ISIL leader believed to have fled coup attempt

[Tahuyaman]

@Tahuyaman did you get an answer from Pete? Was wondering as you saw no inconsistency, did you ask Peter when it was he finally agreed that US military overt involvement would be required to roll ISIL back?

Hint....it was the same time the British Parliament, the French government, and fellow realism disciple Obama finally got off their asses too.

Honestly, I can't find this inconsistency you are referring to. He's been saying all along that there will need to be some overt action in certain situations, but then a covert presence when that is no longer needed or productive.

[Ransom]

Honestly, I can't find this inconsistency you are referring to. He's been saying all along that there will need to be some overt action in certain situations, but then a covert presence when that is no longer needed or productive.

You can't find it, why, it resides in your very next sentence. Peter did indeed say there needed to be "some overt action." The involvement of the United States Military in an overt 'boots on the ground', more than special forces, entire units with artillery and armor...wasn't the "some overt action" Peter was referring to. You see that difference? Others urges that it would have to be the United States. For not only logistical reasons but for reasons we were most capable. And most aware of what happens if you don't respond to these threat matrix. Peter...Tahuyaman...vehemently opposed US overt military involvement against ISIL and it was for 3 primary reasons.
1) Mission creep. Pete feared that US overt involvement would lead to mission creep, nation building and democracy insertion methods so prevalent in Iraq.

2) Sheer numbers of troops needed. Peter told me on several occasions it would take no less than one hundred thousand US troops to roll ISIL back.

3) Lack of any threat. I've repeatedly posted threads where Peter and donttread and many others were explaining that ISIL wasn't a threat to anyone save for regional entitles like the Kurds or Shia militias or/and perhaps the Iraq and Syrian Armies. Up to 5 months in Pete's case and 5 weeks in donttread's case, the argument was consistent, ISIL wasn't a threat. Pete thought the threat minimal. Donttread considered it made up. And Paris happened.

It was shortly after the November attacks in 2015, Tahuyaman, that both Peter and donttread changed their position on ISIL. United States overt military involvement would be necessary. United States artillery and armor would indeed be inserted. We stepped up air campaigns coordinated with taking territory back, it was what was needed a full 18 months prior. Allies efforts now had to include ISIL entrenched in Mosul and several other Iraqi and Syrian cities and townships. It was much bloodier and much more expensive than it needed to be, Tahuyaman. We were obviously late to the table.

[Tahuyaman]

He's been consistent. I don't know why you are arguing about it.

It makes no sense.

[Ransom]

As I mentioned his name, I'll offer him a chance to defend his record. @donttread I don't want to misrepresent you in any way so please, take this opportunity to correct me if I've made errors. Not 5 weeks before the November 2015 ISIL attacks on Paris, you did claim the threat matrix was made up. Fake? Something about them being as much of a threat as a house cat is to it's owner or something like that.

Peter....you can as well merely point to the date you finally realized overt US military involvement would be required after vehemently opposing such involvement for reasons I listed. We both know it was a Friday the 13th. In November. Of 2015. You are as well free to post the record here if I've gotten that wrong. I haven't.

[Ransom]

He's been consistent. I don't know why you are arguing about it.

It makes no sense.

Vehemently opposing...and then supporting US overt military involvement against ISIL only after the deadly Paris attack would be consistent then?

[Tahuyaman]

Vehemently opposing...and then supporting US overt military involvement against ISIL only after the deadly Paris attack would be consistent then?

One can support an action when it looks to be necessary, then support a different type of action when the situation changes. One must be agile enough to change strategies or tactics when necessary.

Agility is one of the tenets of the doctrine of the air land battle. One must have the ability to react and respond to a changing battlefield.

[Ransom]

One can support an action when it looks to be necessary, then support a different type of action when the situation changes. One must be agile enough to change strategies or tactics when necessary.

And.....when it's necessary.....and one isn't agile enough to change strategies, what's that called?

Agility is one of the tenets of the doctrine of the air land battle. One must have the ability to react and respond to a changing battlefield.

Again...the battlefield had been changed. Covert action by western powers clearly inadequate. ISIL was able to take more territory. Entrench in some of Iraq's largest cities. And begin to transform into an international threat without western overt responses, T.

We sat idle. We limited our responses to covert action that clearly wasn't preventing ISIL from either taking territory nor becoming a threat to western civilization itself. You'll remember we had many Americans who just didn't want to get involved at all(donttread). Others claiming covert military options only were on the table(Pete). Others claiming our overt involvement was inevitable, necessary, and would be more costly in blood and bucks the longer we delayed(Ransom).

[Tahuyaman]

And.....when it's necessary.....and one isn't agile enough to change strategies, what's that called?...

Stupidity? Inflexibility? Pig-headedness?

[Ransom]

Stupidity? Inflexibility? Pig-headedness?

Exactly.

[Peter1469]

Honestly, I can't find this inconsistency you are referring to. He's been saying all along that there will need to be some overt action in certain situations, but then a covert presence when that is no longer needed or productive.

He is an armchair general and can be foolish at times.