Reuters reports that a letter was sent to the Iraqi Defense Ministry, to their Baghdad combined joint operations center. In it, the coalition commander said that they would reposition the troops for further movement. The Reuters article suggests that this is a precursor to withdrawal from Iraq.
The entire article from Reuters:
BAGHDAD, Jan 6 (Reuters) – The United States-led military coalition against Islamic State said on Monday that it was pulling out of Iraq and would be repositioning forces over the next few days and weeks, a letter seen by Reuters showed.
“Sir, in deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement,” read a letter from United States Marine Corps Brigadier General William H. Seely III, the commanding general of Task Force Iraq.
The authenticity of the letter, which was addressed to the Iraqi defence ministry’s Combined Joint Operations Baghdad, was confirmed to Reuters independently by an Iraqi military source.
“We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” it said. (Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
Link to Reuters article.
Edited to add:
I’d like to view BG Seely’s orders, not a letter confirmed by Iraqi sources. Trust, yet verify.
I found a letter on r/The_Donald, rushed back here to see your post. It does appear to have what is quoted above:
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/ekzuuc/the_madman_did_it_were_leaving_iraq_another/
Works for me, thanks. Now let’s GTFO and let the Sunnis and Shias duke it out.
Just like since AD 632.
The danger in that philosophy is that we would get a unified Hun/Mongol situation. The Huns were warring factions/rival tribes. Same with the Mongols. Both the ancient Romans, and medieval Chinese, like other civilizations, took advantage of the divisions. However, once those respective groups coalesced into a single entity, they proved to be a threat.
The ultimate objective, of the radical Muslims, is global conquest. History frowns on just letting groups “kill each other” in hopes that there would be no effect on third parties.
And speaking of AD 632, much of what is now predominantly Islam used to be Christian. Once they got their acts together in the Arabian Peninsula, that changed. If you listen to the speeches of many of their clerics, they talk about how they would one day conquer Europe and both Americas, and by extension the whole world.
The Sunnis and Shias have been at odds since the death of Mo, fighting over who should take the helm of the Religion of Peace.
While most of Muhammad’s followers thought that the other elite members of the Islamic community should choose his successor, a smaller group believed only someone from Muhammad’s family— namely his cousin and son-in-law, Ali— should succeed him. This group became known as the Followers of Ali, or Shia.
And its been Hatfields vs. McCoys ever since, for 14 centuries.
You illustrated one of the common themes behind while groups like the Huns and the Mongols were warring with each other, or were rivals, instead of being originally unified. Who would be the leader, who would take over, etc, were among the reasons why groups split or don’t come together.
The Romans looked to where the Huns were at and saw people who have been at odds with each other for generations. It was Hatfields versus McCoys with the Huns, Mongols, and with other groups. In fact, if you read the Old Testament, one of the many functions of the 10 Commandments and the statutes and judgements that followed was to “suppress” blood revenge, power struggles, etc., that were common in that area.
Look at the greater history of the Middle East, and you’ll see groups that were enemies and adversaries with each other, constantly fought with each other, until their city-states become kingdoms, later empires. The Assyrian Empire, Babylonian Empire, Persian Empire, etc., started off as competing warring groups before coming together to threaten their neighbors.
Now, first with Al-Qaeda, then with ISIS, we’ve seen how different warring factions would come together. We haven’t seen the last of terrorist groups coming together.
The fact of the matter is that thousands of years of human history shows, repeatedly, warring/competing groups ending up as a part of a bigger unified group. We haven’t escaped that process, it’s human nature.
Hence, “letting them duke it out over there” has historically been a disastrous policy to engage in.
If they unite, snuff the uniting person(s).
Repeat as needed.
In the meantime, immigration from that area continues into the U.S. and the west, and grows along with their population. As time progresses, our will to fight continues to erode and we end up being like the Europeans. See where they’re at.
See the “co relationship” or areas that consistently vote democrat in the United States, and where these radical Islamic ideologies are taking root at in the U.S. And this is just with the current population they have compared to the rest of the US population.
Our best hope is to keep the fight over there, and succeed, before we end up as a series of rival Islamic caliphates here.
History marches on, we are not immune to the human nature that drives human history.
thebesig, the difference is that the Huns and the mongols enjoyed technological parity with the states they conquered. Well, the Huns not so much, but the Tech gap is much greater now.
No Muslim country has the technological capability to build and sustain modern weapon systems.
The industrial capability of South Korea alone, with 50 million people, is greater than the entire Muslim world with over a billion people.
As long as we keep the nukes out of their hands, they are not an existential threat to us.
So let them kill each other over there, but not let them get nukes.
Wrong. The Romans were more advanced than the Huns, and the Chinese were more advanced than the Mongols. The Romans labeled the Huns as “barbarians”. The Chinese labeled the Mongols as “barbarians”. The Celts were also labeled as barbarians, and they successfully raided cities located in southeast and western Europe.
