• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees

mbig

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This would be very limited but....
For a good purpose IMO (saving Yazidis, and maybe some Christians), but this opens the doors to Mission Creep.
Hagel says it "Wouldn't be boots on the ground", but it would be.
Apparently the UK is agreeable and ready to go as well.
We've hit their artillery but apparently need to go in physically to break the siege.


U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees
Proposal Under Development Could Put Americans in Direct Confrontation with Islamic State Militants
By DION NISSENBAUM
Updated Aug. 13, 2014 12:27 a.m. ET
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-...refugees-1407881639?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories


WASHINGTON—The U.S. is weighing a military mission in Iraq to rescue thousands of Yazidi refugees, a move that risks putting American forces in direct confrontation with Sunni fighters for the Islamic State. The proposal is still under development and hasn't been approved by President Barack Obama. U.S. officials said the rescue mission is one of many options the U.S. military is weighing after dropping food and water to dying refugees over the past six days.

"People are looking at ways to do something more than just drop water and supplies," one senior U.S. official said. "You can only do that for so long." Since last week, the U.S. has sought to halt the militants' advance on the Kurdish city of Erbil and to relieve Yazidis trapped by the fighters on a barren mountain range through a campaign of airstrikes and aid drops.

A rescue mission could expose U.S. forces to direct fire from the militant group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and that is a risk Mr. Obama may not be willing to accept.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon continued to lay the groundwork for a rescue by sending another 130 military advisers to northern Iraq to develop options the Pentagon can present to the president. The team will be made up of U.S. Marines and members of American special operations forces who have expertise in difficult missions.

The U.K. government also announced it was sending several Chinook transport helicopters to the region—a move that would position British forces to help rescue Yazidi refugees struggling to survive in the mountain range.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly emphasized that the air campaign would be limited in scope, if not duration. At the same time, the U.S. has opened the door to offering more support to the Iraqi government if it successfully establishes a new government. It is already covertly supplying Kurdish forces with arms, U.S. officials said.

"This is not a combat, boots-on-the-ground operation," said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during a talk Tuesday afternoon with U.S. Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif. "But, short of that, there are some things that we can continue to do—and we are doing."

No rescue operation is likely to take place until the U.S. military gets a better understanding of the scope of the crisis. American officials don't know how many refugees are trapped in the mountains. Estimates range from several thousand to as many as 35,000 people.
[........]
Click to expand...
 
mbig said:
This would be very limited but....
For a good purpose IMO (saving Yazidis, and maybe some Christians), but this opens the doors to Mission Creep.
Hagel says it "Wouldn't be boots on the ground", but it would be.
Apparently the UK is agreeable and ready to go as well.
We've hit their artillery but apparently need to go in physically to break the siege.


U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees
Proposal Under Development Could Put Americans in Direct Confrontation with Islamic State Militants
By DION NISSENBAUM
Updated Aug. 13, 2014 12:27 a.m. ET
U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees - WSJ
Click to expand...


This is not an Anglo-American problem and we should not make it one. This is the international community's, that of the large countries and the
UN's problem. The US should be out there hammering that point home. The UN signed up to a Responsibility to Protect in 2005. It is time it took that responsibility.

Only after it should become apparent to all that that is the responsibility of the UN and its members and is is visible and apparent to all which members are shirking their responsibility and why should the US agree to doing anything beyond bombing strikes to protect the populations.
 
mbig said:
This would be very limited but....
For a good purpose IMO (saving Yazidis, and maybe some Christians), but this opens the doors to Mission Creep.
Hagel says it "Wouldn't be boots on the ground", but it would be.
Apparently the UK is agreeable and ready to go as well.
We've hit their artillery but apparently need to go in physically to break the siege.


U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees
Proposal Under Development Could Put Americans in Direct Confrontation with Islamic State Militants
By DION NISSENBAUM
Updated Aug. 13, 2014 12:27 a.m. ET
U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees - WSJ
Click to expand...

This is interesting.
"A rescue mission could expose U.S. forces to direct fire from the militant group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and that is a risk Mr. Obama may not be willing to accept".

This decision should be left to the military rather than a politician more interested in the polls than displaying any form of leadership. The US Military, if it has the opportunity to get serious and out of the political realm, would never be too concerned about 'direct fire' or 'risk'. All that would be taken into account and a calculated response quickly forthcoming.
 
joG said:
This is not an Anglo-American problem and we should not make it one.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean. One should only help ones "own people"?
 
ecofarm said:
What does that even mean. One should only help ones "own people"?
Click to expand...

How about Saudis, Israel, Turkey, Iran or whoever clean up that mess? It's in their own backyard and not one of those countries are found of ISIS.
 
austrianecon said:
How about Saudis, Israel, Turkey, Iran or whoever clean up that mess? It's in their own backyard and not one of those countries are found of ISIS.
Click to expand...

That would be great. However, if they do not, then we probably should do something.
 
 
The Iraqi government used to commit genocide against the Kurds, now they fight together to stop genocide.
 
ecofarm said:
That would be great. However, if they do not, then we probably should do something.
Click to expand...

