U.S. weighs more troops to train Iraqi forces, Sunnis

it means more and more civil war

What is it with the U.S.A. and wars? Their actions in the Middle East are making the situation worse and so they want to kill more people?

They have no right to be there in the first place. The Iraq "war" killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants, people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and ruined whole cities. All of this based on lies.

What they are doing is not working. So, why not change tactics?

The US has been "training" troops in Iraq for what? Over 10 years? I'm starting to wonder who the slow learners are. The Iraqis or the Americans?

You reap what you sow. The harvest has been bountiful this time.

Because this strategy has been working so well for the past 10 years. Only way Us can end this is to raze the caliphate to the ground. Which they are kind of assisting in right now.

Burning Bush,

This had occurred to me too. And then, when the whole area is in ruins, Israel and any other pro-US countries still standing will take over.

The US has been training Iraqi troops for more than a decade. If they are training them to throw down their guns and run when the first shots are fired then they are having great success.

The obvious fact of Obama's foreign policy failure. Delusional Obama turned Iraq into Iranian hands. He focused to nowhere in Afghanistan, no troop on the ground in Iraq?, Assad's red line! ISIS was Jayvee? and now U.S.troop in Iraq??? C'mon, it sounds like a band aid to cure cancer prescribed for wrong reason and time by delusional in chief. Many are dying in the region that seems no end in sight. All thanks to Obama & his bots, plus the Sunni & Shiite's schism. Besides,Russia and China busy to bully the rest of the world. Wow more reset of reset buttons will be needed again???

Libya, Syria, Iraqi.... Weaken and destroy the legitimate government via sanctions and bombing of infrastructure and so on.

Way to group apples and oranges together! And "legitimate government" - ha ha! Oh, yes, Gaddafi, Assad and Hussein were all quite legitimate leaders, democratically elected and beloved by their people. Seriously, I was against the war in Iraq even while Bush was so desperately selling it, but now that the dead is done - well, as Powell said, it's the Pottery Barn rule.

Delusional Obama turned Iraq into Iranian hands.

That would have been Bush. At any rate, it is probably better that way. The Iranians are not monsters, and the sooner the US learns to cooperate with them, the better.

All thanks to Obama & his bots, plus the Sunni & Shiite's schism. Besides,Russia and China busy to bully the rest of the world.

Good list of caveats there! Too bad Bush didn't consider those back in 2003.

ISIS will eventually collapse and a new world will be born in the Middle East. It's better that America stay on the side of the inevitable winners - the Shia - rather than futilely trying to dictate an outcome.

Burning Bush:

" Libya, Syria, Iraqi.... Did it occur to anyone that perhaps US policy is to intentionally destabilize these countries. "

Did it occur to you that there is no consistent, long-term "US policy", only changing administration with changing players, whose only common characteristics are ignorance about the issue plus short-term political goals?

But I guess grand conspiracy theories are more comfortable.

Because what the Middle East needs right now is more militarily trained and armed Sunnis......

What is it with the U.S.A. and wars?

Actually, it should be more like, why NO one else is trying to stop the Jihadists and expect the US to ONCE again all the work.

Their actions in the Middle East are making the situation worse and so they want to kill more people?

They WANT to? I have never met ANY soldier that is in a corner sharpening his knife waiting to go on a hunt to kill innocent people joyfully. You're digging again, buddy.

They have no right to be there in the first place.

Because you say so??!

The Iraq "war" killed hundreds of thousands of non-combatants, people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and ruined whole cities. All of this based on lies.

And the Sectarian killed 5 times as much. Why are you leaving that point out? And oh, by the way, who's doing the majority of the killing in that region now, tell you what, it ain't the US.

What they are doing is not working. So, why not change tactics?

We can't at least not until another 517 days until that happens.

This had occurred to me too. And then, when the whole area is in ruins, Israel and any other pro-US countries still standing will take over.

You don't want that, because if that happens, unlike the US, they WON'T hold back, nor should they IMHO.

Way to group apples and oranges together! And "legitimate government" - ha ha! Oh, yes, Gaddafi, Assad and Hussein were all quite legitimate leaders, democratically elected and beloved by their people.

Absolutely NOT. As much as I hated all of them, unlike Saddam, these men, kept a tight lid on protests as brutal as they were. Hilary pushed for the ouster of Mubarak and Gaddafi and we don't even need to go into Benghazi.

That would have been Bush.

What?? LOL Obama has been president for the last 6 years. Sorry, Bush had nothing to do with the last 6 years or with the Iranian negations which Bush would have never entertained in the first place, maybe that's another reason why he's popularity is grinding Obama's down to a point.