Technological parity is only one factor and would serve as an advantage when both sides are fighting by the same rules, with the same numbers, with the same discipline, etc. or if one side has it compared to the other and it was enough to “beat” the less advanced to submission. However, the situation with the Conquistadores shows that technological advantage only worked in the short run when the other side had the numbers and willingness to continue. Hence, when other factors came into play, that technological parity potentially becomes meaningless.
The Conquistadores didn’t conquer with technology alone, but with the help of a virus and allied native American warriors. There were times when the Spaniards almost got smoked. The Romans almost got smoked in England despite being more advanced than the celts.
A more modern example… A group of third world people residing in third world nations managed to use three airliners as guided missiles… Almost four. What good, pray tell, did all our advance technology do for us with regards to preventing such an attack by third-world nationals from countries not as technologically advanced as us? On our soil?
Your line of thinking is exactly EXACTLY how we should be thinking if they are to prevail over us… And it’s EXACTLY what’s talked about by the authors of Unrestricted Warfare when they talk about “outside the bandwidth”. Go to the link that I provided above and read it. It was written by two Chinese Colonels as a script on how a weaker, inferior, nation-state or entity could defeat a more powerful one.
They had the United States in mind when talking about how a stronger nation could be defeated by a weaker nation. When they talk about “outside/exceed the bandwidth”, they’re talking about arguments like yours… Technology… Nuclear Weapons… Industrial Capacity…
One idea is that the “inferior” would use methods “beyond the bandwidth of the U.S. military”.
Letting them kill themselves over there, with us “minding our own business over here” only guarantees our defeat. It doesn’t keep the problem away.
On a side note, people complain about why people come here and complain about us not having the laws that they had back home. Telling these folk that they should go back if they like those laws and not ours, is pointless to them, as their radicals didn’t come here to integrate with us… They came here to “conquer” and “colonize”.
Qaddafi was reported to have said that Europe would be conquered via immigration and population growth and not with the sword. That’s an example of unrestricted warfare. You should go to the link and read the book that comes with it.
In a word: Vietnam
“Will to Victory” counts far more than “better toys”.
“we won’t -ever- fucking quit” beats all of the above.
Again, in one word:
Vietnam
The tech gap in Vietnam was minimal, and the communists successfully maneuvered the US into adopting retarded Rules of Engagements and failing strategies that effectively eliminated the tech gap by manipulating the American political and cultural Left.
We won the Vietnam War militarily, in the battlefields of Vietnam. In many of these instances, we were outnumbered. Unfortunately, there was no political will in the United States to win. It was the Democratic Congress who not only defunded our efforts to support the South Vietnamese, but refused to let the United States play its role to counter North Vietnam’s disregarding the treaty.
The Vietnamese strategy involved relying on antiwar sentiment in the United States and an antiwar press. They even have a section, in their war museum, dedicated to the antiwar protesters.
Here’s a short video explaining what really happened in Vietnam… There is a disconnect between what many assume and what actually happened:
Great video that proves up once again that most, if not all, D-rat politicians cannot be trusted, as they will sell out the country whenever it is politically expedient for them to do so. I always like to say we, the U.S. military, did not lose that war, we simply quit fighting it and went home, and then the D-rats made sure the commies would subsequently defeat the RVN.
Disagree. A sufficient tech gap leads to victory by a small number of the uptech civilization.
The West been expanding since 1492, however, real expansion only occurred in the second half of the 19th century, with the Scramble for Africa, the Raj of India, and the Opium Wars agaisnt Qin China.
For example, France could not conquer Algeria until 1830, when the tech gap had grown to a substantial level, similar to the gap enjoyed by the Spaniard expansion in the New World against the Aztecs and Incas.
Therefore, the size of the tech gap is the decisive factor in warfare, and the other factors you mention are only decisive in the absence of a sizable tech gap.
Slow Joe: Disagree.
Hence the reason you are colossally wrong in this debate.
Slow Joe: A sufficient tech gap leads to victory by a small number of the uptech civilization.
History contradicts this argument. Again, with the instance of the conquistadores. On a one-on-one exchange, the obsidian blades that the Aztec warriors had were useless against European iron. The Spaniards split the obsidian swords like butter knife through warm butter. They also split through Aztec armor like a butter knife through warm butter. When the Aztecs fired their arrows against the Spaniards, much of the arrows bounced harmlessly off their armor.
On a one-on-one exchange, the conquistadores benefited. They had a psychological advantage, initially. However, they were vastly outnumbered and subject to exhaustion. They gained an alliance consisting of natives that were conquered by the Aztecs.
However, later on, they were chased. Yes, they were chased by Aztec warriors. Their advanced technology did not hand them victory. They were subject to exhaustion, and Aztecs were used to the effects of their technologically advanced weapons. It wasn’t until the combination of the conquistadores under Cortez, their Native American allies who wanted to revolt against Aztec rule, and the spread of disease that they were immune to, along with tactics/strategy, that the conquistadores were able to overcome the Aztecs and the capital fell.
Move further south, with the conquistadores in the Inca territories. The Inca warriors drew the technologically more advanced Spaniards out of their stronghold and then slaughtered those who chased after them into terrain the Inca warriors were good at fighting in.
