Iraq. Militants take back Mosul, Tikrit and march on Baghdad

Long story short, the US is currently drafting proposals for their plans on how the US is going to pull troops out of the Middle East but have them replaced by troops from the rest of NATO. Trump wants something he calls NATOME - "NATO in the Middle East". This apparently involves the US pulling out and leaving the rest of NATO holding the bag with the US coming back unannounced and at random to bomb the place regardless of anyone's plans.
This is Trump looking at the situation should the Iraqis decide they do want the US troops out. At this moment in time the US has no intention of doing a runner unless told to leave by Iraq. I don't quite know where you got the "with the US coming back unannounced and at random to bomb the place regardless of anyone's plans" because that is BS.

What was said in Washington was that should US troops be expelled from Iraq, the US would continue to provide Naval and Air support for it's NATO partners when needed. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with how you see it and what was actually said.

Meanwhile the US has been doing everything possible to sabotage European policy in the region while apparently being puzzled that those same Europeans aren't enthused about what the US is doing.
What policy is that? One of appeasement? What a joke that is, the only policy European politicians have is deciding how hard their hand wringing should be and they can't even collectively agree on that.

Canada has a few issues with that. One is that any assistance to the US will depend on the US sticking around and not bugging out on everyone else.
As this moment in time the US has around 5000 military personnel in Iraq, the rest of NATO between them has around 500 but they withdrew some of those last week and now have fewer than 500. So who's bugging out on who?

So Canada is waiting for what comes out of a NATO meeting in Washington before staking out a position. This by the way is why unofficial official leaks are being made, it allows Canada to state an initial position while not being committed to it before we know what is going to get proposed at the meeting.
If Canada wants to state a position then either leaking it or announcing officially will result in the same thing, the media will get a hold of it and run with it. Other than that Canada is right to wait and see what the outcome of meeting in Washington brings.

It's not likely there will be any consensus on this, as there's not a lot of enthusiasm for "cleaning up Trump's messes".
Cleaning up Trumps messes you say! Dude from where I'm sitting NATO has had neither the will nor the troops in place to clean up anything more than a toilet floor.

IMHO NATO is way past it's sell past date. The sensible thing to do is disband it and let the Europeans be responsible for their own defence collectively, it would be interesting to see how that works out for them both in terms of security and financially.

That way it won't have the hypocritical two faced twats being dragged into anymore US wars and they can all sit around singing kumbaya. A lot of people seem to forget that the Middle East has been a PITA long before the US got involved in it, both the UK and France aren't exactly innocent parties in that department.
 
This is Trump looking at the situation should the Iraqis decide they do want the US troops out. At this moment in time the US has no intention of doing a runner unless told to leave by Iraq. I don't quite know where you got the "with the US coming back unannounced and at random to bomb the place regardless of anyone's plans" because that is BS.

What was said in Washington was that should US troops be expelled from Iraq, the US would continue to provide Naval and Air support for it's NATO partners when needed. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with how you see it and what was actually said.
And this is others saying that if the US leaves they aren't going to stick around and be left holding the bag on behalf of the US.

What policy is that? One of appeasement? What a joke that is, the only policy European politicians have is deciding how hard their hand wringing should be and they can't even collectively agree on that.
It's the policy that they have. You know, the people that you are trying to persuade to do something for you?

As this moment in time the US has around 5000 military personnel in Iraq, the rest of NATO between them has around 500 but they withdrew some of those last week and now have fewer than 500. So who's bugging out on who?
Canada by itself had 500 people there, before counting anyone else. Some Canadian personnel were pulled back to Kuwait, just like the US did, when the pot started to boil after the airstrike assassination of Soleimani and the Iraqi government started talking about kicking all foreign troops out.

If Canada wants to state a position then either leaking it or announcing officially will result in the same thing, the media will get a hold of it and run with it. Other than that Canada is right to wait and see what the outcome of meeting in Washington brings.
Canada is waiting for the outcome of the meeting, as said in my post. Ottawa is also however letting the US know about about their own feelings on things before the Americans paint themselves into a corner.

Cleaning up Trumps messes you say! Dude from where I'm sitting NATO has had neither the will nor the troops in place to clean up anything more than a toilet floor.
It's a direct quote from the story, as indicated in my summary and in the block of quoted text. It was also in the story subheading, and in a paragraph heading. If you don't agree with the story, that's fine, but that isn't going to stop me from posting news and analysis from serious news sources.

IMHO NATO is way past it's sell past date. The sensible thing to do is disband it and let the Europeans be responsible for their own defence collectively, it would be interesting to see how that works out for them both in terms of security and financially.

That way it won't have the hypocritical two faced twats being dragged into anymore US wars and they can all sit around singing kumbaya. A lot of people seem to forget that the Middle East has been a PITA long before the US got involved in it, both the UK and France aren't exactly innocent parties in that department.
Fab, you're in full agreement then with the European countries that the US expects would do the fighting.
 
And this is others saying that if the US leaves they aren't going to stick around and be left holding the bag on behalf of the US.
Yeah well in order for that to happen your troops would have to actually be there.

It's the policy that they have. You know, the people that you are trying to persuade to do something for you?
The US isn't trying to persuade anyone to do anything for the US. What the US is trying to do is persuade NATO member countries to fulfill their obligations under the treaty instead of the half arrsed effort they are putting in now.

