White House to send more troops into combat against ISIS
Stars & Stripes reports that Ashton Carter, the Secretary of Defense, told Congress yesterday that the White House authorized that special forces in Iraq will directly engage ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, in contradiction to the policy they expressed earlier this year;
The special operators will assist the Iraqis and peshmerga forces as well as conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture Islamic State leaders, according to Carter’s testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. The secretary also said the United States also could increase the number of military trainers in Iraq and special operators deployed to Syria.
[…]
“In full coordination with the government of Iraq, we’re deploying a specialized expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish peshmerga forces and to put even more pressure on [the Islamic State group],” Carter told the committee in written testimony. “These special operators will over time be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture [Islamic State] leaders. That creates a virtuous cycle of better intelligence, which generates more targets, more raids, and more momentum.”
Yeah, well, if they’d done that from the beginning instead of hemming and hawing about the implications of deploying troops back to Iraq (since they never should have left in the first place) maybe ISIS wouldn’t have slaughtered so many innocent people. I’m pretty sure that this new mission and injection of more troops into the region will be pointless, though, since their ROE won’t let them actually kill people – they’ll have to drop fliers telling them to take cover or something before the pain arrives.
Category: Terror War
They should send a delegation from the Department of Labor (DOL), perhaps the DOL folks can create some jobs for the ISIS fighters.
Or send OPM to manage their pay.
If you send OPM all they will do is turn over all of the information to Chinese hackers.
Does it matter? the lowlife in the white house will give his slimey assed mooslime brothers all the info and help they need anyway!
And that blonde dingbat in DoS can be their spokesman.
Suuuure. . . the DOL delegation can find jobs for ISIS. . . . killing the DOL delegation.
They better hurry. At the rate they are going, we won’t have any Soldiers left to go there. Combat boot wearing or not.
Is this all part of our Dear Leaders plan?
Or do we blame Bush #1 or #2 for the next eight years?
I wonder if the bath house boy has any clue what his legacy is going to be? A plaque should be made up, “Obama’s legacy” and glue down one of those rubber turds on it!
I am not surprised at this announcement. The people who make these decisions change their minds with the way the wind blows. This has become such a tangle.
I wouldn’t wish this on any troops, especially with the current “mommy-may-I” ROEs.
The previous ROEs were not particularly effective at ending insurgencies either.
But they were a lot more help keeping our guys/gals breathing.
I am not sure that is true, the early permissive RoEs are associated with subsequent increases in casualties and increased level of insurgent activity. There are a lot of other factors involved so I am not claiming the RoE was the primary cause but it appears to have been a contributing factor based on reports from re-integrated militants who were debriefed.
I agree there were serious flaws in the more restrictive RoEs as well. I can’t explain in detail for reasons of opsec because the more restrictive RoEs tend to be similar and we are still largely operating under them.
I don’t think we have gotten it right yet, but the permissive RoEs definitely generate more insurgent activity.
I think we should just seal up the more exploitable gaps in the current restrictive RoE. I argued with legal for weeks to get permission to give more permissive guidance to my team and our security element to close a few gaps in the RoE the locals were exploiting.
We need to field more intermediate engagement devices. Such as .203s equipped with baton rounds.
Unfortunately it is inevitable that a patrol will inadvertently fire an explosive round instead of baton round which is preventing this solution from being fielded.
Dakota Meyer’s book “Into the Fire” shows a pretty good example on how restrictive ROEs cost lives. If you haven’t read it yet, I highly suggest it.
203s with baton rounds? Why not issue the troops teddy bears to hand to the insurgents when they are being shot at? I mean who could maintain an attack with any kind of violence when the opposition hands you a teddy bear? I was involved with troops using less than lethal against the enemy. It looked like a lot if fun honking some terrorist upside the head with a chunk of wood, but not so effective if they can shoot back at you with a real gun. The ROE for less than lethal was even more restrictive against unarmed targets. One troop had to go through nine kinds of shot for just holding a tasker out as if he were going to use it in order to break up a fight between two asshole takfiris. I will let you lead the charge with your “baton rounds”.
I made the suggestion of the baton rounds from personal experience.
Dozens of experiences. I can’t give the details because it highlights a gap in our RoE that the baton rounds would fill.
Lars. Just shuttup already. If you knew half of what you think you know, you’d be a friggin 20 star general by now.
The fact is we need intermediate engagement devices.
I will give you a common and well known example so it does not violate opsec; we can’t shoot people for throwing bricks but with our gear we are too slow to catch them.