It took leadership, determination, tactical finance, etc., for the Spaniards to break out of that. As I mentioned above, there are other factors in play and that technology is not sufficient.
Slow Joe: The West been expanding since 1492, however, real expansion only occurred in the second half of the 19th century, with the Scramble for Africa, the Raj of India, and the Opium Wars agaisnt Qin China. For example, France could not conquer Algeria until 1830, when the tech gap had grown to a substantial level, similar to the gap enjoyed by the Spaniard expansion in the New World against the Aztecs and Incas.
False. The Spanish and Portuguese colonial beginnings were a part a gold rush. Ditto with the other Europeans that followed suit in the early 1600s. They were searching not just for new territories, but new locations that they could obtain gold from. This encouraged many adventurers to join expeditionary pushes to look for gold. Add to this their highly religious nature and the need to evangelize and spread Catholicism.
These two countries are not the only ones that were expanding, the Dutch, the French, the English, etc., were also carrying out their own expansions.
More often than not, these colonials required alliances with the natives as part of their strategies to expand. That technology alone was not enough for them to survive where they were at. In fact, in the earliest decades of the Virginia colony, there were plenty of similarities between colonial settlements and the current forward operating base concept in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, given the division among the Indians, a part of the colonial survival strategy involved alliances with specific Indian tribes.
You mentioned the real expansions began in the 19th century. How, pray tell, did the technologically advanced British, with the most powerful military on the planet, fare against a less technological Zulu Tribe?
As for the expansions into Africa, and Asia. This had more to do with priorities, manpower, resources, economic goals, political goals, and strategic goals, then with Europeans waiting for more advanced technology to come along.
Slow Joe: Therefore, the size of the tech gap is the decisive factor in warfare, and the other factors you mention are only decisive in the absence of a sizable tech gap.
With the limitations that I pointed out in my earlier reply. And no, the other factors that I mention Our Reality. They have been reality throughout our history and they are reality today. Thanks to the Industrial Revolution, the technological gap favored the Europeans, but that did not make it possible for them to accomplish what they should have accomplished just using technology.
For example, see the Zulu War between the technologically advanced, most powerful nation on the planet, Great Britain and the Zulu tribe. In the late 19th century, the technological gap between the United States and the Filipinos was large. Many of the Filipinos were armed with primitive weapons. When it came to firearms, and weapons technology, the United States enjoyed an advantage.
However, the war to put down the insurrection took a lot longer than it did to take on the Spaniards. The Spaniards were more advanced than the Filipinos. Using your argument, it should have taken us longer to fight the Spaniards. It didn’t, it was called “the splendid little war”. The Philippine insurrection took years to address.
Let’s take a look at an example from the middle of the 20th century, the Korean War. Prior to the Korean War, the Air Force and others made the argument that the future of warfare involved airpower and nuclear power. Emphasis was placed on the Air Force and on nuclear power as a result… Technology anyone?
This contributed to our performance in the initial phases of that war… We learned the hard way that something else other than technology is needed. So, as I mentioned earlier, technology is only one factor, but there are other factors in play and we cannot just rely on technology.
Thebesig, by the way, you are absolutely wrong about the Mongols.
The Chinese believed themselves superior to all others, but they didn’t have any tech advantage whatsoever on the field. Their only advantage was in siege warfare, and that’s why the Mongols brought Chinese engineers with them, recruited after the fall of the Western Xia, about 20 years before the conquest of the Jin dynasty in Northern China and the Song dynasty in the South.
Both sides used similar armor, excellent light and heavy cavalry, recurved bows, advanced job-specific arrows, and steel blades. The Mongols relied more on light cavalry and mounted archers, avoiding melee combat to the last possible moment, when the enemy had been softened.
Slow Joe: Thebesig, by the way, you are absolutely wrong about the Mongols.
Your statement, about my being “wrong about the Mongols,” quotation mark used strongly, is colossally wrong. What I stated above with regards to the Mongols compared to the Chinese, is accurate.
The Chinese had an advanced civilization and a military that benefited from that advanced civilization when compared to the Mongols. The Mongols were predominantly tribal and did not have a sophisticated civilization.
Slow Joe: The Chinese believed themselves superior to all others,
At the time they had that assumption, there was a validity that they could base that assumption on. In fact, there was one point the Chinese had their own Age of Exploration, where they had deployed more advanced ships than what the Europeans had. Had it not been for the pressures from the Mongols, the Chinese would have kept pushing on that. However, they pulled back and focused on China, and on addressing the Mongols.
False. The fact that the Mongols had to borrow people, in possession of advanced technology or the ability to create it, from other cultures indicates that the Mongols were not as advanced as the cultures that they invaded. Had there been technological parity between the Mongols and the cultures that they conquered, they would not have needed to make use of the technologies of the kingdoms that they conquered.
It wasn’t technology that made the day, but Mongols tactics that derived from their nomadic nature. Again, they were a nomadic tribe. Their strategies were based on their nomadic culture. They developed and improved on nomadic warfare. Additionally, it took them decades to overcome the Chinese. This is what happens when a less technologically advanced culture takes over a more advanced culture.
