Fox News is reporting that one of the units going to Iraq is a detachment of Apache Attack Helicopters.
This caught me off guard.
Unless they're talking about flying missions just outside the airport (perimeter patrol) and maybe escorting convoys to and from the airport, I just don't get it.
Even with that limited mission scope, you'd need to setup a "reaction force" to be prepared to recover downed helicopter pilots and that can be a manpower intensive, risky affair.
This thing is already suffering mission creep. I can see the planners now. We can do it with X, Y and Z...but if you want to ensure proper force protection we're going to need 1, 2, and 3.
How soon before we see a Stryker Brigade dispatched?
They will never call it what it will be, but it will be the 3rd Iraq war. They will just claim its a continuation of Bush's war
ReplyDeleteYeah I am not buying it, none of the weapons on the Ah64 are suitable for defending an embassy, unless you want lots of dead embassy people.... They are to unprecise, they are area attack weapons....
ReplyDeleteIf I were at that embassy when it was under attack I would love to have a few AH-64s overhead. It's been used for CCA for years, which is what it will most likely do in support of the embassy. If it's fires have been precise enough for the last dozen years, why not now?
Deleteagreed the only weapons that weren't precision were the 2.75 missiles....now they're laser guided. hellfires are pin point. the 30mm cannon is spot on....they can do the job.
DeleteOh the weapons are not unprecise in that they can't hit a small target accurately some distance away, they can absoloutely do that, but they are non-precise because they make a big explosion when they do!
DeleteImagine a hellfire exploding outside the embassy, imagine how that could damage the embassy cause collateral damage, even the 30mm has a large kill radius, a few of those in the wrong place! What would make more sense would be MRAPs on patrols around the embasy district, but then you need a base for the MRAPs, and you need soldiers to guard the base....
I think you're forgetting that the US Embassy in Baghdad was designed as a fortress. I'm sure its walls can handle some Hellfire blast waves.
DeleteBesides, the job of the Apaches will be to interdict threats BEFORE they reach the walls.
How, do they have some magic googles so they can tell what the ISIS vehicle looks like, they aren't going to broadcast their pressence with apaches nearbye.
DeleteI would go with a combination of ISTAR and the black flags and the dudes shooting at the Iraqi/Iranian/American forces. Somehow the pilots managed to ID the enemy for the last dozen years so they could provide effective CCA, I don't see why they will all of the sudden be incompetent and ineffective.
DeleteWhen the shooting starts, they'll simply flatten every building within a kilometer of the embassy walls. Then shoot anyone who tries to cross the rubble.
DeleteI'm surprised AC-130U Spooky isn't in the list. Couple the Spooky with Harvest HAWK and set them loose at night can bring about harassing ISIS while they (try to) sleep. And during the day, let Apache loose.
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you've been following ISIL, but they're now claiming that they're trying to reform the Caliphate. They're serious about it and they're now calling for extremists everywhere to come help them. At least we know where their borders plan on ending: the entire Middle East. They have the momentum right now and both their primary opponents are weak. Syria has been weakened by a civil war. Iraq has obviously been weakened from our war with them, but their soldiers are also total pussies when it comes to fighting. I can't believe I didn't see this sooner: a huge power vacuum was left right between those two countries and ISIL baited their time before jumping in to fill it.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/isil-leader-baghdadi-urges-jihad-ramadan-message-audio-154433086.html
I think we may actually need to fight them now, assuming the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, and the Russians are not enough. If they advance far enough they could seriously cause massive damage to the economy.
if we decide to fight these fucks for another 20 years it will do serious damage to our economy.
Deletei still say let it burn.
i just don't care about the middle east. i do care about the US. if those fucks set foot in America then shoot them like the rabid dogs they are but fighting under the rules that we've had for the last 10 plus years for another 10 plus years? no thank you and we'll never win unless we get serious about it...which the US public just isn't.
Amen, we stand to gain nothing. Good riddance, ya poor bastards, we sure as fuck tried.
DeleteWell, ISIS just released a map of what where they intend to expand in the next 5 years: http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrifying-isis-map-showing-year-expansion-plan/story?id=24366850
DeleteI really don't think there's any good outcomes to this. If ISIS wins we suffer economic damage. If we intervene we suffer economic damage, but we will at least have some control over the situation. I know Americans are tired and sick of war. I'm one of those that is also sick of it.
Both decisions are risky. If we don't intervene then that means we're hoping Russian or Iran will take the reigns. That would be good for us since it would become their problem. However, we must ask, what if Russia and Iran are not enough? What if they lose the war? There might not be any going back after that.
If we intervene there's a whole host of issues that I don't feel need explaining. In any case, I'm sick of watching us send servicemen to fight in the Middle East, but I'm starting to see the reasoning behind intervening in this particular fight. I don't necessarily think we need to intervene right this second. In fact, if we do intervene I'd much rather we wait and let the Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, and the Russians sweat and bleed a while before getting involved. It would probably be best to sit back and wait to see how things develop before jumping in, but if ISIL beats the current line up they're fighting against, then I think it would be less damaging for our economy to jump in and fight compared to the possible damage we could suffer if we just let ISIL roll through the Middle East and North Africa.
This is exactly what ISIS's patrons want you to think. Step back and ask yourself who's benefiting from ISIS. We need to refuse to play their power games.
Deletehttp://theaviationist.com/2014/07/01/iranian-su-25-iraq/
ReplyDeleteUhhh ... WTF is this?
"The aircraft and support to fly them would be part of a military contract (backed by the U.S.) according to which Iran’s IRGC Air Force will receive six Su-30K multirole jets destined to Iraq."
This is the mice (Russia and Iran) walking into the trap that was set for them.
Delete