New US Military Command Established for Iraq and Syria Operations
12.06.2014 at 04:28am
New US Military Command Established for Iraq and Syria Operations by Dan Lamothe, Washington Post
The U.S. military has established a new command that will oversee operations in both Iraq and Syria, military officials said Friday.
Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve has taken charge of the mission in both countries. It is led by Army Lt. Gen. James L. Terry, the commanding general of U.S. Army Central. That organization oversees Army operations across the Middle East, including in Iraq…
Does anyone else get the same feeling we have been down this road in 2003.
1. over 3000 none boots on the ground
2. air bombing campaign
3. new military command
Still no apparent national level strategy, thousands of refugees still on the move who we once declared was a serious problem, Assad still dropping bombs and barrel bombs on civilians while we fly drones next to his air strikes, joint air operations now with the Iranian AF, and the “allowed” use of Shia militia against Sunni civilians with massive “overreach”.
And just what did we learn from our lessons learned on Iraq?—apparently nothing.
All the while a far more dangerous situation that has a nuclear button staring us in the face —is allowed to just drift gently in the wind after not even attempting to enforce an “agreement” we signed with great fanfare.
Can honestly understand why many countries “mistrust” the US since 2003—would you?
#StraightTalk from @GeneralClark Putin the most dangerous Russian leader since Stalin
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/shepard-smith/index.html#/v/3924268417001 …
pic.twitter.com/6Gg2VCH4Kn
Outlaw:
Re: your recognition of:
a. Our rather significant action re: the “black flag wavers” (for example, our establishment of a new US military command for Iraq and Syria),
b. And, in comparison, our significant lack of action re: Putin,
What do you think is the cause and/or reasoning behind such a lack of action in, shall we say, Europe?
Might we suggest — exactly by our lack of rhetoric and action re: Putin — that we are signaling to the Europeans that (1) this is now their area of responsibility and their AO and that, accordingly, they (not the U.S.) need to step up to the plate accordingly?
Or do we — and the Europeans — both believe that, in fact, the best course of action, re: Putin, is to simply let him blow off steam — and, indeed, let him blow himself out of the water (by, for example, overreaching and overspending, in a time of significantly shrinking funds/resources) — this, given fact that Putin, in this regard, does seem to be his own best adversary/enemy?
(Napoleon: “If the enemy is defeating himself, make damn sure you do not get in his way.” [Or words to that effect.])
The end state of Inherent Resolve is an inherent alliance with Iran. Our “advisers” must stay isolated on bases far from front lines. Iranian soldiers, advisers, generals and pilots are on the front lines with Iraqi army and Shiite militias and in the ops centers in Baghdad. All US aid is delivered through the Shiite government. All Iraqi officers know we are temporary help, certain to leave and unable to persuade the State Dept to issue visas to any Iraqis who want to leave with us. So we have no leverage, no inside information except elint and no credible mission, unless one believes advisers who cannot go on the battlefield are listened to.
Our policy of aligning as a subordinate rear echelon to Iran makes sense only if helps to lead to an ambiguous nuclear deal that the administration will advertise as its singular foreign policy achievement – at the undisclosed price of alienating all Sunni governments. Why the JCS are setting up a senior command to facilitate this masquerade is puzzling. – Bing West
All comments about our foreign policy and strategy (or lack thereof) aside.
A combined joint task force? Why wouldn’t one be established? If we are going to conduct sustained military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan we should establish a proper headquarters.
We ought to offer the press the opportunity to read some doctrinal manuals so they would know what are normal military operations and procedures (any member of the press can download any joint doctrine publication from the Joint Electronic Library at this link: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/) Move along, nothing really new or unusual to see here.
A question for the more-knowledgeable and more-informed:
Given the West’s overriding/overarching strategic objective: To gain greater power, influence and control in the Middle East; this, to be achieved by having the populations of the Middle East come to embrace modern western political, economic and social ideas and norms.
Given (1) this objective and (2) this approach,
Then which group — Shia or Sunni — is, in fact, more-progressively inclined and, thus, more likely to become our “natural ally” via its embrace of such western-like reforms?
Likewise, which group (Shia or Sunni) is most likely to dig in its heals; resist “modernizing/modernization” along modern western political, economic and social lines and, instead, seek to gain (or retain) alternative ways of life and alternative ways of governance?
The U.S./the West, thus, and re: its perceived nation interests, to best be served by:
a. Allying itself with the group (Shia or Sunni) most likely to embrace western reforms and by
b. Standing against the group (Shia or Sunni) who is less likely to do so.
(Or, within these Shia and Sunni communities, are there, in fact: (a) equal and opposed numbers of reformers, defenders of the status quo and/or proponents of the status quo anti and, therefore, (b) really no “natural ally” for the United States to choose over the other, to work with against the other?)
Attempting now to come full circle re: this thread:
If we do have one group (Shia or Sunni) that is more western-reform oriented/inclined, then could the establishment of a new U.S. military command in the Middle East be seen in the light that I have offered above, to wit: As a means/method to work with this more-pro-western reform group (Shia or Sunni), and against the other, in the pursuit of our nation’s interests (as outlined in my second paragraph above)?
When it is all said and done and after one reads the following tweets from the Sec of State–just again what is the strategy?
So we know:
1. Assad is a tyrant
2. the population should not have to choose
3. there has to be a middle way forward
First yes we will support the SFA and then train/send arms and then we did neither and again we are back to the FSA?
So does anyone see a strategy in those generic actions/statements?
U.S. Embassy Syria ✔ @USEmbassySyria
.@JohnKerry: Syrians should not have to choose between a tyrant and the terrorists. Those are both dead ends. #Syria
#SecKerry: Asad’s ruthless reign has fueled #ISIL’s rise & enabled terrorists to portray themselves as the only alternative to the dictator.
.@JohnKerry: We favor a third option – the moderate Syrian opposition who are fighting both extremists and Assad every day. #Syria
A/the possible bottom line re: this new military command:
It appears that we have learned that:
a. Whether we use military force to overthrow a regime (Iraq and Afghanistan).
b. Or simply stand to the side and, in some other manner, support members of the local population in their efforts to overthrow a regime (Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.)
In both and indeed in all these cases, we are likely to have to deal with — militarily — the negative “fallout” and chaos that results from these such actions.
Thus, not from the standpoint of “globalization” do we have to deal with these matters militarily,
But, rather, from the standpoint of our efforts — military or otherwise — to transform, via regime change, outlying states and societies more along along modern western lines.
And given that this cat is already out of the bag, then the non-use of the military to deal with the consequences of American-induced/inspired regime change (or attempts thereof); this seems to be an option that we, in fact, just do not have.