And yes, the Chinese, the Korean kingdoms, the Vietnamese kingdoms, and Japan, were more advanced than the Mongols. However, the Mongols circumvented that by using their version of “unrestricted warfare”. They leveraged their advantage that had nothing to do with technology.
History is littered with examples of how advanced civilizations, with their advanced armies, were eventually overcome with less culturally advanced cultures and their armies. Usually, in the form of nomads and wandering tribes. These tribes first fought each other, then eventually coagulated through conquests and alliances into a bigger entity that threatened the more advanced city-state or kingdom. Then, they would raid, sack, and eventually conquer. After the conquest, they would adopt the culture and technology of the conquered state. Then, they, in turn, faced raids and conquests from other nomadic tribes.
Repeat cycle.
Hence, the argument that I made earlier. Just letting the different tribes in the Middle East “duke it out” ignores historical reality. The formation of Al Qaeda, and then ISIS, should serve as a warning of that reality.
Your argument, with regards to technological differences, and how that serves the United States, is the kind of arrogance that advanced societies embraced throughout history. It is even mentioned in the Old Testament, where powerful city-states, kingdoms, and empires are mentioned as “mountains”. Implied in that symbolic description is the arrogance that those societies displayed toward those that eventually took them down.
Exactly, the ones (muslimes) that have emigrated here (legal or not) came here to ultimately exterminate or incorporate us just like the Borg.
Hey, not to be the turd in the punch bowl, but your information about the Mongols is sketchy at best. I actually studied them in college and they are by far my favorite war fighters from history. The Roman word Barbarian referred to anyone that wasn’t a Roman. It didn’t necessarily have the negative connotation we place on it today. The Huns and the Mongols also existed in two different time frames and never fought one another. The Huns were steppe raiders, likely historical cousins of the Mongol and Uighurs tribes. Genghis Khan united the various tribes that existed in the steppes of modern day Mongolia, Siberia, most of the “stans”, and parts of china. They expanded through conquest. Tribes, Cities, and States were given the option, join the mongol empire, pay taxes, and send troops to the Army or be crushed, enslaved, and often wiped from the map. They also placed a high emphasis on diplomacy. They always sent diplomats before the Army to make trade deals and negotiate alliances and surrenders. If you harmed there diplomats, you paid the price with often meant capturing your city, raping every femal in your city in front of you, and then systematically killing EVERY living thing within the boundaries of the city. Brutal, but highly effective. If you agreed to join them, you were allowed to keep your own government, keep your own currency, keep your own religion. Saying the Chinese were more advanced then the Mongols is not really accurate. The Mongols absorbed the technology of the lands they captured. There is evidence that they brought siege tactics to the east. They took technology, especially weapons of war and adapted them to their battle tactics. Without a doubt they were the fiercest warriors in history. They also embraced democracy, enfranchised women, had the first reliable postal system, and practiced religious freedom. Had it not been a requirement for them to return to Mongolia to vote for a new Khan, Europe would have been under Mongol rule. The best Armies in Europe had been thoroughly crushed. They depopulated what we know today and hungry and Romania. They were a pretty impressive society. Sorry, I’ll step away now, lol.
SFC (R) B: Hey, not to be the turd in the punch bowl,
I read through your reply. Being the “turd in the punch bowl” is exactly how your post came across. You made assumptions about me, and about my knowledge, and then proceeded to advance an argument that neither proved me “wrong” nor your assumptions “right”. So much so that parts of your reply actually bolstered the argument that I made. Additionally, you advanced an argument against something that was not being argued above.
SFC (R) B: but your information about the Mongols is sketchy at best.
False. What I stated above, regarding the Mongols, is accurate. What is sketchy is mentioning depopulation without providing a percentage of depopulation. Nothing you said, in your reply, contradicted anything that I said. What I stated about the Mongols is not sketchy, but based on years of reading history.
SFC (R) B: I actually studied them in college and they are by far my favorite war fighters from history.
And I have studied history for 40 years, still do, with a heavy emphasis on ancient history followed by medieval history. My reading of medieval history, related to Europe, the Islamic world, and Asia, have covered the Mongols.
SFC (R) B: The Roman word Barbarian referred to anyone that wasn’t a Roman. It didn’t necessarily have the negative connotation we place on it today.
False. The Romans used what the Greeks used when defining barbarians. It had everything to do with their impression of the people, as well as the impression of their culture. Both the Greeks, and the Romans, saw themselves as being more advanced and more cultured. The way the “barbarians” sounded and behaved, added to the label of “barbarian”. It does, precisely, have the negative connotation that is placed on it today… Both with regards to the behavior, and culture, that the Romans and Greeks attributed to them.
The actual word that the Romans used to describe what you are saying was “Paganus”, once they converted to Christianity, they applied that term to those who were not Christians. Later on, they applied that term to civilians as opposed to those who were in the military.
SFC (R) B: The Huns and the Mongols also existed in two different time frames and never fought one another.
