ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. to build base in Iraq

22*43*51

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2008
16,430
4,299
113
By Matt Spetalnick and Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States is expected to announce on Wednesday plans for a new military base in Iraq's Anbar province and the deployment of around 400 additional U.S. trainers to help Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State, a U.S. official said.

The plan would expand the 3,100-strong U.S. contingent of trainers and advisers in Iraq and would mark an adjustment in strategy for President Barack Obama, who is facing mounting criticism for not being tougher in combating Islamic State.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed hope that even a modestly strengthened U.S. presence could help Iraqi forces plan and carry out a counter-attack to retake Anbar's capital Ramadi, which insurgents seized last month.

However, Obama was expected to stick to his stance against sending U.S. troops into combat or even close to the front lines, officials said.

Obama said on Monday the United States did not yet have a complete strategy for training Iraqi security forces to regain land lost to Islamic State fighters, who have seized a third of Iraq over the past year in a campaign marked by mass killings and beheadings.

The fall of Ramadi last month drew harsh U.S. criticism of the weak Iraqi military performance and Washington has begun to speed up supplies of weapons to the government forces and examine ways to improve the training programme.

The expected troop announcement was unlikely to silence Obama's critics, who say the modest contingent of U.S. forces is far from enough to turn the tide of battle.

The U.S. deployment would likely entail around 400 trainers, one U.S. official said, adding an announcement was expected on Wednesday. Two other officials also confirmed an expected troop increase of hundreds of troops.

U.S. forces have already conducted training at the al-Asad military base in western Anbar but U.S. officials said planning was underway for a new installation near the town of Habbaniya, the site of an Iraqi army base.

A new site would allow U.S. trainers to provide greater support for Sunni tribal fighters, who have yet to receive all of the backing and arms promised by the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

"We are considering a range of options to accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces in order to support them in taking the fight to ISIL. Those options include sending additional trainers to Iraq," said Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear during a visit to Jerusalem that there were no plans to fundamentally alter Obama's military strategy.

Speaking to reporters travelling with him, Dempsey did not say how many extra U.S. troops may be involved in the effort to accelerate the training of Iraqis.

As of last Thursday, 8,920 Iraqi troops had received training at four different sites and another 2,601 were currently in some stage of training, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-weighs-more-iraq-training-sites-no-strategy-001459583.html
 
Lame. How many Bronx Scince schools will this cost us? The moment we leave it will just be used against us. STFO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22*43*51
Lame. How many Bronx Scince schools will this cost us? The moment we leave it will just be used against us. STFO.
We won the Second World War over 50 years ago and we still have a significant number of troops in Europe and Korea and they are just fine. Maybe just maybe 10-12k troops there to assist(not fight for) would promote more regional stability
 
We won the Second World War over 50 years ago and we still have a significant number of troops in Europe and Korea and they are just fine. Maybe just maybe 10-12k troops there to assist(not fight for) would promote more regional stability

Except you know that this is only the beginning.

It will swell to a fighting force in time. That is just not the sound bite they want to have out there right now.
 
We won the Second World War over 50 years ago and we still have a significant number of troops in Europe and Korea and they are just fine. Maybe just maybe 10-12k troops there to assist(not fight for) would promote more regional stability
Why do you think this is fine? I don't agree it's fine to steal billions of dollars from our citizens to subsidize Germany, Korea et al.
 
Why do you think this is fine? I don't agree it's fine to steal billions of dollars from our citizens to subsidize Germany, Korea et al.
You would prefer that we leave a region completely open for terrorists to build up power and eventually become a bigger problem that we have to deal with here?
 
You would prefer that we leave a region completely open for terrorists to build up power and eventually become a bigger problem that we have to deal with here?

I'll take my chances and let Germany and Korea be on the front line of that fight themselves. In the event you meant the Mideast, I still think STFO is the more effective stratey.
 