And there are dozens of other lesser known examples.
So stop being an asshat.
Fuck off, Lars.
It’s like you’re trying to be a younger, dumber version of a Non-CPO
I know what I am talking about with respect to the need for an intermediate engagement device.
Most of you guys have no fucking clue. Most never served in an insurgency and most of the few that have did not deal with the local population every single day.
I dealt with a community that had rose up by the thousands and slaughtered a coalition element because of one use of lethal force that the community regarded as unjustified. We had to deal with a pissed off community for an entire year and do it without escalating things all over again.
We desperately needed intermediate engagement devices on our missions.
Baton rounds are plastic bullets used for riot control.
In case the carp doesn’t know about it, warfare is about KILLING THE FUCKING ENEMY BEFORE THE ENEMY KILLS YOU.
But I guess building a campfire, singing some songs and making smores will do the trick, right?
Right, troutsniffing carp? Right?
Yes, let’s not kill people who want to kill us. Instead, let’s show them the error of their ways and make friends without checking to see if their knives are sharpened.
Bullshit. You don’t have a fucking clue what you are talking about. You were never on the ground in an insurgency.
Not everyone against your presence in their country is an enemy and not everyone opposing your mission is trying to kill you.
When some teenager is throwing a brick you cannot fucking shoot him in the face.
And if you read what I wrote I suggested the later RoE were TOO restrictive and leading to exploitable gaps.
The need for an intermediate engagement device only solves one common set of problems we dealt with every single time we went on a mission.
I can’t go into the other very exploitable weakness of a restrictive RoE on a public forum but I fought the rules for weeks with legal because of the gap it created.
You need to stop fucking assuming I don’t know what I am talking about.
I dealt with three different sets RoEs during my deployments. And that does not even include temporary or local ones.
OH, but you prove repeatedly that you DO NOT know what you’re talking about.
Yeah, apparently my first hand knowledge on this is secondary to your outdated assumptions and lack of any experience whatsoever.
Are you on Adderall?
If some teenager throws a brick at me, or my troops, he may not get shot in the face if he is lucky. Getting butt-stroked, hog-tied and sent to REM II, or Bucca would make him wish he were shot in the face. If a community rises up against and slaughters a coalition force, then they tucked up by not bringing violence of action back to the slaughtering elements of the community. No intermediate engagement device is necessary when the troops follow their ROE/RUF, and that does not restrict their ability to escalate their use of deadly force when appropriate.
And I dealt with at least a dozen riots in Iraq.
And you’re boring, too.
You remind me of a professional Ebay seller.
I don’t know why, but you seem the type.
I guess I associate you with a lifestyle precisely that boring.
A DOZEN!!!! OMG you are like the super commando I’ve always dreamed of being. So special, so heroic. Dick.
shut the fuck up you wanna be know it all fucktard. I had the early ROEs and guess what, that lack of restrictive ROE kept us alive and the enemy/other side/whatever at bay, too scared to fuck with us. eat a bag of dicks and then fuck your mother. I seriously do not like your bullshit
Fuck off the fight is not just about you.
The consequences of the permissive RoE you followed cost lives for units that followed.
We know that for a fact from debriefing re-integrated insurgents.
How fucking clueless do you have to be to not realize how much this shit has consequences?
Too scared to fuck with us?
You are a fucking moron.
I beg for your mercy my King….for I made the error of going to lay my head upon my pillow and dream of days of glory….please I compel you for mercy that you might not smite me for making the error of sleeping late at night.
Cocksucker.
Just curious, carp.
Who’s ‘we’?
You got mouse in your pocket?
Or is that the royal ‘We’?
Want some corn?
I see. What changed? I’ll tell you what changed. Scrotum Shaver got embarrassed and butt hurt by Vlad. My money says that this is the set-up for a launch into Syria. We could do much worse than be stationed in northern Iraq for such action. Oh, and this is absolute bullshit, whatever the truth.
It was not Putin.
We were already on the ground. Paris and the greater public awareness of ISIS as a threat made our involvement more politically palatable and increased the expectation that we do more.
Does Obama pay you for each blowjob you give him or do you just get a monthly check?
I am not exactly happy with Obama either. However, he is decidedly an above average president.
However, the Putin worship and the constant “Putin kicks Obama’s ass” narrative is nauseating.
Putin is not embarrassing the US in Syria. Putin’s agenda in Syria is to secure Assad’s regime. They do not care about defeating ISIS beyond what is necessary to secure Syria for Assad.