I did not argue that they fought against each other, or that they coexisted. I brought them up for the fact that the Romans dealt with the Huns and the Chinese dealt with the Mongols. I specified a different time range above, ancient versus medieval.
SFC (R) B: The Huns were steppe raiders, likely historical cousins of the Mongol and Uighurs tribes. Genghis Khan united the various tribes that existed in the steppes of modern day Mongolia, Siberia, most of the “stans”, and parts of china. They expanded through conquest.
If you go back and read the posts above, that I made, you would find that I essentially said the same thing. Before they were “united” by Genghis Khan, they were divided as I described above. The geographic range, and geography, as well as the description of “tribes” does not paint a culture that they were as advanced as the Chinese or as those cultures that they came across. Your description of them substantiated my statement of them being nomads on one hand, or semi-permanent, more than they were an advanced civilization compared to the Chinese and to others.
This was a common practice among the ancients, not just with the Mongols. The ancient Romans, ancient Greeks, ancient Egyptians, the Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, etc., not only sent “diplomats” to try to get the people to not resist, they also sent “third parties”, people seemingly not connected to the government, or to the conquering army, “speaking as some strange person just passing through”, encouraging people in the towns about to be invaded to not resist, to leave if they have the tendency to resist, etc. They did exercise PSYOP in the ancient world.
This is even repeated in the Old Testament, when the Judeans faced conquest from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc. Killing every living thing? Yup, mentioned in the Old Testament. Also mentioned in readings of history related to ancient and medieval conquests. There was a town, in the Iberian Peninsula for example, where the Romans killed every living thing save for a single horse that they forgot to kill (read about this in the 1980s).
With your mention of the “killing of the diplomats”, that was usually taken as a sign that those that did the killing intend to resist. That is equivalent to saying “No, we will stay and fight,” while letting the diplomats return home to report that.
So, what you mention above was not just something that the Mongols did, it was something that was a common practice among conquering armies. In fact, in the book of John in the New Testament, when Jesus told people that he was there to “free them”, the response went something like, “From who? We already have our freedoms.” In the Deuterocanonical books, you can see how the Judeans were given the ability to continue their local practices, and maintain their own “Senate”, a group of people who conducted civil government. The New Testament showed that the Romans allowed the Judeans to conduct their local practices and governance.
This is matched with a reading of what other conquerors did in history readings. I did not mention this above as it was not relevant to the topic that was being debated… Technology as the sole or main determinator of an outcome of the battle. My argument was other factors came into play, not just technology.
SFC (R) B: Saying the Chinese were more advanced then the Mongols is not really accurate. The Mongols absorbed the technology of the lands they captured. There is evidence that they brought siege tactics to the east. They took technology, especially weapons of war and adapted them to their battle tactics.
False, the statement that the Chinese were more advanced than the Mongols is accurate. And you proved it with your response, which actually builds and supports the statement that you disagreed with. You mentioned above, with those being conquered agreeing to be incorporated into the Empire and in serving as provincial-level kingdoms as the Mongols served as the federal level. Once they became a part of the Mongol Empire, their resources and manpower became available to the Mongol Empire.
This was a reality that existed throughout the ancient world, and the medieval period, where a more powerful state/entity conquered a lease powerful one.
So, when the Mongols conquered territory that possessed more advanced technology than they did, guess what? They had access to that technology and to the people that made that technology possible. The ancient Romans did this with regard to the dominions that they conquered. When they conquered the Greeks, for example, they were able to absorb the maritime know-how of the Greeks… In addition to what the Romans understood and practiced with regards to maritime technology and procedures.
The same thing with the Mongols, when they conquered areas bordering the sea, with possession of maritime technology and capability, they used both the manpower of those conquered territories and their maritime assets, to sail to Japan. The conquered people that did that “were not Mongols”. They were a conquered people.
Had they been more advanced, or as advanced, they likely would not have done the things that you describe here. However, there conquering more advanced areas made advanced technology available to them, as well as those responsible for the technology. Not the same thing as actually “being advanced” as the others around you.
SFC (R) B: Without a doubt they were the fiercest warriors in history.
The argument above was not about who was the strongest and who wasn’t. It was about technology being the sole or main determinator of victory on the battlefield. You mentioned one of the reasons why that was not the case, thus actually supporting one of the arguments I made above. They developed tactics, in their environment, that allowed them to overcome the armies of more advanced tribes and kingdoms.
SFC (R) B: They also embraced democracy, enfranchised women, had the first reliable postal system, and practiced religious freedom.
They were not the only ones that did this. Other cultures did the same. As I mentioned above, and as you mentioned in your post, a city/tribe that agreed to not resist, choosing to serve or to be subjugated by the more powerful army were allowed to maintain their own culture, government, practices, etc.
The Mongols, just as any other conquering entity understood during the time the Mongols, and before, allowing people to keep their own culture, and to maintain some status quo from before they were invaded, reduced the chances that they would revolt.
SFC (R) B: Had it not been a requirement for them to return to Mongolia to vote for a new Khan, Europe would have been under Mongol rule.
