Help support TMP


"The Battle For Iraq Doesn’t End With Mosul—Or ISIS" Topic


5 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2006-present) Message Board



401 hits since 13 Jul 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP14 Jul 2017 9:10 p.m. PST

"As the battle of Mosul reaches its end, President Trump must decide how to proceed in Iraq. Both the U.S. and Iraqi governments' rhetoric indicate American troops will withdraw after Mosul has been recaptured. However, that would leave the country vulnerable to Iranian influence. U.S troops should remain in Iraq to secure its territory and government from external threats.

Iran has tried to increase its influence in Iraq since the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. Tehran has extended its reach through Shi'a militias loyal to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. These militias have fought alongside Iraqi security forces and Kurdish troops against ISIS to claim territory, not help civilians, and many of them have political wings that seek to align Iraq's government with Iran's political and religious structure.

Since 2016, the U.S. has invested over $10 USD billion and an additional $4.83 USD billion in the fiscal year 2017 budget to combat ISIS. Currently, there are more than 5,000 U.S. troops and 3,500 coalition advisers to train 65,000 Iraqi soldiers, police, Kurdish troops, and Sunni tribal fighters. The U.S. should continue to support the Iraqi government as it rebuilds. This will help regional partners and the U.S. protect their interests. If the U.S. withdraws, Baghdad may become a puppet of Tehran, making the rest of the region susceptible to Iranian control…"
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP15 Jul 2017 5:21 a.m. PST

Hmm. With very few and brief exceptions, that part of the world has been having continuous warfare, sectarian feuds and sporadic ethnic cleansing bouts since the beginning of time. Even when left to their own devices.

So does anyone seriously expect real peace after ISIS is gone?

Dan

Personal logo Great War Ace Supporting Member of TMP15 Jul 2017 7:43 p.m. PST

No. And the US is not in the least served by trying to "stabilize" the Mid East. All we should be involved in is determining that none of them get WMDs, ever. If any elements cross the "line" and attack us again, a la 9/11 style, we stomp the perps in their breeding grounds. We surgically remove any and all plotters. Our greatest expenses in self defense ought to be intel. We don't need a large standing defensive army to do the job of protecting our interests. Modern tech is all about mechanized response involving very few people. Very expensive. Only a superpower can afford it. And that's exactly how it should stay.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP16 Jul 2017 1:54 p.m. PST

Agree!


Amicalement
Armand

coopman16 Jul 2017 2:17 p.m. PST

+2

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.