So we have 3,100 trainers and advisors there and have only managed to train 8900 troops? another 2,000 in training? Something doesn't add up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I'll take my chances and let Germany and Korea be on the front line of that fight themselves. In the event you meant the Mideast, I still think STFO is the more effective stratey.

You'll take your chances. Well, if only that's how it worked. Good thing you're not making the decisions.
 
Ka-CHING!

us-has-accumulated-a-total-debt-burden-of-over-14-trillion-even-though-it-was-running-a-budget-surplus-just-10-years-ago.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarolinaHawkeye
It's funny how we are told to believe the troops sent there to 'train' will be away from combat lines, but what happens when the combat lines come to them?

This doesn't come as any surprise whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
We won the Second World War over 50 years ago and we still have a significant number of troops in Europe and Korea and they are just fine. Maybe just maybe 10-12k troops there to assist(not fight for) would promote more regional stability
You think so? Well, get going then. Better to lead by example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
You think so? Well, get going then. Better to lead by example.

Exactly! I love how they use the "we" and "us" incorrectly.

It's funny to me when people try to deny that the USA is an empire. I even had one right-wing jingoist say "We're not an empire, we're a Super Power." Euphemisms are so much fun. "I didn't murder him, Your Honor. I merely neutralized him. And, I didn't lie, I merely engaged in disinformation." How these people bullshit themselves to believe that having a military base (or bases) doesn't come across as an aggressive/show-of-force presence is beyond me.
 
Exactly! I love how they use the "we" and "us" incorrectly.

It's funny to me when people try to deny that the USA is an empire. I even had one right-wing jingoist say "We're not an empire, we're a Super Power." Euphemisms are so much fun. "I didn't murder him, Your Honor. I merely neutralized him. And, I didn't lie, I merely engaged in disinformation." How these people bullshit themselves to believe that having a military base (or bases) doesn't come across as an aggressive/show-of-force presence is beyond me.
Yup, and it's easy to push for these things when you're not the one who has to sacrifice seeing their family, leaving their country, possibly getting killed(BRUTALLY), all in the name of whatever it is the Chicken hawks up in DC decide our troops need to be there for.
I've found that the most Hawkish are usually the ones that either, aren't very smart in general, and for some reason have never been involved in this BS. You also have the military that still stick up for our cause, but nine times out of 10, they're just more in the mission mind frame without thought of why they are there or they are just not willing to let go of what they did at one time or another.

You'd be shocked though to know how many military folks think just like we do though Strumm. It's more than people would like to admit.

Besides, in the end, all we are saying is get them back home, defend our own turf here, and let our soldiers enjoy their lives with their families. Now anyone who would have a problem with that, is the enemy in my opinion.
 
We won the Second World War over 50 years ago and we still have a significant number of troops in Europe and Korea and they are just fine. Maybe just maybe 10-12k troops there to assist(not fight for) would promote more regional stability

Europe and South Korea /=/ Middle East
 
We won the Second World War over 50 years ago and we still have a significant number of troops in Europe and Korea and they are just fine. Maybe just maybe 10-12k troops there to assist(not fight for) would promote more regional stability
Serious question: do you really think the situations are similar enough to be instructive?
 
Exactly! I love how they use the "we" and "us" incorrectly.

It's funny to me when people try to deny that the USA is an empire. I even had one right-wing jingoist say "We're not an empire, we're a Super Power." Euphemisms are so much fun. "I didn't murder him, Your Honor. I merely neutralized him. And, I didn't lie, I merely engaged in disinformation." How these people bullshit themselves to believe that having a military base (or bases) doesn't come across as an aggressive/show-of-force presence is beyond me.
How about we are a Super Power Empire?
 
Serious question: do you really think the situations are similar enough to be instructive?

Not to mention, our involvement in the Middle East has NEVER improved the overall area. People who claim "We toppled Saddam's regime" forget that we helped build his regime. It's embarrassing what our leaders have done in our country's name in that region of the world.
 