Not exactly, for a couple of reasons. Many people overestimate the size of the Mongolian Army. Also, they overestimate what the Mongolians would have been able to do. Logistically, pushing deeper into Western Europe added challenges and costs. Consequently, they were restricted to raiding places in central Europe rather than trying to bring them under Mongol rule. On top of that, the Mongols eventually gave up trying to get the rest of the European kingdoms to capitulate through their demands.
Second, if you look at the maximum extent of the Mongol Empire, it was centered on where the steppe was located. They became masters of warfare where there was extensive steppe, and where they could be supplied from that area. They also had a population limitation. In order to push deeper into Western Europe, they needed additional European kingdoms as vassal states to provide them with manpower and logistical support. They didn’t get that from many.
They were not able to bring Japan under their fold. Not only did the Mongols have problems with maritime operations, but the Japanese were also able to fight them off. They attempted to go into Vietnam and the surrounding areas. They could not succeed.
Plenty of mountains in Japan, plenty of jungles in Indochina. Add the element of the sea, and you have environments that the Mongols were not experts at fighting in. Ditto with Europe. What should have been an easy push from east to west into Europe did not continue. Instead, they tried pushing through the Middle East. Enter the time they had to vote for a new Khan. The commander in that area left a fraction of the Army and then returned to Places vote. The Sultan in charge of the next area that was about to be invaded made his move against the Mongols.
Just as they did not have any luck pushing out throughout the rest of Asia, they would not have luck pushing out throughout the rest of Europe. And no, they would not have conquered all of Europe. They would have the same problem in the Iberian Peninsula, and in other areas of Europe, that the Muslims had with the Visigoths in the Iberian Peninsula and in France. See the above mention of kingdoms that did not want to subjugate and provide manpower.
This is a big reason why the Mongols were pushing through the Middle East and not from Russia through northern Europe and into Western Europe.
Terrain played a key role. Manpower and logistics played other roles. Had they attempted to take over all of Europe, they would have found themselves in a resource-draining fight. They did not bother doing this with regard to Japan and Vietnam. They would not have tried a different tactic in Europe when faced with similar obstacles.
Additionally, even if they hypothetically, for the sake of argument, took over all of Europe, and all of the Muslim world, their control would’ve been temporary. The Chinese successfully removed the Mongols’ yoke.
SFC (R) B: The best Armies in Europe had been thoroughly crushed.
False on two counts. First, many European and Muslim armies were defeated, and perhaps individual units completely destroyed, but neither the European armies nor the Muslim ones, were thoroughly destroyed by the Mongols. Second, the Mongols had success against primitive fortification and against less disciplined forces. Not so much against more advanced fortifications and more disciplined armies.
SFC (R) B: They depopulated what we know today and hungry and Romania.
Partially, not completely. They still existed. Hungary existed as a people after the first Mongol invasion, then successfully repelled the second Mongol invasion. The Mongols eventually had to pull out of Romania.
SFC (R) B: They were a pretty impressive society.
So where the European, Muslim, Chinese, Meso American, etc., societies.
SFC (R) B: Sorry, I’ll step away now, lol.
The only thing that you should be sorry for is making assumptions.
There ya go. Leaves me no one to root for. The Kurds were the only ones who were not trying to kill us over there. Maybe they will wipe out the other savages and take over. But without our blood and treasure.
They are a sovereign nation so unless we want
To topple the regime we helped put in place then we should withdraw.
Dumb decisions have consequences. A dumb decision put us on the ground there, it is fitting a dumb decision forces our withdrawal.
I wouldn’t use the word dumb if I were you. Just saying.
Stupid? Idiotic?
All seem to fit equally with regard to a strike that quite obviously and predictably would make our strategic security decision far worse.
There is a reason we never killed him in the past despot essentially always knowing where he was.
Ah. You prefer endless slaughter of the cannon fodder, sparing the leadership to keep it endless?
Poppycock. That shitbag was a combatant, has the blood and severed limbs of thousands of Americans on his hands, and is a highly appropriate target.
The more we make a point of killing enemy leaders, the less effective they are.
Squidward has been advocating for a long time to get troops out of Iraq, but not that action has been taken that may precipitate just such action, he’s against it, because “Orange man bad!”.. I’m shocked…
An Iranian General officer in Iraq. For the retarded among us, like herr komissar, that is AN OVERT ACT OF WAR.
President Trump could invent a cure for cancer and Lars and his ilk would bawl and screech that the President was profiting from putting Cancer Clinics and Hospitals out of business!
So your answer is to just let the terrorist, non discriminatory murdering POS skate again, just because the previous pussies did?
Makes sense!
I zipped up body bags that trail back to this MFr. This POS got what he deserved. Finally! F him and all of the apologists in this country trying to kiss his dead ass.
And by the way – shame on you! You should know better regardless of your political leanings. Put that shit aside long enough to put your country first for a while. GD it boy!
HEY Lars, once again you’re full of shit as I chuckle at you and marvel at your brainwashed idiocy.