There secondary goal is to refocus international attention on Russia’s involvement in the ME rather than the Ukraine.
Arguably Putin has the legal high ground in Syria since he is backing an alliance with an established regime. Our involvement undermines an established regime on more general “humanitarian and democratic” ideals.
Putin also has the luxury of having allies with aligned interests. Assad wants to stay, Putin wants Assad to stay. Even Iran wants Assad to stay.
We have Turkey opposing Assad but wanting different militants to prevail than we do, Kurds also oppose Assad, but the Kurds and Turks oppose each other. Kurds and the Iraqi army oppose ISIS in Iraq but the Iraqi government opposes Kurdish independence. Shias in Iraq are have split loyalties with the Iraqi government and Iran who provides training and support in their fight against ISIS. Kurds are assisting Syrians in fighting ISIS but most Syrians oppose Kurdish independance.
Most Sunni’s in Iraq are generally under ISIS whether they wish to be or not. Though there is an emerging anti-ISIS Sunni militia movement.
Kurds are aligned with the FSA but the FSA is fractured and weak and too may of it splintered elements are working with Islamic militants against Assad essentially tying the FSA to ISIS.
And, of course, all of this is because the current
DC clown kreweAdministration (1) failed to negotiate a SOFA with the Iraqi government in 2011 allowing a substantial US presence, thus allowing the rise of Da’esh, and (2) were stupid enough to encourage the Syrian opposition in the first place as part of their idiotic support for the “Arab spring”.You know, for an “above average” president, the Obama Administration has certainly f’ed up US policy in the region quite thoroughly – after being forewarned that what they planned would do exactly that.
If that’s “above average”, Taylor, I’d hate to see your definition of “substandard”. To me, that performance looks more like “naive and clueless” than “above average”.
But maybe that’s just me. Along with maybe most of the rest of the world’s leaders.
The SoFA was negotiated in the 2008 under Bush. It committed Obama to a withdrawal timeline ending in 2011 and it had provisions that were ridiculous with respect to our operations – such as the right for Iraqi police to stop US patrols and detain US soldiers on patrol. Bush gave up too much because he wanted to make sure it was signed before Obama took office.
The Shia dominated Iraqi government wanted even more concessions to extend the troop presence because the Shia’s did not actually want us to stay. They wanted us to leave so they could seize control of the government by arresting prominent Sunni politicians. Which they started doing the day after we formally pulled out of Iraq.
The Shia led Iraqi government simply was no going to give us any SoFA agreement that any president in their right mind would sign.
Obama is blamed for not forcing them to. Which is kind of bullshit. The 2008 agreement was already complete shit and the 2011 would have been even worse.
The Iraqi government and their demands are why there was no way we were going to remain past 2011.
I caught a IED trigger man that had to be turned over to the Iraqis and tried in Iraqi court based on the 2008 agreement. The fucking agreement was shit and created a revolving door for the insurgents.
It also made the Iraqi police far more influential and those fuckers could not be trusted.
I helped find and facilitate the capture of two men that had killed some British soldiers, even though the crimes were committed in 2003 they had to be tried turned over and tried according to the 2008 agreement because they were captured after the agreement was signed. I read they were acquitted.
It was impossible to effectively operate against a counterinsurgency based on the 2008 agreement.
What part of “failed to negotiate a SOFA in 2011” did you not get or was unclear, dipstick? What happened before that is a non sequitur/red herring. Quit trying to change the subject. Though the situation was far from optimal, the current Administration inherited a relatively peaceful and at least marginally stable Iraq in January 2009. They proceeded to screw it up by the numbers – along with most of the rest of existing US policy in the Islamic world. They were so damned incompetent that one can’t help but wonder if the resulting series of fiascoes starting in 2010 were intentional. Quit attempting to blame Bush for those fiascoes. The Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, and rise of Da’esh in Syria/Iraq were all manifest debacles for the US. They are all owned by the current DC clown Krewe Administration – lock, stock, and barrel. Had those clueless neophytes listened to people warning them in 2010/2011 of the likely consequences of abandoning Iraq and the Arab Spring – instead of deciding that scoring domestic political points was more important than protecting US national interests – Da’esh wouldn’t control much of Syria and Iraq today, and likely would only be a small splinter group; Iraq would still likely be relatively peaceful; Libya and Yemen would today have effective, functioning governments that cooperated effectively with the US; Syria would be at peace; and the Paris attacks very likely never happen. All they had to do was listen to people who actually had a clue about how the ME actually works instead of trying to make sworn enemies sing Kumbaya. They were too naive to listen. And it’s doubtful they much gave a sh!t, anyway, since actually protecting US interests in that are would have required implicitly endorsing the preceding Administrations’ ME policies by renegotiating a SOFA in Iraq in 2011 to allow a residual us presence. They thus intentionally chose to give their predecessors a final foreign policy finger – consequences to US national security be damned. Those failures I list above are all DIRECT LEGACIES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION’S “ENLIGHTENED” FOREIGN… Read more »
I think I’ve heard everything when it comes to Obama – “above average president”…wow.