At any rate, it is probably better that way. The Iranians are not monsters, and the sooner the US learns to cooperate with them, the better.

NO ONE said the Iranians are monsters, NO one on the conservative thinks that. Again, some more liberal garrulous talk. It's the crazy Mullahs that everyone hates and is concerned about.

Good list of caveats there! Too bad Bush didn't consider those back in 2003.

ROFL...Yeah, this is why libs are the party of daisies.

ISIS will eventually collapse and a new world will be born in the Middle East.

I know you don't believe what you just said. No way!

It's better that America stay on the side of the inevitable winners - the Shia - rather than futilely trying to dictate an outcome.

It's better that America doesn't give Iran an inch until they can promise and make unconditional promises not to pursue any ideas to make bombs. If not, NO Deal. You walk away.

More American blood will be shed as trainees turn on their trainers.

Laguna:

" Good list of caveats there! Too bad Bush didn't consider those back in 2003. "

...and Obama did not consider that in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. What is up with this tunnel vision? Will you still be fixated on Bush 10 years from now? 20 years? 30 years?

" ISIS will eventually collapse and a new world will be born in the Middle East. It's better that America stay on the side of the inevitable winners - the Shia - rather than futilely trying to dictate an outcome. "

There is no reason to assume that ISIS will collapse, and I am really curious how you get the idea that the Shia, who represent only 10% of the muslim population, will be the "inevitable winners". Care to share your logic?

we don't even need to go into Benghazi.

That's the truth. It's amazing that that fact is finally getting through some people's thick heads.

WilliB, Bush's toppling of Saddam and the subsequent collapse of Sunni power in Iraq accomplished for Iran what a decade of vicious warfare between the two countries could not: It turned the Shia-majority areas of Iraq into an Iranian ally. Bush then negotiated a complete withdrawal of US troops with Maliki and then dumped the whole mess in Obama's lap. That all is indisputable fact.

You'll notice that the ISIS is victorious almost exclusively in Sunni-dominated areas. The Kurds and the Shia are able to fend them off from their respective homelands for the most part. The ISIS relies on constant warfare and expansion for its existence, not only on a material basis but also from a theological point of view, and the minute that expansion ceases is the minute the contraction will begin. What will be left behind is a shattered shell of Sunni Iraq and the emergence of a Shia crescent stretching from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon.

Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing, and it might have happened anyway even without the $2 trillion dollars Bush spent hastening it along, but to blame Obama for the mess is rather a "dead parrot" kind of argument.

Sounds like what Eisenhower said going into Vietnam, and that was almost 70 years ago. The War Pigs are running the planet.

seems that ISIL is well-renowned in the arab middleeastern world with no exception to any country ,,,, because if they are eliminated , leaders of those countries will be toppled , time to remove UN Forces , and let them sort out their own wars

...... Even rebels in syria are welcoming ISIL thugs

Iran will have the nuke , Saudi arabia will get it from pakistan , egypt from russia's putin , syria from russia

Weapon industries will be gaining more from that , I can't blame them at all

Stubborn heads need a harsh experience to reach to the stability

it will take at least 20~30 million dead to evolve ................... But they will be forced to do that by themselves

Bush's toppling of Saddam and the subsequent collapse of Sunni power in Iraq accomplished for Iran what a decade of vicious warfare between the two countries could not: It turned the Shia-majority areas of Iraq into an Iranian ally. Bush then negotiated a complete withdrawal of US troops with Maliki and then dumped the whole mess in Obama's lap. That all is indisputable fact.

That much is true, however, Bush always and advocated to leave a sizable amount of troops in the region. What also is an indisputable fact is that Gen. Keane and Patreus turned the surge around and there was relative calm and a somewhat functioning normalcy at that time in Iraq. Obama was handed over a mostly stable, but not by any means perfect country and instead of leaving a small division of forces, Obama in his haste removes all of our troops, Maliki disbanded the mostly Shia police and military force, Obama never signed a SOFA and the rest we now know what came out of that. So from 2008 until the present, our presidents name is "Barack Hussein Obama" there you go, the facts, at tell the entire truth and not select the parts that you don't like.

That's the truth. It's amazing that that fact is finally getting through some people's thick heads.

Meaning, that Hilary will be grilled on that soon enough anyway in the debate phase. So I will be glad when the truth comes out.

You'll notice that the ISIS is victorious almost exclusively in Sunni-dominated areas. The Kurds and the Shia are able to fend them off from their respective homelands for the most part.

The Kurds at least for a moment, they have been literally begging the U.S. For more weapons and what does Obama do? As usual, what he's famous for is nothing.