We have volumes of evidence linking that fuck worm to weapons used in attacks against US Personnel, he should have been smoked years ago but the previous Administration which you worship wanted the attacks to continue. YOUR side is what wants to turn the USA into a third world shithole resembling large swaths of San Foo-foo, but you’re as brainwashed as a German 1930’s Hitler Jugend, “Sturmabteilung” or a member of the Gestapo. Yes Lars, you are part of the liberal “Sturmabteilung” and you’re too brainwashed to even remotely think otherwise!
He also projects like a multiplex theater.
I’m sure the CEOs of DynCorp, KBR, Halliburton, Triple Canopy, MPRI, L3, G4S, and dozens of other companies will let the Iraqi government know when American involvement is over.
Board members all former Secdefs and retired General Officers. I think you’re onto something.
I didn’t always pay attention in high school history class, but didn’t some Eisenhower guy say something about that?
I thought that memorandum looked odd:
Update to this post and the Rest Of The Story:
“US DEFENSE SECRETARY: THERE’S BEEN NO DECISION TO LEAVE IRAQ”
“Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Monday that a memo declaring U.S. troops’ “onward movement” from Iraq is not accurate. “There’s been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq,” Esper explained.”
“Esper’s comments came after a leaked memo from the U.S.-led military coalition against the Islamic State said it would be “repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement.”
“Some news outlets interpreted the letter as saying the U.S. would be withdrawing from Iraq, but Esper says that’s not the case. He told reporters Monday afternoon that his staff is “trying to figure out” what the memo was and said it may reflect troops being re-positioned in the country, but not withdrawn.”
“Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later told reporters the letter “was a mistake.” He said it was a draft, poorly worded and had not been signed yet.”
https://www.khou.com/article/news/nation-world/us-led-coalition-to-withdraw-from-iraq-according-to-letter/285-06686d58-968d-4668-8d80-00b61c4867f6
Having worked at CJTF Headquarters in other AOs as well as at the Pentagon on Army and Joint Staff and writing Memos for General Officer, I became leery when I saw the image of the Memo.
General Milley was correct. The Memo was poorly written and was not signed.
I suspect that it was a draft that the CJTF Headquarters Baghdad Staff may have prepared for future decisions of withdrawing troops and that somehow, that draft got into the hands of a reporter without verification of authencity.
More verification that the Memo may be Bogus:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TaraCopp/status/1214291544553017346
Someone’s head is gonna roll on this mistake.
We can always count on ninja for “the rest of the story.” After all, we do have the best ninjas. If a coupla college football coaches had of listened to ninja’s game plans there would have been some different outcomes on the scoring thereof. Tanks for the update and the clarification.
Heads should roll over this. Been decades since my last debriefing of Top Secret/need to know information and I have still not talked about things I shouldn’t talk about. And much of that info is no longer classified. I carried this training/thought process into the civilian world with the securing of what we called proprietary information.
If these rag heads want to “save face” by ordering us out so be it. The Iraqis should really be concerned as to why a top Iranian General was in their country meeting with a faction that is fighting against them. Gen’rl Cold Cuts was an enemy combatant helping coordinate attacks against Americans. Maybe he should of left his cell phone in the office and observed some radio silence and he might still be alive. Bastard knew the job could be dangerous when he took it.
I look forward to us pulling everything and everybody we have over there the hell out. Spend the 100s of billions of dollars on securing the US so we can keep those f^ckers off of our lawn. You boys and girls that have made multiple trips have done all you can do under the ROE you were saddled with. Let some other sucker become their sugar daddy.
KoB, you NAILED IT 200% and then some when you wrote:
” I look forward to us pulling everything and everybody we have over there the hell out. Spend the 100s of billions of dollars on securing the US so we can keep those f^ckers off of our lawn. You boys and girls that have made multiple trips have done all you can do under the ROE you were saddled with. Let some other sucker become their sugar daddy.”
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
😉😎😁
Ahem.
“You want our troops out? -Good-! This frees then up for much better purposes, elsewhere. Much better indeed.”
Properly worded, someone just might want them to stay, after all.
Who is this “ninja” of which you speak?
*grin*
One of the BEST 4 Letters posted on TAH:
*g-r-i-n*
Thank You, AW1Ed. That was PERFECT.
😉
The DoD is trapped between Iraq and a hard head.
If the host nation government tells us to leave with are obligated to do so unless we want consider our status an occupation and topple the government…again.
So they are planning a withdrawal, and waiting for the president, who should be leading rather than straggling behind, to catch up to the current reality.
In the meantime they are going to publicly pretend that a withdrawal is not on the table.
We are in no position to reoccupy Iraq. Especially with the gloves off with respect to Iran at the same time.
Whether the president wants to admit he fucked up or not… doubling down is an even a dumber decision that the mess he just created.
ORANGE MAN BAD!
Commissar:
What was the “mess” that President Trump “just created”?
Do you have any better ideas?
Have you ever lost any friends or comrades or Soldiers to Terrorists on US soil or the Middle East?
Asking For A Friend Who Perished At The Pentagon On 9-11.