When people look back at this administrations they are going to figure out that Millard Filmore and James Buchanan were more competent that Obama…
Josh Earnest mentioned specialized forces.
Well at least our government learned from Vietnam; or maybe not. Linebacker III anyone?
Linebacker III? Yeah, I’m good with that.
Screw those “Fire for Fire Only, Commander’s Initials for Approval” ROE’s.
Let Er Rip !
This completely baffles me. How can any group of people who are supposed to be so intelligent completely fuck this up. Has no one in this administration heard of Vietnam? We are fucking up on a grand scale and not even Lars will be able tl explain this away.
Yes, they had heard of Vietnam and in case you missed it the anti-war crews were on the streets of DC pushing a “new Vietnam” edict. One they’ve apparently been handed by their co-horts in Congress.
I know the Special Ops troops are high speed, but for them to function properly, aren’t they supposed to have supporting troops/units? Isn’t sending in special operators without support what happened in the Blackhawk Down and Lone Survivor scenarios?
They had support. 10th Mountain was there.
It appears the human terrain was not adequately taken into consideration. In fact 10th Mountain was later blamed for some actions that created consequences with the community that contributed to the locals attacking the raid.
A similar local uprising occurred in Majar Al Kabir with the British in Iraq, smaller in scale but the locals revolted and attacked a British police element after becoming outraged from other incidents.
Lars, you are clueless. They did not have support.
The 10th Mtn was not told about the raid until the Rangers were neck deep in shit and it took them hours to get the forces together to go in and pull the Rangers out.
I know, I had guys I went to basic with that were in the relief effort and I was on the ground a couple of days later.
Pinto’s comment was about committing SoF troops to fight ISIS with no conventional support. So we are talking about in country support not support on any specific raid.
There was little reason for conventional forces to be directly involved in the raid given the scope and target (3 people) and the relatively low threat expectation at the time the raid was planned.
There are countless raids in the battle-space conducted entirely by SoF even during a overwhelmingly conventional force led fight, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
10th Mountain was in Somalia. Somalia was not just a SoF mission.
So bombs and special forces? Neither of those sound like methods of actually capturing ground. Does anybody (that America supports)really have the ability to capture any ground over there? I get the feeling I know the answer to that one.
Why in God’s name would we want to “capture ground” though? “Taking” ground means you become responsible for it. We don’t have the money, the troops or, most importantly, the national will to do that.
We already “own” a lot of ground that we can’t adequately control in Afghanistan, we don’t need to “own” any in Syria.
Ideally we would provide the muscle to remove ISIS from those contested areas and then locals who are friendly to us would then “own” the ground and be responsible for it.
That’s the plan, anyway, but it seems like it doesn’t work out that well in reality.
Pretty sure the idea is to facilitate Kurds, Shia militants, Iraqi Army, FSA, and other elements to take and hold the ground. Much like the SOF led unconventional campaign to support the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan allowed them to sweep in and take long held Taliban territory.
I think the calculus is that a unconventional SOF campaign will increase recruitment/support and effectiveness of anti-ISIS militant elements while not significantly increasing ISIS recruitment. Allowing them to gain ground on ISIS.
Keeping this mostly a civil war within Islam.
While a large US/Western presence would give ISIS legitimacy and increase recruitment, shifting this into a call to arms for Muslims at risk of being radicalized worldwide.
Out of curiosity, Lars…do you have a degree in Sociology or a related field?
Related. Some describe it as “economic sociology”.
That sounds about as useful as a PhD in Chinese Politics! 😀
It is the future of economics.
It is becoming abundantly clear that economic models that try to control all social variables and focus entirely on a disembodied economy fail to predict outcomes.
Economic sociologists, and Political Economists have been far more accurate at predicting the nature, consequences, and failures of modern economies that pure economic models have.
Economics is retiring to its roots, early economists were essentially political economic and social economic theorists.