The ISIS relies on constant warfare and expansion for its existence, not only on a material basis but also from a theological point of view, and the minute that expansion ceases is the minute the contraction will begin. What will be left behind is a shattered shell of Sunni Iraq and the emergence of a Shia crescent stretching from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon.

And there is no sign of them stopping anytime soon and what makes you think, they just want to keep their territory and stop the expansion of the caliphate only in that region? Come on now....

Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing,

I guess you are the only one and the progressive movement that thinks it's a good idea? I remember Poland in 1932...

and it might have happened anyway even without the $2 trillion dollars Bush spent hastening it along,

Or the $18Trillion Obama spent.

but to NOT blame Obama for the mess is rather a "dead parrot" kind of argument

That much is true, however, Bush always and advocated to leave a sizable amount of troops in the region. What also is an indisputable fact is that Gen. Keane and Patreus turned the surge around....

What a load of shit. Do you really believe that crap? F%#king war pigs.

Laguna:

" Bush's toppling of Saddam and the subsequent collapse of Sunni power in Iraq accomplished for Iran what a decade of vicious warfare between the two countries could not: It turned the Shia-majority areas of Iraq into an Iranian ally. Bush then negotiated a complete withdrawal of US troops with Maliki and then dumped the whole mess in Obama's lap. "

That is true, but it is also true that the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq was Obamas decision (who bragged about leaving a stable Iraq behind, you read up on that). Note that Obama did not say "we have no choice to withdraw and leave the Sunnis at Malikis mercy, now lets take all cover".... No, he bragged about his SUCCESS.

And while keep harping on what Bush did wrong, you completely ignore that Obama destroyed the secular government in Libya and handed Libya to Al Quaeda aka ISIS and is in the process of doing the same in Syria. (You might have noticed that the capital of ISIS is in Syria, by the way.)

That is why I am wondering about this tunnel vision. Both US governments have made mistakes, but you are fixated on the mistakes of one 7 years ago and are completely blind to the mistakes of the current one. What is up with that? Simply US party politics? That is pretty disappointing.

Or the $18Trillion Obama spent.

Bush creates the biggest recession in almost 100 years.

Bush starts two wars on the country credit card.

Obama spends money to clean up Bush's recession.

Obama gets the credit card bills for the wars and has to pay them.

And Obama spent $18 trillion. Yeah, right.

Obama revved up the printing presses for the shovel ready jobs that didn't appear. Spatula ready maybe.

The green initiative and several major recipients went bankrupt. China bought some fantastic deals.

And U.S. Has nearly half of the citizens on some sort of public assistance. Obama phones worked well for votes.

Since you completely missed the logic, I'll say it again:

Bush creates the biggest recession in almost 100 years.

Bush starts two wars on the country credit card.

Obama spends money to clean up Bush's recession.

Obama gets the credit card bills for the wars and has to pay them.

And Obama spent $18 trillion. Yeah, right.

I get the lack of knowledge, but I just care about the hard facts. I think you just don't want to admit your inability or unwillingness to face the facts of what Obama did and continues to do. You libs don't want to talk about Benghazi, don't want to talk about Hilary's scandals and you want to give Obama a pass. Bush has been out of office since 2008. Everything happening now and has happened since 2008 up until now is on Obama's shoulders regardless of what, how and why things happened. So deal with it or not, but the facts on his anointedness are still there.

How about some other countries training and equipping Iraqi soldiers? No good?

"And Obama spent $18 trillion. Yeah, right."

Wrong! Obama spent only about $7 trillion, lol.

training of Iraqi forces and Sunni tribal fighters in a step that could mean deploying hundreds of additional U.S. troops,

No matter how US tried to train Iragi soldiers, some are collaborators of enemy and they will become backstabbers of their trainers. Many US Marines killed by their students. Not by the enemy.

US trained them many years with billions dollar fortune. However Saudi and Qartar has bank rolled IS from behind with disrespect to US of A. Embarrassing moment was Iragi soldiers ran away and leave their weapons as trophy for IS during Ramadi battle. No matter how much resources US spend for Iragi force, they have no moral and commitment for battles. Before the battle has started, it has already lost.

The best solution is US should cut the source of finance for IS. It means US should make D day landing on Saudi and Qartar for arresting wealthy financiers and trialed them in the court. Without the root, the tree will fall on ground indefinitely.

That is true, but it is also true that the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq was Obamas decision (who bragged about leaving a stable Iraq behind, you read up on that).