Canada by itself had 500 people there, before counting anyone else. Some Canadian personnel were pulled back to Kuwait, just like the US did, when the pot started to boil after the airstrike assassination of Soleimani and the Iraqi government started talking about kicking all foreign troops out.
My apologies, I should have been clearer. Other than the US, NATO has less than 500 combat troops in Iraq.

It's a direct quote from the story, as indicated in my summary and in the block of quoted text. It was also in the story subheading, and in a paragraph heading. If you don't agree with the story, that's fine, but that isn't going to stop me from posting news and analysis from serious news sources.
Given the source of the story I'll take it with the pinch of salt in a way it deserves to be taken.

Fab, you're in full agreement then with the European countries that the US expects would do the fighting.
Yep I am, it's about time they pony'd up and pulled their weight.

The sooner the US gets rid of the excess baggage that is it's NATO partners, the better and cheaper it'll be for the US taxpayer. NATO need the US a hell of a lot more than the US needs NATO. As it stands at the moment, the NATO alliance is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

I reckon it would be best if you and I were to agree to disagree because we are definitely not going to agree. Have a good one.
 
Yeah well in order for that to happen your troops would have to actually be there.
You do know that Canada currently provides the largest troop contribution to NATO Mission Iraq (NMI), don't you?
 
You do know that Canada currently provides the largest troop contribution to NATO Mission Iraq (NMI), don't you?
In a non-combat training and advisory mission yes, but the last I heard on it Canada had suspended its Canadian led training mission for Iraqi soldiers in the wake of the killing of Qasem Soleimani .

Right now though the US has something like just over 5000 troops in Iraq.
 
... the last I heard on it Canada had suspended its Canadian led training mission for Iraqi soldiers in the wake of the killing of Qasem Soleimani .
No, NATO, which 'owns' the mission, has suspended it due to security concerns in the wake of the unilateral US action.
 
No, NATO, which 'owns' the mission, has suspended it due to security concerns in the wake of the unilateral US action.
I stand corrected. Is it still suspended? Can't find anything on it. BTW I'm not knocking what the Canadians of any other nations troops are doing over there.
 
OIR (Op Inherent Resolve) and NMI (NATO Mission Iraq) have both suspended trg (and most, I won’t say all) ops in Iraq, pending a review and any possible response from Iran, or more likely their supported militias:

Our first priority is protecting all Coalition personnel committed to the defeat of Daesh. Repeated rocket attacks over the last two months by elements of Kata'ib Hezbollah have caused the death of Iraqi Security Forces personnel and a U.S. civilian. As a result we are now fully committed to protecting the Iraqi bases that host Coalition troops. This has limited our capacity to conduct training with partners and to support their operations against Daesh and we have therefore paused these activities, subject to continuous review. We remain resolute as partners of the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi people that have welcomed us into their country to help defeat ISIS. We remain ready to return our full attention and efforts back to our shared goal of ensuring the lasting defeat of Daesh.

“The safety of our personnel in Iraq is paramount,” acting NATO spokesman Dylan White said in a statement. “We continue to take all precautions necessary. NATO’s mission is continuing, but training activities are temporarily suspended.”
 
I stand corrected. Is it still suspended? Can't find anything on it. BTW I'm not knocking what the Canadians of any other nations troops are doing over there.
Currently remains suspended however, much remains in place in Iraq, and those personnel taken out of the country aren't far away.
 
Currently remains suspended however, much remains in place in Iraq, and those personnel taken out of the country aren't far away.
As of Friday, Canada and NATO were talking to Iraq about whether they are going to kick us out of the country because of the US actions.
Canada will withdraw forces if Iraq formalizes request for foreign troops to leave: Sajjan
Sajjan said that discussions are taking place between the two countries as Canada looks to get its mission back on track.

"The current Iraqi leadership realizes why we came here in the first place, which is actually to help Iraq, to stop the scourge of Daesh, known as ISIS, from controlling the country," he said.

"Obviously the Iraqi government has concerns. We're listening to those concerns."
Some training operations by Canadian troops have resumed, although there weren't any details. Some resupply and equipment rotation operations have resumed as well.
Canadian military resumes some operations in Iraq following Iran scare

There hasn't been much if any details come out about what the Canadian mission has consisted of recently, but there were some leaks when there was still active fighting around Mosul. Small groups would each train a group of Iraqi soldiers and then take their "class" up to the front lines and hold their hands through their first few battles. That included telling them what to do, providing sniper support, and calling in air strikes. It was technically not considered a "combat" role, but they were still getting shot at by IS troops and were shooting back (in self defence).

If the Iraqis had decided to turn on them when out in the field, because say for example some retard stirred them up against foreigners, there was likely little chance of them getting out alive as there would only be a handful of them together in one place and they would be a long ways away from any help.

There is little or no public information on how they are conducting their training missions now that the war is in a different phase, but it's quite possible that the current situation has put a major spoke in the wheel of the Canadian mission there for some time to come. If so, then that in turn will not help in dealing with the continuing problem of IS, and IS, not Iran, are the reason why Canada are there in the first place.
 
If the Iraqis had decided to turn on them when out in the field, because say for example some retard stirred them up against foreigners, there was likely little chance of them getting out alive as there would only be a handful of them together in one place and they would be a long ways away from any help.
As I understand it, the potential threat isn't 'green on blue' by the Iraqi military, but the possibility that Iraqi-government aligned, but Iran supporting, militias may decide to take a pop at NATO troops.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top