Asking For One Of My Soldiers Who Was KIA In Iraq.
All I can add is asking- why is the left and the Hollywood elites so scared of Iran?
I guess they have no faith in our armed forces- like in 91 and again in 03. I’ll not be pushed around. I don’t look for trouble, but if you want to come at me with trouble on your mind- we’ll, game on. The global stage is simply a bigger playground. Iran has been poking the bear for a long time, the bear finally has a leader with the kiwis to push back.
GD, is it that hard d to understand that the best way to fight a bully is to stand up against them?
Blaster:
Wonder how the Extreme Left and some Hollywood Elites would react if a certain “leader” of North Korea “accidently” met his demise under President Trump’s watch.
Hanoi Jane would probably lead another demonstration march.
Oh, the Horrors!
😉😎
Those idiots likely think that REAL Socialism hasn’t been tried yat, thus North Korea and Venezuela don’t count!
The “mess” is that Trump just made hash of 40 years of Left/Democrat “we just have to get along with the Iranians” and “don’t annoy the Iranians or they might hurt us more” narrative.
Kinda like the Left used to say about the Soviets. They were kinda way wrong about those folks, too.
They still want the Jimmeh Kahtuh style of International Relations, aka just letting everyone walk over and spit on you.
Was I the only one who watched TV in 1979? Does no one remember an Iranian General Officer telling the world Iran had declared war on the USA? The General went on the say Viet Nam is a little country and Iran, because it is a large country, would defeat the USA?
No sir! I remember!
Maybe that’s why the pussification of this Country is pissing me off so much.
Dennis:
Sadly, some of the demonstrators were not even living in 1979, i.e. they were born AFTER 1980.
They have no clue, especially the ones who don’t study history.
They just want to protest because President Trump is in charge.
I don’t recall any protests being initiated when we took down Bin Laden under BHO’s watch.
I remember, I watched in on TV when I was a grade schooler and couldn’t even force myself to believe that someone could pussyfoot around like Jimmeh Kahtuh did, IMHO the mess over there is HIS legacy!
No, because it was the last thing I watched every night, when Ted Koppel started the count of days that the US hostages were held captive. They were not released until the election results were announced, and even then, there was some real doubt that they’d be turned over alive at all.
And ommissar, being the insular and uninformed dorkwad that he is, has no idea about any of this, nor does he care. It’s all about “orange man bad!”, nothing else.
My empiric data tells me the following:
ORANGE. MAN. BAD.
You’re a brainwashed FOOL, Lars. You DO however serve a useful purpose in showing us how blindly brainwashed people can be especially meatheads in a hippie factory like UC Berzerkely!
Reuters is now reporting a different story:
“Pentagon Chief Denies U.S. Leaving Iraq; Tehran Crowds Mourn Commander”:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security/pentagon-chief-denies-us-leaving-iraq-tehran-crowds-mourn-commander-idUSKBN1Z50KU
Another Reuters article from January 3rd justifies Trumps actions to take out the Quds General:
“Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack U.S. forces in Iraq”
“In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi’ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad.
The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters…”
Commissar:
Have to admit that I am a wee bit worried about you.
What will your feelings be toward President Trump if the leader of North Korea “accidently” perished under President Trump’s watch?
Just curious.
And another Update:
“Pentagon Says US Military Won’t Leave Iraq, ‘Draft Letter’ On Troop Movements Released By ‘Mistake'”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-military-wont-leave-iraq-draft-letter-troop-movements-mistake
“Bottom line. This was a mistake,” Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters. “This was an honest mistake.”
“Milley called the letter “poorly worded” and said it “implies withdrawal. That’s not what’s happening.”
“It was a draft, unsigned letter because we are moving forces around and we have increased helicopter movement in Iraq,” Milley said, adding that unsigned draft letters are often circulated in Washington, repeating that he thought this was an “honest mistake.”
“It should not have been sent,” he said. “I walked down here intentionally in order to get control of that because that can have second- and third-order effects in a lot of directions in very dynamic situations.”
“I don’t want to be misunderstood,” Milley added.
Looking forward to duffleblog back inging clarity to this situation.
*bringing
Good One, GD!
😆😅🤣😂!!!!!!
It’s been said that the DEAD Iranian Generals’s remains were flown home via coach and that’s fine BECAUSE what was left of him didn’t require any leg room.
OH YEAH, and while his extra-crispy remains were being mourned with crowds screeching, they were being carried in an AMERICAN-Made Chevy Pickup, a vehicle made by their “Great Satan” carried General Extra-Crispy.
Please let this be true, and not with the horseshit caveat that; ‘a few will remain in advisory positions,’ or any other such wording. Please also recover,destroy, or disable for all time anything more potentially deadly than a plastic spoon if it’s stamped or labeled ‘U.S., or even NATO anything’; better yet, ANY ITEM not labeled “Made in Iraq” that can be seized without endangering any U.S. personnel.
It looks like TAH has assisted the Iranians in a “propaganda coup”.
That’s probably a first.
https://thedispatch.com/p/anatomy-of-a-screw-up-the-story-behind