Islamic State threat: Coalition pledges more troops for Iraq


#1

The US-led coalition fighting Islamic State (IS) militants has pledged to send an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq, a top US commander said on Monday.

Lt Gen James Terry who is co-ordinating efforts against IS said the soldiers would be in addition to 3,100 US soldiers already promised.

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30388718?ocid=socialflow_twitter


#2

Do they think Iraq will ever have a good army to defend itself?

This could be the never ending story.


#3

God Bless all our young and wonderful military being sent - they deserve our support and especially the support of those in positions of power. They are brave and loving. They deserve all that we can do for them by making those who have the authority to be the
“best that they can be”.


#4

Yes. They have been getting so many mixed messages about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they follow their orders and bravely serve. Having to return to Iraq must be a big blow to them after so much work and so many sacrifices they made. This is a true and dangerous evil they are facing over there.


#5

The Kurds in northern Iraq will, if they do not already, have a good army. The rest of Iraq, not unless there are some major internal and external changes to Iraq and international support of it.


#6

We don’t know much about the Iranian-dominated part of Iraq, or at least I don’t. We do know there are Iranian forces in Iraq. Probably some of the Shiite militias are being armed and trained by Iran.

One suspects there may be no such thing as “the rest of Iraq”. Iran’s people are in charge of the government. Sunnis do not want to be ruled by Iranian agents now, any more than they did when ISIS first invaded Iraq. The Kurds are interested in as much independence as they can get, and have zero interest in coming under Iranian domination .

So the big “hole” is any kind of Sunni Iraqi organizing person, organization or principle in opposition to ISIS.

It would now take an enormous effort on the part of the west to put Iraq back together again. And putting it back together under Iranian influence won’t work now, any more than it did when Maliki was in power.

It’s all a terrible shame, and didn’t have to happen. Interestingly, Arab Shiites are not Iranians, and have not wanted to come under Iranian domination either. But when there’s no choice, there’s no choice. At one time, the U.S. forces were wanted by the Sunni, the Kurds and the Arab Shiites. But we left them to the Iran/Sunni war which was widely predicted if we left.


#7

Considering all that has been revealed regarding the lack of " smooth running nation governments" of the mideastern countries, it seems like “helping” one to become stable and self sufficient is a pipe dream. So much blood and treasure has been spilled, to have gained some safety, has been negated by our premature/abrupt departure. The corrupt powers that be just grabbed it all back and here we go again. Here a threat, there a threat, everywhere a threat. Sounds like “Ole McDonald had a Farm” .

Its hard to comprehend how the soldiers that were established to defend their own homeland would abandon all their weapons to terrorists that killed mothers, children and aged at the drop of a hat (even if it did have a head in it :rolleyes:) and flee. Its extra hard to be willing to allow our military forces to again get in there and rid the populated towns and villages of the vermin. The alternative is using drones or mega bombing which ends in innocent lives lost because the vermin uses them as shields.

This is the mess that has been handed to us through our own politics. Hope we can get it together fast!


#8

Because the Iraqi soldiers are poorly trained, poorly led, and most importantly poorly motivated.


#9

Their government and armed forces were dominated by Iranian influences. It is difficult for us in the west to realize just how much Iran is distrusted/hated/feared among Sunni Arabs in the Middle East.


#10

I watched Sec of State Kerry in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on CSPAN. A few gave him the grief I think this admin deserves…yet most will probably be compelled to vote in favor of a new and wide ranging Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against IS. Kerry repeated the mantra the President would use no combat troops against IS yet was insistent there be no restrictions on using combat troops against IS – just in case they need be used for a short time. (I wonder if some pentagon officials have the president second guessing himself?).

I pray for the troops who have to deal with a lot of avoidable issues this admin propagates. Selfishly, I feel quite relieved my son and a couple of nephews fulfilled their enlistments; though some have scars that most of us just can’t understand. This president doesn’t for sure…


#11

This administration’s foreign policy is so confused and self-defeating, I question whether Kerry has any idea what it’s going to do. I’m reasonably sure, though, that those in the Pentagon and knowledgeable people in government have told Obama and/or Kerry that the “coalition” efforts against ISIS are going to fail without significant commitment of competent ground troops.

Obama made “getting out of iraq” one of the centerpieces of his presidential campaign in 2008. One wonders, then, whether he has hopes of sort of containing ISIS until he’s out of office, but leaving it open for his successor to do what he can’t, politically, do himself.

If we see Hillary getting hawklike in the near future, but no troops under Obama, we’ll know that’s the deal.


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.