Well, sure, aside from the fact that Bush had a signed agreement to COMPLETELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WITHDRAW ALL AMERICAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ, the withdrawal was entirely Obama's doing (honoring the agreement that Bush had drawn up, that is). Wikipedia notes:

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement ... between Iraq and the United States, (was) signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Now, of course, Obama might have been able to renegotiate that agreement; he might even have simply ignored it. Two points cannot be denied, however: Bush got us into Iraq, and Bush arranged the exit; and, had America stayed, ceteris parabis is very doubtful: America would have been hated by both the Sunni and Shia, and the idea that a few thousand troops could have maintained a peace that over a hundred thousand under Bush had struggled with is nonsense.

Sorry, WilliB: The parrot Obama inherited was dead, and no jawboning will bring it back to life.

Must be time for the US to test some new weapons and battle strategies in the field which they can then sell to the country they invaded! A wonderful business model even if it's win-win for the government but lose-lose for civilians.

Bertie Wooster: What is it with the U.S.A. and wars?

What is it with Muslims and religious genocide? Seems like a fair question to ask given the fact you've opened the door to sweeping generalizations.

bass: Bush has been out of office since 2008. Everything happening now and has happened since 2008 up until now is on Obama's shoulders

So then everything that happened during Bush's years, like the recession, are on his shoulders. Either that or start backtracking. Or change the topic to something unrelated, your choice.

WilliB: That is true, but it is also true that the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq was Obamas decision

Iraq refused to sign a SOFA. The end.

I'm thankful there are no US troops there now. It's silly to think that ISIS would have contained themselves to Syria because of US troops in Iraq. Troops aren't going to solve the religious civil war, it just tries to create a stalemate that temporarily stops the killing. Right now we'd be watching a steady stream of American casualties on the nightly news if we had a large force in Iraq. No thanks.

Burning Bush: The Saudis are openly and proudly funding all the Jihadist groups like Al Qaida and ISIS and not a peep from the US.

Again, this is mostly for the benefit of others here. At this point I'm assuming you have a quota for mentioning SA, Turkey, and (now) Qatar. You've written the same words daily for about 2 months now and that's not a natural thing, more like company policy.

The US can exert pressure on these countries, but that's about it. We can't close the border between Turkey and Syria any more than we can close it between Russia and The Ukraine. Besides, Russia has relationships with these countries, but obviously you look to America to save you, America to take on ISIS, America to arm Assad. Is Russia mostly castrated in this situation?

Flogging a dead parrot. No more blood spilled and money wasted in these holy hell holes. Get the hell out and stay out.

No more blood spilled

Did you ever spill any? Seen any combat? . . . Or just a little on "TV"?

Well, sure, aside from the fact that Bush had a signed agreement to COMPLETELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WITHDRAW ALL AMERICAN TROOPS FROM IRAQ, the withdrawal was entirely Obama's doing (honoring the agreement that Bush had drawn up, that is). Wikipedia notes:

Not so fast...

Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010. There were late-night meetings at the fortified compound of then Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in video conferences between Baghdad and Washington. In June 2011, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that President Obama had told Prime Minister Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies. Eventually, he gained authorization to continue talks with the U.S. on keeping troops in Iraq.

Here is the key, Maliki WANTED a minimum of 10.000 troops.

In August 2011, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the U.S. settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 troop number. An American official said intelligence assessments stated that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces, which was a factor in the decision.

Obama ONLY agreed to 3 to 5,000 troops

In October 2011, American officials pressed Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the U.S. asked Iraq to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the biggest challenge.

In other words, Obama was more concerned with getting the troops out and NOT looking back, meaning: he just started to open up Pandora's box.

However, they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Having watched the Arab Spring sweep across the region and still haunted by the traumas of this and previous wars, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.

This was the fault also of Maliki for being a complete inept narcissistic fool when he decided to fire all the mostly Sunni police force, not to mention Obama wasn't about to push the issue that it would be vital to keep a small force present in that region to keep a damper on things, but Obama being the man of personal self-perservation saw it differently.

Now, of course, Obama might have been able to renegotiate that agreement; he might even have simply ignored it.

The latter.

Two points cannot be denied, however: Bush got us into Iraq, and Bush arranged the exit;

....And Obama with NOT pushing for a renegotiation of the SOFA by most likely ignoring it, did allow room for ISIS to grow, branch out and fester through the most of Iraq and Syria.

and, had America stayed, ceteris parabis is very doubtful: America would have been hated by both the Sunni and Shia,

Which they are now at least by the radical wing of the two sects. So what difference does it make?

and the idea that a few thousand troops could have maintained a peace that over a hundred thousand under Bush had struggled with is nonsense.

Gen. Keane and Petraeus won the surge, turned the tide, so it would have been possible as in 2007.

The parrot Obama inherited was dead, and no jawboning will bring it back to life.