Nope. This is a situation where the US should go to Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Israel and Syria (yes, Syria) and build a coalition to break ISIS. Enemies need to become Frenemies for this. Israel can provide refuge. Syria can fight ISIS in Syria. Turkey can sweep down to the area pushing ISIS out, Kurds can push from the East to the West with Iranian help. For this, Kurds would get a state and give up claims in Turkey. Iran and US/Israel would have a talking relationship. Two birds, One stone.

But alas some don't see the chances here and would rather force American forces down the throat of the region again. These countries won't learn to work together or be cordial with each other if they have the US fix the problems all the time. It's about time the middle eastern countries work together.
 
ecofarm said:
The Iraqi government used to commit genocide against the Kurds, now they fight together to stop genocide.
Click to expand...

Iraq has done **** to stop genocide, that Kurds couldn't do if they had US funding and training. ;)
 
austrianecon said:
Iraq has done **** to stop genocide, that Kurds couldn't do if they had US funding and training. ;)
Click to expand...

When was the last time anyone did anything that couldn't be done by anyone with US funding and training.
 
austrianecon said:
Russia? China? British?
Click to expand...

I dont see these geopolitical adversaries coming together over this. Would it be better to just give our allies bombs and missles so a show can be made dropping them like in Libya? Nations do things because its in their interest, not to merely collaborate

The world without a US presence wont be a wonderful place where everyone works together. It will be more of this, with the rest of the world turning a blind eye.
 
ecofarm said:
What does that even mean. One should only help ones "own people"?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. R2P would require countries to prevent exterminations. The first in line is the country on the ground. If it cannot, will not or is actually doing the exterminations, then the neighborhood is responsible and should get the Security Council to mandate intervention. If they do not, then others must. But it is absolutely essential in the case of the US to make sure that it is evident to everyone and their dog that the neighborhood and SC failed and was letting the people die.

Then the US should act in concert with allies and act unilaterally if absolutely necessary.
 
mbig said:
This would be very limited but....
For a good purpose IMO (saving Yazidis, and maybe some Christians), but this opens the doors to Mission Creep.
Hagel says it "Wouldn't be boots on the ground", but it would be.
Apparently the UK is agreeable and ready to go as well.
We've hit their artillery but apparently need to go in physically to break the siege.


U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees
Proposal Under Development Could Put Americans in Direct Confrontation with Islamic State Militants
By DION NISSENBAUM
Updated Aug. 13, 2014 12:27 a.m. ET
U.S. Weighs Iraq Rescue Mission to Save Yazidis - WSJ
Click to expand...

Another option, better in my opinion, would be to give them guns and training then let them defend themselves.
 
A mass evacuation of Yazidis is unlikely following an assessment by the U.S. State Department and military that found far fewer people were trapped than previously feared. Once believed to be in the tens of thousands, the number of Yazidis in the mountains is "now in the low thousands," Brett McGurk, a deputy assistant secretary of state, told CNN on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

After the rescue: Yazidi family's flight to escape ISIS - CNN.com


DVSentinel said:
Another option, better in my opinion, would be to give them guns and training then let them defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Starving women and children, surrounded. Send them to Ranger school?
 
Last edited:
austrianecon said:
Nope. This is a situation where the US should go to Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Israel and Syria (yes, Syria) and build a coalition to break ISIS. Enemies need to become Frenemies for this. Israel can provide refuge. Syria can fight ISIS in Syria. Turkey can sweep down to the area pushing ISIS out, Kurds can push from the East to the West with Iranian help. For this, Kurds would get a state and give up claims in Turkey. Iran and US/Israel would have a talking relationship. Two birds, One stone.

But alas some don't see the chances here and would rather force American forces down the throat of the region again. These countries won't learn to work together or be cordial with each other if they have the US fix the problems all the time. It's about time the middle eastern countries work together.
Click to expand...

You actually think you can build a coalition with Turkey and Kurds in it together? They are damn near as mortal enemies as Sunnis vs Shi'ites.
 
poweRob said:
Beat me to it verbatim. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I figure the idea was shared responsibility and other countries stepping up. Iirc, the poster agreed, if no help was offered then it was on us.
 
Last edited:
austrianecon said:
Iraq has done **** to stop genocide, that Kurds couldn't do if they had US funding and training. ;)
Click to expand...

In that region, every time we fund and train people to fight we end up in a fight with them.
 
mbig said:
This would be very limited but....
For a good purpose IMO (saving Yazidis, and maybe some Christians), but this opens the doors to Mission Creep.
Hagel says it "Wouldn't be boots on the ground", but it would be.
Apparently the UK is agreeable and ready to go as well.
We've hit their artillery but apparently need to go in physically to break the siege.


U.S. Weighs Military Rescue Mission for Yazidi Refugees
Proposal Under Development Could Put Americans in Direct Confrontation with Islamic State Militants
By DION NISSENBAUM
Updated Aug. 13, 2014 12:27 a.m. ET
U.S. Weighs Iraq Rescue Mission to Save Yazidis - WSJ
Click to expand...

The US doesn't really have a good track record when it comes to becoming militarily involved humanitarian issues...

On a sidenote: for all those people that think the US is evil, just saying it's not like you see Russia rushing to the aid of these people...
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The US doesn't really have a good track record when it comes to becoming militarily involved humanitarian issues...

On a sidenote: for all those people that think the US is evil, just saying it's not like you see Russia rushing to the aid of these people...
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Disaster relief and other humanitarian services are a high profile and successful way to project power in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom