends to be the rate limiting step, usually by a large margin.
Being the designator is a vulnerable position to be in on the ground or in the air. Especially if the other side can sense your illumination and home in on it.
The advantage of a high flying drone like Predator is that it can do all of this from 25,000 feet (just at or above effective MANPAD ranges), it can loiter for a long time scouting for targets, and it's unmanned. Iraq doesn't have any Predator drones, and I doubt Iran has any equivalents it can give them.
All this doesn't change the calculus so much as define it, along with many other limiting factors. Hellfires are a game best played by a well financed, technically advanced, highly trained professional military that knows how to work combined arms.
Here's a nice primer on how the Hellfire works; a bit dated, but so is Hellfire! Hellfire is so cheap, so light, so adaptable and so effective that it's defied replacement. Like the Sidewinder air to air missile, it's aged gracefully.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/docs/1helfire.pdf
Re 47, make that "Hellfire is not a fire and forget weapon."
CW-RE 43 RE 39
The New Yorker Magazine used to run a little marginal feature called "Block that Metaphor." I remember it fondly.
The checkers:chess analogy really doesn't work any better than tiddlywinks:chess. You just can't merge the rules. Ted Cruz used it anyway. So did Michael Goodwin of Fox News. So did Jonathan Adelman on Fox News. Once a meme, however dumb, gets on a Murdoch media platform it takes the next train and spreads quickly to other stations far and wide, never to go away. I think that metaphor works.
Anyhow, the tiddlywinks:chess meme shows up a lot on minor league conservative blogs.
To be fair, the basic principle applies to some left of center blogs too. As Michael would be quick to point out.
To be fair, the basic principle applies to some left of center blogs too. As Michael would be quick to point out.
I was all set to do so, then you deflated my fun!! :D
Regardless of which metaphor you choose to use, it's clear that Putin has outclassed Obama at EVERY turn..
Obama is a great theorist...
But he is simply a crappy leader...
Michale
Michale [44] -
Is that a quote? Robert Heinlein has said very similar things (I can look it up if you're interested, most likely in "Starship Troopers"). But then he was in the Navy, I believe.
TheStig -
Thanks for the Hellfire info. Hadn't watched the videos that closely (or in slow motion). But it fits in with that ABC story about how they need more Hellfires, that's for sure.
-CW
Is that a quote? Robert Heinlein has said very similar things (I can look it up if you're interested, most likely in "Starship Troopers"). But then he was in the Navy, I believe.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_stuart_mill.html
Michale
Is that a quote? Robert Heinlein has said very similar things (I can look it up if you're interested, most likely in "Starship Troopers"). But then he was in the Navy, I believe.
So...???
Is it something that you "actually agree with"??? :D
Michale
A link to Terry Gross' interview with war correspondent Dexter Filkins, now working at the New Yorker.
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/25/325503790/journalist-dexter-filkins-explains-bitter-consequences-of-iraq-war
The following insight about ISIS is particularly intriguing:
"FILKINS: Well, look, I think, you know, there's no way to tell what's going to happen. But my guess is that they're going to end up having the same problems that they had before, which is the Iraqis aren't going to go for this ultimately. These guys, they've proven this before. They don't really have an interest in governing. They don't know how to govern. They're not very sophisticated. What they really like to do is kill people. And this is what happened when the Americans were there. It backfired ultimately because ordinary Iraqis were disgusted and appalled and found a way to get rid of them. Back in 2006 and 2007, what they did was they went to the Americans. And they said look, you help us, we help you. And here's where they live. And literally, you can have discussions - and I had discussions with Sunni Sheikhs, guys who were very, very close to the insurgency. They went to the Americans, literally with lists of names and said here are the al-Qaida guys. Here's where they live, go at them. And that's how - and so you had just in areas of Anbar Province, where ISIS is now, the violence just plummeted, you know, over the course of a few months. It went from being apocalyptic to very, very peaceful. I think what makes it difficult now is that, you know, the Americans are not around basically. And so who are they going to turn to?"
TS,
Sounds like he is making the case that Americans DID do some good while we were there...
The America-Bashers amongst us ain't gonna like that.. :D
Michale
M -
Not in the long run, and it's the long run that counts. When the sheiks came to the American operatives with their lists, the Americans should have continued the conversation with "very good, but why are you giving us this list, instead of acting upon it yourselves. Do you lack this fundamental ability to handle your own affairs?"
They would have said, "No, no but it is very complicated."
To which the Americans should have replied, "ah, that is indeed so, but in what ways do you propose we help you fulfill the leadership responsibilities that Allah has given you."
In plain language tell the sheiks, we'll help with critical capabilities and training, maybe even watch your back a bit, but do your own dirty work thank you very much.
Instead of just letting the Sheiks off the hook, absolving them of political accountability (Iraq style tribal accountability). That wasn't/isn't a viable long term solution, unless the US proposes to handle Iraq police matters in perpetuity - which the American People are rightfully unwilling to do. For which they should not condemned as weak.
By the way, it helps if you imagine the above conversation using the voices of Alec Guinness and Peter O'Toole. "Lawrence of Arabia" is bollocks as history, but as a fable illustrating the power and pitfalls of working with a culture instead of trying to reinvent into a version of your own, it's still terrific.
If only the USA had a talent like T.E. Lawrence back in 2006-7. But better if we had just skipped the whole "weapons of mass destruction" muddle.
If only the USA had a talent like T.E. Lawrence back in 2006-7. But better if we had just skipped the whole "weapons of mass destruction" muddle.
You mean, like we did in Syria??
If we had emboldened Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS) like we emboldened Assad, it's not hard to postulate a reasonable scenario where things are 20 times worse then they are now..
Michale
But better if we had just skipped the whole "weapons of mass destruction" muddle.
Of course, that fact that it was PROVEN that Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS) DID in fact possess WMDs doesn't enter into your thought process at all, right??
Ya know, for a group that contends to be all about FACTS, you Lefties sure find a way to ignore the facts that are, shall we say, "inconvenient" to ya'alls ideological beliefs... :D
Michale