US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

The_Zergling

The_Zergling

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


American commanders in Iraq acknowledge that they are now funding and arming Sunni insurgents to supposedly help fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, most notably in the Al Anbar Province:

American officers who have engaged in what they call outreach to the Sunni groups say many of them have had past links to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia but grew disillusioned with the Islamic militants’ extremist tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. In exchange for American backing, these officials say, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American units. Commanders who have undertaken these negotiations say that in some cases, Sunni groups have agreed to alert American troops to the location of roadside bombs and other lethal booby traps.

But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans’ arming both sides in a future civil war.
Click to expand...

Certainly not the first time in history we've seen this sort of situation:

* Rome arming Germanic tribes to fight other Germanic tribes.
* United States arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
* United States arming Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war.

As far as I can tell the reasoning behind this policy is the motto, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Of course, this represents short-term reasoning. The current circumstances make this sort of alliance somewhat logical. Yet what happens when things change? What happens when the very Sunnis that we are now arming decide to fight the very Shiites, such as Nouri al-Maliki, that we installed into power?

Or even more fundamentally, if the rationale for us remaining in Iraq is based on our long-term good, then why are we implementing a short-term strategy that will end up being a net-negative in the long-run? That is a paradox if I have ever seen one.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Or even more fundamentally, if the rationale for us remaining in Iraq is based on our long-term good, then why are we implementing a short-term strategy that will end up being a net-negative in the long-run? That is a paradox if I have ever seen one.
Click to expand...

I can sum this whole situation up with one word..Stupid...I wonder who's idea was this..really????
 
bigstick61

bigstick61

Junior Member
It's actually a really good idea and it is something we have done in the past to win in these types of conflicts.
 
The_Zergling

The_Zergling

Junior Member
bigstick61 said:
It's actually a really good idea and it is something we have done in the past to win in these types of conflicts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it has helped 'win' the conflict itself i.e. Soviets in Afghanistan, but long-term we're now fighting the former mujahideen Al-Qaeda.
 
bigstick61

bigstick61

Junior Member
My personal feeling is that the factions fighting the US and colition partners in Iraq cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...

Who's saying that we're trusting them? Utilizing them and trusting them are not necessarily one and the same. It is likely that we are taking the appropriate precautions, such as observing their MO, bases of operation, identifying leaders, and such, just in case they ever turn on us; another good idea would be implanitng tracking chips in the weapons we give them. For now it is useful, and doing this is by no means unprecedented.

Perhaps it has helped 'win' the conflict itself i.e. Soviets in Afghanistan, but long-term we're now fighting the former mujahideen Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

What I meant by types of conflicts was other insurgencies. The US has successfully fought all of them except in Vietnam, due to a dismissal of prior strategies.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Who's saying that we're trusting them? Utilizing them and trusting them are not necessarily one and the same.
Click to expand...

In my opinion some sort of trust should be built up in order to arm the insurgents/terroist/religious extremist. I don't trust them as far as I could throw them. They want, you, I and everyone one you know that is not thinking like them dead. No way I would ever trust or utilize them. Just my opinion.
 
bigstick61

bigstick61

Junior Member
Well, the intelligence and knowledge of the local conditions and additional manpower they provide is invaluable in such operations and most definitely worth it. These aren't jihadists, BTW.
 
The_Zergling

The_Zergling

Junior Member
bigstick61 said:
Well, the intelligence and knowledge of the local conditions and additional manpower they provide is invaluable in such operations and most definitely worth it. These aren't jihadists, BTW.
Click to expand...

First off, it’s well known that more US troops are killed by Sunni insurgents supplied with Saudi and American weaponry than by anything Iranian, yet increases in violence are constantly linked to Iran by the White House and people like Joe Lieberman. Secondly, we’ve been supporting Sunnis not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East with groups such as Fatah al-Islam. This particular US-backed group is currently fighting with the US-backed government in Lebanon. Blowback anyone? Third, these insurgents are supposed to fight al-Qaeda. Does anyone in the military remember that al-Qaeda is also a radical Sunni group, started with aid and training from the US? We are essentially training new terrorists to fight the old terrorists we created the exact same way almost 20 years ago.

Al-Qaeda started out as a group of 'freedom fighters' determined to ultimately drive out the invaders (Soviets) from their land. Disturbing, I know.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
V-22 Osprey declared ready for combat

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


V-22 Osprey Declared Ready For Combat, Will Miss Air Show

June 15, 2007: 12:39 PM EST

PARIS -(Dow Jones)- The V-22 Osprey has been declared ready for combat, a big step in its pending deployment to Iraq, the U.S. Marine Corps said this week.

The V-22, made by Boeing Co. (BA) and Textron Inc.'s (TXT) Bell Helicopter unit, finally reached initial operational capability, after decades of development and a few high-profile setbacks. The program has faced deadly crashes and manufacturing troubles, but now seems to have gotten on track.

In September, the V-22 is due to make its combat debut in Iraq. The tilt-rotor aircraft can take off like a helicopter but fly like a plane, enabling it to fly faster and higher than traditional helicopters.

The Osprey also is moving toward bulk production. The contractors and the Pentagon are working on a multi-year production contract that could be signed in late 2007. The Marines say they want to replace helicopters with Ospreys at a rate of two squadrons per year.

Prospective foreign buyers will be watching closely to see how the Ospreys perform in the field. The U.S. Navy recently hosted a private air show for officials from 16 countries who wanted to see the aircraft in person.

But the U.S. isn't sending any V-22 aircraft to next week's Paris Air Show, the biggest aerospace trade show of the year. Prospective buyers will have to make do with a delegation of U.S. officials who will be available to talk about the new aircraft.

For the Marines, all eyes are on Iraq. In a press release announcing the combat-capable declaration, the Marines said the aircraft performed well during a recent round of desert testing.

"You name it, we did it, and the aircraft held up very well. And we operated it in a gritty, windy, austere environment, and maintained a very high tempo," said Col. Keith Danel, commander of the VMX-22 squadron
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top