Not to mention, our involvement in the Middle East has NEVER improved the overall area. People who claim "We toppled Saddam's regime" forget that we helped build his regime. It's embarrassing what our leaders have done in our country's name in that region of the world.
And they also tend to overlook the cost - both to us and the Iraqis (and others in that region).

I heard a report on the news yesterday that there are already a million refugees in Iraq (not Syria) from the latest conflict. In Syria we see triple that number of actual refugees and millions more have been displaced, lost jobs, etc.

Millions dead, millions displaced, economies wrecked, trillions in debt. Predictions that it will be a decade before things settle down. If then.

We don't need to distract ourselves with the blame game. This is clearly awful. And just as clearly, we haven't a clue what to do about it.

Do we have a moral duty to "fix" this? Whatever that means. Or do we have a moral duty to stop interfering? Or is the concept of "moral duty" just a buzzword excuse or cover for amoral or even sociopathic policy?
 
Why do you think this is fine? I don't agree it's fine to steal billions of dollars from our citizens to subsidize Germany, Korea et al.
It's not stealing if there is a benefit for our country and there is a huge benefit in a more peaceful, stable world with the U.S. Leading the way.The proof of that is playing out in the Mideast now. BHO backed out and now we are left with the mess we see now. Thanks to the surge, and getting the Sunis involved GWB produced a very stable country. Our total pullout has produced the void we see now.
 
It's not stealing if there is a benefit for our country and there is a huge benefit in a more peaceful, stable world with the U.S. Leading the way.The proof of that is playing out in the Mideast now. BHO backed out and now we are left with the mess we see now. Thanks to the surge, and getting the Sunis involved GWB produced a very stable country. Our total pullout has produced the void we see now.

Hey, genius... pay attention better. America's involvement has made that whole place the least stable place in the world. Go back to after WWII and see it deteriorate year by year. I agree that there is a benefit for the people that own our government... oil, profit, oil, more profit, regulating the world's oil supply in our currency. The need for "peace and stability" is a lie to sell the average people that it's worth sending their kids off to die and kill others in the process.

You partisan idiots are such a danger to humanity.
 
Hey, genius... pay attention better. America's involvement has made that whole place the least stable place in the world.

I don't necessarily disagree. But, the ME wasn't the epicenter of peace and tranquility prior to 2000.

I'm pretty sure it has been the most unstable part of the world for all of recorded human history.
 
It's not stealing if there is a benefit for our country and there is a huge benefit in a more peaceful, stable world with the U.S. Leading the way.The proof of that is playing out in the Mideast now. BHO backed out and now we are left with the mess we see now. Thanks to the surge, and getting the Sunis involved GWB produced a very stable country. Our total pullout has produced the void we see now.
We were talking about Germany and S. Korea. How is it not a subsidy to those rich nations for the US to provide the bulk of their defence? What benefit do you and I derive from that? Good god, you speak out against subsidies for Americans so that our money can go to a former enemy?

stay-on-target-gif.gif
 
I don't necessarily disagree. But, the ME wasn't the epicenter of peace and tranquility prior to 2000.

I'm pretty sure it has been the most unstable part of the world for all of recorded human history.
Well, you're biased and wrong. I can find name some far more unstable areas, times and situations than the Middle East. One thing that doesn't calm people down is military invasions, bombings, innocent people dying in cross-fire and being put under foreign rule/occupation against their will.
 
Why do you think this is fine? I don't agree it's fine to steal billions of dollars from our citizens to subsidize Germany, Korea et al.


Only problem, natural, is this is one of the legitimate 18 enumerated powers that the U.S. govt' is responsible for. Meaning, using tax dollars is a legitimate use of funds and not "stealing".

What you SHOULD be angry about is Obamacare, Obamaphones, the EPA, the DOE, and thousands of other programs that the govt' shouldn't have a hand in. Those are supposed to be state responsibilities.
 