Kinda like when they used to say you’ll never make decent money without a degree? I’m blue collar and I make more than I would with a Masters Degree in the field I was studying in!
I went very far without a degree but eventually hit a wall.
You say that in jest, but I have a friend who is currently in her fourth year in the study of Mandarin Chinese, as well as one of the common dialects, combined with studies in international trade and Chinese economics. Her plan is to work in China as a linguist and economic specialist for a multi-national corporation. So, you see that there is a use for such a degree!
So Barry’s plan is to use SpecOps to get Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish Muslims to join hands and stop ISIS and retake the ground?
This should work out well.
/sarc
No, not to get them to work together, but facilitate them where we can to defeat ISIS.
The Iraqi army and Shia militants are generally on the same side in the fight against ISIS, though the Shia militants are led primarily by Iranian officers and agents so the Iraqi Army and the Shia militants do not necessarily share the same desired end state.
However at least in Iraq things are relatively more straight forward.. Pretty much any Iraqi government will be heavily influenced by Iran so opposing that outcome is futile.
Syria is far more complex. We do not share the same desired end state as Assad, Russia, or Iran in Syria. Except in defeating ISIS.
I think the optimum end state is a Three state solution in Iraq.
I would like to see FSA defeat Assad but it looks increasingly likely we will have to accept an outcome that leaves Assad in power if we are going to defeat ISIS without escalating this fight significantly.
The two primary issues that we are in huge opposing interests are whether Assad remains in power and whether The Kurds get their own state.
Any real solution to ISIS is going to need to resolve those issues early or we risk too many nations and non-state actors with too many opposing goals in two small a space. And escalation is likely.
So, in other words: we’re concentrating on winning the short-term battle vice following a strategy that ensures the eventual outcome of the war is one we find acceptable.
Sorry, but I’ve seen that movie before – some 40-odd years ago. It sucked the first time around, both main storyline and ending.
Of course some of the progressive/marxist/commie bastards will rubber stamp this action. If Scrotum Shaver did it, there must be brilliance in it somewhere. So, some sit silent, fearful of saying the wrong thing about their savior, while others work diligently to concoct the best explanation they can for the resurgence of American combat activity in Iraq. Phukers.
There is no plan. And doing either nothing or random stuff while cheerfully anticipating a pleasant outcome is not a strategy.
An interesting sidebar to this story is the announcement yesterday by Hillary Clinton that she would not send ground troops to Syria:
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-thousands-u-troops-fight-islamic-state-nonstarter-130703441.html#
Her apparent rationale is that boots on the ground “gives ISIS a new recruitment tool.” Kinda makes you wonder if Hillary has forgotten that the serious rise of radical Islam goes back at least to 9/11, and even if the players have a different name, the game remains the same. The real change in ISIS’ recruitment ability hasn’t been what we’ve done; it’s been in their sophistication level in using things like social media.
Hillary also seems to miss the point that the kind of people who want world domination are not the kind of people who react well to efforts to not offend them. They see it as a sign of weakness.
All of which also ignores the fact, at least it seems to me, that any current strategy to kill ISIS and break their stuff needs to work out the problem of what to do about the ISIS supply chain through Turkey, among other things.
This administrations strategy is to not have one. This is nothing but a slow burn reaction that will go on for months, then it will be handed off to the new president. Barry’s focus is climate change. He’s not interested in the M/E or terrorism.
I am intrigued by the way we all have latched onto the ISIS as enemy mantra. ISIS is most certainly the enemy of all decent people but it is merely the noisiest presently and, admittedly, has the easiest name, even if it is an acronym. Our enemies are all Muslims of any flavor who use terrorism as a weapon in furtherance of their Koran-based view of the world.
No argument there. Obama’s apology tour made it evident he has no intention of addressing terrorism or the threat of it, either here in the states or abroad. Because it’s muzzie issue, that’s precisely why he won’t.
Re: the apology tour: it’s because he really does not believe anyone doesn’t like him. He basks in the glory that is bodaprez. If you watched some of his campaign speeches, it was like watching a gospel revival meeting.
He missed his calling, you know. He could have made a ton of money as a TV preacher.
Wait, are we talking about Special Forces (U.S. Army Green Berets) or Special Operations Forces? There is a difference.
Second, I noticed that liberal-minded folks have something of a SOF fetish, believing that they can actually take on the full brunt of a conflict. If the White House is really committed to countering ISIL, it needs to send conventional troops en masse to hold territory and build rapport with the locals. Sending in “teams” of operators for a problem this big is just half-assing it. Somalia, anyone?
You are correct on both.
I suspect SOCOM will be or is the lead. MSM does not know the difference between SOF, SF, SECOPS, NSW, MARSOC or what a V8 is or what the three sides of the fire triangle are (not including free radicals).
I might suggest the operators will have many targets and once the smell of blood is in the air, providing they have support, our boys will do well. However, you are correct, ground must be fought for, held and a war of ideas must be fought neighborhood to neighborhood.
Good luck guys. This admin didn’t play to win, well not for America to win that is.
That is false, When Obama took office the agreement on the withdrawal plan and SOFA in Iraq had already been reached and signed by the Bush administration.
In order to renegotiate it the Iraqi government wanted provisions that no President in their right mind would expose US troops to. And Obama had little interest in trying to renegotiate it anyway.
The fact is the Shia dominated Iraqi government wanted US to leave so the Shias that could seize control over the government.
They did. immediately after we left. Sparking a civil war and a crisis of legitimacy for the Iraqi government and pathway for the emergence of ISIS.
In Afghanistan the president shifted away from nation building and focused primarily on counter-terrorism, DA against the insurgent leadership and facilitating and training the Afghan government, police, and military to take the lead with the expectation that we would be able to shift responsibility to them and not have to get mired into a decades long nation building strategy.
The Obama administration was far more aggressive in Afghanistan and surrounding areas than Bush ever was. That is an indisputable fact.
Well there you have it. Large and in charge Lars says it’s false, and it’s a insistputable fact. I’ll sleep so much better tonight, now that I’ve been officially informed to the facts by the Larsmobile!
Point out something that is not true in what I wrote.
Are you really trying to portray at Obamas foreign strategy to deal with Islamic terror is trying to win for America? The gigantic gains for Islamists and our loses around the globe state otherwise.
Bin Laden getting his was good but to be blunt I think the only reason it happened was for Obama’s personal ego.
You framed this overly simplistically.
This is not simply Islamists vs the US.
Most of the gains by ISIS were due to an Iraqi civil war precipitated by the Shia’s attempting to push the Sunni’s out of government.
There was little we could do to stop it. There was no way we could have reached an acceptable SoFA agreement because the Shia’s did not want one.
ISIS has also lost territory in the last year.
Why would I waste my time debating with you? It’s like stepping in a pile of dogshit. Once it’s on your shoe it’s almost impossible to get rid of the smell let alone the dogshit. I think not!
“Obama had little interest in renegotiating it”
There it is.
STFU
This administration has shown itself to be wasteful of the lives of our servicemen and women. While I know this redeployment is likely to be objectively necessary, I fear that they will not be given the numbers or the freedom of action they need to either be effective or protect themselves.
This is going to grow beyond just a SpecOps insertion.
Five years from now, the plan of ISIS is to have control of Spain, the northern half of Africa, the Indian subcontinent, eastward into China and parts of eastern Europe.
You can blow it off if you want to, but that is not just the published plan of ISIS/Daesh. I’ve lost track of the number of military age men who have ‘migrated’ into Europe, but they are part of that plan. A pipe bomb on a Turkish subway line earlier this evening should remind us that the events of Nov. 13 this year are only the beginning of it. Since they’re running out of banks to rob and antiquities to steal and sell on the black market where they are now, they will expand that to the rest of their planned caliphate.
Count on it. They published that plan in August this year. I take it damned seriously, because I don’t live in a world of moonbeams and daydreams. Anyone who doesn’t take this stuff seriously needs a hard and nasty reality check.
Count on it.
As I stated elsewhere up there ^^^ this administration and its anti-war crews wanted a “new Vietnam” and come hell or high water, they’re going to have it.
Took the words out of my mouth, street.
I’m not sure if it’s the spoiled brat syndrome at work here, but the disconnect from reality is so alarming, it isn’t even vaguely funny.
I just read a news report that said Iraq doesn’t want any help. As I recall, one big problem we had with them “after” the fighting was their unwillingness to create a viable SOFA. Sorry to sound biased, but you can’t turn your back on these people. We will always be the Infidels and no matter how much money or “assistance” we throw at them, it will not change. We need to protect our own homeland and focus on our own problems. Eventually they can go back to the stone age if that is their desire. If I want to see Mideast antiquities I’ll go visit the British Museum while others of their own ilk destroy what’s left. Stop wasting our lives, time, and money.