After Obama's gone, who will clean up Obama's Horse's head?

Iraq refused to sign a SOFA. The end.

And now we have as a result a ME that is in total collapse, PERIOD.

I'm thankful there are no US troops there now.

Spoken like a true progressive.

It's silly to think that ISIS would have contained themselves to Syria because of US troops in Iraq. Troops aren't going to solve the religious civil war,

No one said anything about solving it, you can't! But you can with the right amount of forces, you can contain it.

it just tries to create a stalemate that temporarily stops the killing. Right now we'd be watching a steady stream of American casualties on the nightly news if we had a large force in Iraq. No thanks.

That will happen again sooner or later. Either way, we either take the fight to them or they WILL be taking the fight to us and if you think they will just walk away and forget about all this, as long as WE the infidels are not converted or killed off, there will never be peace in the minds of the Jihadists.

If only other nations were actively involved. China is benefitting from Iraq oil unlike those here who say it is USA. Both China and Russian influence in the region are not beneficial and to point fingers it's mostly Russian arms which have created problems in the region in the last few decades. Not the U.S. made arms until now. The ex-Iraqi arms presented to ISIS are a problem.

To surmise China benefits with oil. Not USA. Russia has supplied numerous rebel factions over the years. Not US arms sales. And Obama had several months to accept a proposal from the Pentagon and other free nations. Nothing!

And for the Bush blames for the debt. Yes, he did spend some trillions. Obama entered and escalated the spending. Not on the war but domestically and it was a waste. Record low number of labor participation. Record percentage on entitlements. And we're in a robust economy? Not by a long shot. Bush bailed the banks which created the global collapse. Obama continued to bail ot the banks. His green energy billions are pissed away. Student debt is astronomical....under Obama! Wages are stagnant under Obama. And to top it off Obama care is heading for implosion. How many billions were spent on the website? Hundreds of times more than what the private sector would pay.

And for the Bush blames for the debt. Yes, he did spend some trillions. Obama entered and escalated the spending. Not on the war but domestically and it was a waste.

That is the key word: "Waste."

Record low number of labor participation. Record percentage on entitlements.

More than half of the debt that Obama has created is on the entitlement culture

And we're in a robust economy? Not by a long shot.

Since Obama has been president, welfare entitlements and people on food stamps has increased to over 47 million people, as you said, that is not success.

Bush bailed the banks which created the global collapse. Obama continued to bail ot the banks. His green energy billions are pissed away.

Close to $100 billion

Student debt is astronomical....under Obama! Wages are stagnant under Obama.

Interesting. I Seattle, people protested for a wage increase and while thousands of people in the restaurant industry are getting more money, they are having more layoffs because of it, especially to low skilled workers.

And to top it off Obama care is heading for implosion. How many billions were spent on the website? Hundreds of times more than what the private sector would pay.

Did you ever spill any? Seen any combat? . . . Or just a little on "TV"?

+1 for the Full Metal Jacket reference.

'No more blood spilled

Did you ever spill any? Seen any combat? . . . Or just a little on "TV"?'

I saw the missiles flying through the front door with the excitable Fox chimpanzees bouncing around in their cages. I just don't want to see people coming home in body bags or missing limbs from wars which either achieve nothing ( other than making the rightists aroused and making billions for the arms manufacturers ) or just make things worse. I also don't want to waste my taxes paying for these debacles.

Burning Bush: Why not institute sanctions against the countries that are supporting ISIS?

Is that what your country is doing?

I saw the missiles flying through the front door with the excitable Fox chimpanzees bouncing around in their cages.

Totally agree with you Jimizo. Watching the live video of some of those US soldiers in Iraq made me want to puke. It's all a video game to them. War Pigs, i hate them all.

“Because the forces we’ve trained are performing better than expected, we feel it’s in everyone’s interest to train more.” - article

Bush's contribution to America's future, a permanent herding of cats in a snake pit wrapped in a rat's nest sinking in the quicksand of a region embroiled in conflict for the past dozen centuries.

"I'm absolutely convinced that some day, 50 or 60 years from now, an American president will be speaking to an audience saying, 'Thank goodness a generation of Americans rose to the challenge and helped people be liberated from tyranny,' " Mr. Bush said. " 'Democracy spread and the world is more peaceful for it.' "

Looks like Americans are ready for another Bush meltdown and fifty more years of paying for AWOL Bush's war in Iraq.

Obama withdrew all American forces from Iraq and declared victory. When his rash act to ensure his re-election was exposed as a strategic blunder he began to re-insert troops in a creeping buildup reminiscent of the early days of Vietnam. Whatever quagmire the US may find itself in the region in the future will always lie at his feet.