We were talking about Germany and S. Korea. How is it not a subsidy to those rich nations for the US to provide the bulk of their defence? What benefit do you and I derive from that? Good god, you speak out against subsidies for Americans so that our money can go to a former enemy?

stay-on-target-gif.gif
He's OK with subsidies for the rich. Rich people and corporations in America. Rich nations abroad, too, apparently. But why Iraq? Oil?
 
Only problem, natural, is this is one of the legitimate 18 enumerated powers that the U.S. govt' is responsible for. Meaning, using tax dollars is a legitimate use of funds and not "stealing".

What you SHOULD be angry about is Obamacare, Obamaphones, the EPA, the DOE, and thousands of other programs that the govt' shouldn't have a hand in. Those are supposed to be state responsibilities.
Where is it enumerated that the Fed Govt can spend our treasure on foreign defence with an unconstitutional army? A better case could be made its specifically disallowed by the constitution.
 
Where is it enumerated that the Fed Govt can spend our treasure on foreign defence with an unconstitutional army? A better case could be made its specifically disallowed by the constitution.
It amazes me how these people have no issue with paying for that, but they lose their mind when it's spent on educating people right here at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Only problem, natural, is this is one of the legitimate 18 enumerated powers that the U.S. govt' is responsible for. Meaning, using tax dollars is a legitimate use of funds and not "stealing".

What you SHOULD be angry about is Obamacare, Obamaphones, the EPA, the DOE, and thousands of other programs that the govt' shouldn't have a hand in. Those are supposed to be state responsibilities.
So you are entirely happy with government doing those things?
 
There are two ways to acquire the niceties of life:
1) To produce them or
2) To plunder them.
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

[variously attributed to Paul Valery or Frederic Bastiat]
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
Where is it enumerated that the Fed Govt can spend our treasure on foreign defence with an unconstitutional army? A better case could be made its specifically disallowed by the constitution.


Posse Comitatus. The only place the military can operate is overseas.


Posse Comitatus Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Posse Comitatus Act in the United States. For other uses of posse comitatus, see Posse comitatus.
Posse Comitatus Act

Other short titles Knott Amendment
Enacted by the 45th United States Congress
Effective June 18, 1878
Citations
Statutes at Large
20 Stat. 152
Codification
U.S.C. sections created
18 U.S.C. § 1385
Legislative history
  • Passed the House on May 18, 1878 (130–117)
  • Passed the Senate on June 7, 1878 (29–21) with amendment
  • House agreed to Senate amendment on June 15, 1878 ()
  • Signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes on June 18, 1878
Major amendments
1956, 1981
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using its military personnel to act as domestic law enforcement personnel. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.
The Act only specifically applies to the Army and, as amended in 1956, the Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the naval services, specifically the Navy and the Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
 
Posse Comitatus. The only place the military can operate is overseas.


Posse Comitatus Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the Posse Comitatus Act in the United States. For other uses of posse comitatus, see Posse comitatus.
Posse Comitatus Act

Other short titles Knott Amendment
Enacted by the 45th United States Congress
Effective June 18, 1878
Citations
Statutes at Large
20 Stat. 152
Codification
U.S.C. sections created
18 U.S.C. § 1385
Legislative history
  • Passed the House on May 18, 1878 (130–117)
  • Passed the Senate on June 7, 1878 (29–21) with amendment
  • House agreed to Senate amendment on June 15, 1878 ()
  • Signed into law by President Rutherford B. Hayes on June 18, 1878
Major amendments
1956, 1981
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using its military personnel to act as domestic law enforcement personnel. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.
The Act only specifically applies to the Army and, as amended in 1956, the Air Force. While the Act does not explicitly mention the naval services, specifically the Navy and the Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the Act force with respect to those services as well. The Act does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act either, primarily because although the Coast Guard is an armed service, it also has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.
I assume you already know that's not part of the constitution and hence doesn't answer the question about enumerated powers?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT