Excerpts: BAGHDAD/WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. military carried out a retaliatory strike in Baghdad on Thursday that killed a militia leader it blames for recent attacks on U.S. personnel, a U.S. official told Reuters. The U.S. military has come under attack at least 100 times in Iraq and Syria since the Israel-Hamas war began in October, usually with a mix of rockets and one-way attack drones. The United States has 2,500 troops deployed in Iraq and 900 in neighbouring Syria in a bid to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State militants. The statement described the militia group as an Iraqi force operating with the authorisation of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani. Prime Minister Al-Sudani has limited control over some Iran-backed factions, whose support he needed to win power a year ago and who now form a powerful bloc in his governing coalition. https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...lled-baghdad-drone-strike-sources-2024-01-04/ Biden should tell the Iraqi PM that his government must exert control over the Iranian-backed militias and stop all of these attacks on U.S. forces. If he can't or won't do that, all U.S. forces in Iraq should leave. The mission of U.S. forces in Iraq is anti-terrorism (primarily against remnants of ISIS) and training of Iraqi forces. In the absence of U.S. forces in Iraq, the U.S. could still provide the Iraqis with signals intelligence and airborne surveillance on ISIS cells without having boots on the ground. The U.S. could "train the trainers" elsewhere, such as in the U.S. or Europe. Those Iraqis would then train their own troops back in Iraq. In my opinion, the continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is absolutely unnecessary. The U.S. survived 227 years without a permanent military presence in Iraq, and we can survive without it now as well. If I were the POTUS, I'd give the Iraqi PM a week to consult with his own government, and then the attacks would be stopped permanently, or we would immediately withdraw all U.S. forces. One way or the other. The status quo cannot continue.
There are a lot of ins and a lot of outs. This surface level stuff about preventing an IS resurgence is just that. It is a complex region that can't just be thought of in terms of governments and national borders. The Middle East is not North America, where these sorts of things are pretty cut 'n dried because we built our own nations and governments and don't have nearly the same level of internal instability, nor the kind of international complications that they have. Canada isn't out to wipe Ecuador off the map, to draw a simple analogy.
This actually answers a question of mine, which was where were the security forces of Iraq and Syria as our troops were being attacked? Well, it turns out that they were the ones performing the attacks! Is this a sign that we should withdraw? Or, is this sufficient evidence that we now have an opening to go back to war with Iraq???
I see no reason to go to war with Iraq. We are there now to help them. Therefore, we either stay with their consent and protection, or we leave. The Iraqi government should be given those options to choose between.
Well, this gets into another thing I'm thinking about. Islam isn't able to police itself. And they allow all sorts of groups to run around free in their society. Groups that will always attack American troops that are stationed in the Middle East. Part of the reason that there are American troops in the Middle East is to prevent those groups from growing into a threat and coming here and committing another 9/11 attack or something similar on American shores.
Yes, but those groups that attack our forces should not be groups supported by the same government that is also accepting our help and support. Again, if I were the POTUS, I would give the Iraqi government about a week to talk it over among themselves. Depending on what they decided, we would stay and continue to help them with safety and security, or we would pick up and go. No status quo, no compromises. One or the other. As POTUS, I wouldn't sacrifice even one young American life for Iraq under the current environment.
I am reminded of the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan, and I can understand if Biden wants no part of another withdrawal and the negative press that goes with that. Biden will hope to keep it out of the press because of the coming election. He won't want to stir the pot.
Look, whether you agree with me or not, I think you know I was honest and I articulated my POV. I stood up for the safety of our precious young people. I demanded that the Iraqis protect them. If I was running for reelection, I would be proud to take that position very publicly.
You mean well, but there is so much more going on here than just an anti-terrorism operation. We can't quit or leave. It's Armageddon, and you're worried about a few lives. Alone it's a noble cause, but the military doesn't exist just for the personal lives of its members. All of us are relying on them to hold the line during this time of strife. The future will be shaped by the outcome of what happens now.
No, the military doesn't exist for the personal lives of its members. WE, the electorate, and the government we choose DO bare responsibility for the lives of these patriotic, high quality young people. I cannot and will not support putting them into a country that takes what they offer with one hand, while killing them with the other. Choosing to do that to them is utterly f-cked! Those young patriots are the best of us, and they deserve better. WE owe that to them.
Do I have to spell it out for you? There is one big line from Iran to Israel, and the only thing standing in the way of a massive move from Iran into Israel are the US Troops stationed in Syria and Iraq. If it weren't for those American Troops stationed there, we wouldn't have had any forces in position to discover, track, and stop the Iranian transports carrying troops, weapons, and supplies into the battlefront with Israel. We would have already been in a hot war with Iran. Now, basically, everyone in that line from Iran through Iraq and Syria is either part of Iran's terror empire or too afraid to stand up to the ones who are. Until Iran gets fed up with conflict and terrorism, and I hear that they got a taste of their own medicine when ISIS blew up their funeral procession, and until Iran puts that business behind them, we need troops deployed in the Middle East.
I think you are underestimating our intelligence capabilities. We don't need troops on the ground to discover and track Iranian movements of personnel and materiel. Iran has just under a million active and reserve army troops. There is no way they could move a sizable force across Iraq and Syria without discovery by our intelligence assets. And 3000 U.S. troops aren't what would stop them. It would be air power. Our air assets would take a gigantic toll upon an Iranian force trying to cross Iraq and Syria on the ground. The Iranians are bad actors, but they are not stupid.
Pardon me while I search my YouTube history for the video I saw about the discovery of Iran's smuggling trail and its being dealt with shortly after the start of the Israeli-Hamas war.
Never mind. My hands are tired of scrolling through my YouTube history for one video. I watch way too much YouTube.
Well, this should make you happy: Iraq is giving us the boot. Iraq prepares to close down US-led coalition's mission - PM (msn.com)
