For an “emergency” war hastily announced late Thursday night, the US had a remarkably large military presence in Iraq by Friday morning. 108 warplanes, 8 ships, including the USS George H. W. Bush aircraft carrier, and Predator drones are all involved in this new air war.
It was only a matter of a few hours between President Obama saying he had authorized airstrikes to protect US troops in Irbil and the Pentagon announcing they were attacking ISIS artillery that had putatively fired “near” those troops.
Which was a big reason for putting the troops in Irbil and Baghdad in the first place. The tiny “advisory” forces were chiefly to wait there, as sitting ducks, while the massive naval and air force, positioned off the Iraqi coast for weeks, waited for an opportunity to “save” them by joining the war.
That off-the-coast force included some 2,000 US Marines, supposedly there in case they had to evacuate the embassy in Baghdad or secure the airport. Now, with the air war already underway, they are instead waiting for an escalation to ground operations.
They may not have to wait long. Sustaining the huge air war is going to require between 10,000 and 15,000 troops, just for support, and troops beside that to protect the support force. The administration may be pushing the notion they’re playing this by ear and reacting to situations on the ground, but the war was laid out long ago.
on bbc today i heard a US guy saying troops were there to protect "peshmerga allies", not baghdad or iraq in general.
BBC: Reluctant US returns to Iraq frontline amid humanitarian crisis
For more than a month now the US has been flying some 50 sorties a day to
build up a detailed intelligence picture of what is happening on the
ground…
In the event, it was not events on the road to Baghdad that prompted US
action but a crisis further north on the borders of the autonomous Kurdish
areas… http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-2870706…
BBC: Iraq conflict: Why Irbil matters
Global oil giants have been setting up shop in the city, lured by the
promise of Iraqi Kurdistan's untapped energy reserves. They have driven up
real-estate prices and transformed a dusty backwater into an even dustier
boomtown…
This summer, the US beefed up its presence in Irbil, strengthening the ranks
of diplomats and special-forces advisers garrisoned there. The city is being
used as a base by the US – echoing its function during the 2003 invasion… http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-2871149…
This morning I see comments in the NYT on Friedman's column running about 20:1 in favor of Obama doing this in Iraq. I say it that way because they are supporting Obama, not war in Iraq. They are pretending this won't become war in Iraq. Fantasy. This is just an excuse by hawks to get us back in, as they have in Ukraine, also under Obama. They seem to have learned from the failure to get their war in Syria.
The neocons have crossed over to act as liberal hawks, many of the same people changing sides politically, keeping the same policies.
If our president is to carry the legacy of Barack Obama, Help of Christians and other oppressed religious and ethnic minorities, in Iraq, he needs to reconsider the US response.
A massive response by the venerable B-52’s and B-1’s and B-2’s against Islamic State, positions is in order.
Bring the type of devastation to the IS, that the navy brought to the Japanese forces in Midway.
They may not be eliminated, however, they will never be the same again. And, as the Nazis at Stalingrad, they will clearly see, by seeing the dead corpse of their comrades all around them, that they are not invincible.