• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What's the likelihood of ground forces being deployed in Iraq to combat ISIS?

Arcset

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Civy here, wondering about how likely or unlikely Canada or its allies would be to deploy ground forces to fight against ISIS?  I'm not referring to personnel being deployed for training purposes, or just SOF being deployed, or just air strikes, but an actual deployment similar (although no where near the same scale) as Afghanistan.  I know the country is war weary from the long Afghanistan conflict, and that no one wants to have any boots on the ground, but is that still the most likely scenario?  If so, what would need to happen before Canada and/or its allies were to deploy ground forces?  Thanks to all that respond, I greatly appreciate the information to gain perspective on the topic.
 
Unfortunately, that's a question that is impossible to answer.  Soldiers don't get to choose where we do our business, that is for the government of the day to decide; therefore, anything we say or hypothesize about is all just pure speculation.  That being said, I am sure many serving members, my self included, would personally love to take a crack at IS.  Those are just personal feelings though, and have nothing to do with actual policy.
 
This is mearly speculation on my part and I may be way out in the rhubarb but here we go. With a federal election looming I can't see the Harper government sending ground troops in. It would be political suicide at this point (although Trudeau seems to make himself look like a knob on an almost daily basis) A vast majority of the civilian population don't want us involved at all, let alone throw some boots on the ground. Everything the government will do right now is to get themselves re-elected and sending us back to war is counter-productive to that.

Sucks as i'm in the same boat as RoyalDrew.....I'd be in for a trip to Iraq to curb stomp a few extremists.
 
RoyalDrew said:
That being said, I am sure many serving members, my self included, would personally love to take a crack at IS.  Those are just personal feelings though, and have nothing to do with actual policy.

I often liken it to civie friends, family, etc to being a firefighter.

- you trained to be a firefighter, you don't want to be left at the station every time the horn goes off.

- we (whether its town, cities, whatever, all across Canada) all pay for the fire departments we depend on, but we never actually want to see them used, or firefighters get injured or killed.  HOWEVER...we also know that we need to have them, and to diminish their capabilities "because there hasn't really been that many fires lately" isn't smart to do, because when you DO need them, it's too late to start buying equipment and training firefighters. 

- firefighters don't get to decide what fires they go to, or don't, or let burn, or put out.  But, they should be able to make the decision on how best to fight the fire once they are there.  At that time, the Mayor, the Premier, anyone else should be relying on the firefighters to do their job, the best way they know how. 

Using that analogy, it seems they all get it because it's something they can relate to.  Who wants to see their house burn down?  No one.  Who thinks we should reduce our fire departments, because we don't think there will be many fires in the next few years [but we really have no idea who will start them, or where]?  No one...boy would that ever be stupid eh!?!?!

Reducing the military really isn't that much different in a lot of ways, and being a firefighter is somewhat like serving in the CAF.  We don't control or decide where we have to go.  We sure like it when you don't tell us we can only use garden hoses and squirt guns to put the fire out when what we know we're dealing with is a 3 bell fire.  That kind of thing.

Personal opinion only - do I think Canada will send a battle group/ground force type organization into Iraq?  No, I do not. 

:2c:
 
In addition, we aren't really wanted or needed.  Expertise yes, FAC, yes, marking targets, double yes but sending combat troops in, hell no.  Even with the best of intentions it smacks of invasion and Iraq is still smarting from the last time.  As others have said elsewhere, let them take care of their own problems while we establish a perimeter to ensure the cancer doesn't spread.  The place where ground troops may be needed is Nigeria and after our last trip there I don't see the likelihood of that happening either
 
YZT580 said:
In addition, we aren't really wanted or needed.  Expertise yes, FAC, yes, marking targets, double yes but sending combat troops in, hell no.  Even with the best of intentions it smacks of invasion and Iraq is still smarting from the last time.  As others have said elsewhere, let them take care of their own problems while we establish a perimeter to ensure the cancer doesn't spread.  The place where ground troops may be needed is Nigeria and after our last trip there I don't see the likelihood of that happening either

I bet the men women and children being brutally murdered by the hundreds disagree with you.
 
This is one of those least worst choice questions.

There is a 100% need for ground troops to defeat ISIS, but various considerations of domestic and international politics make it unlikely in the extreme that Canada will supply more than some SoF contingents (maybe). At any rate, the bulk of any ground forces that would expel ISIS should be locals fighting for their own homes and security.
 
Unless and until the US sends significant troops to Iraq to participate in direct conflict with ISIS, there is no way that Canada will go it alone and throw a BG out in the desert. I doubt that we even have the capacity to and I can't think of a single instance in which we have deployed significant forces not in a coalition context. That being said, just because the US goes, does not mean we will go as much as I personally might like to. Best case scenario is a some kind of training mission but I think that is rather unlikely also with CONVENTIONAL troops.
 
Have to wait two years until Pres Obama is out and a Republican President elected.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Have to wait two years until Pres Obama is out and a Republican President elected.

What makes you think he's leaving in two years? He hasn't finished turning the the country into the socialist workers paradise that he has envisioned.

And don't give me that "The Constitution says so" crap. Presidential decree my friend. The Constitution means nothing to him. Puty Pute would be proud.

;D
 
Sorry to post this hear but I just saw a report that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has died. There is no telling what this will do to the stability of what is an already unstable and volatile region.

I was going to say that predicting what we may or may not do is a bit of a mug's game as things are changing rapidly, and now this just reinforces that. Let's watch and shoot.
 
Seriously though, I can't see anything happening beyond what we are already doing. There is no political will to send in troops by either  US or any of the allies.

Even if this was only limited deployments within Iraq, the problem just fades back into Syria, with insurgents flipping back and forth across the border. And no one wants to go into Syria, where you need to have buy a program before you can identify the players.
 
Old Sweat said:
Sorry to post this hear but I just saw a report that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has died. There is no telling what this will do to the stability of what is an already unstable and volatile region.

I was going to say that predicting what we may or may not do is a bit of a mug's game as things are changing rapidly, and now this just reinforces that. Let's watch and shoot.

Add to that there are reports that the President of Yemen has resigned and the Government has fallen.

May you live in interesting times.
 
cupper said:
Add to that there are reports that the President of Yemen has resigned and the Government has fallen.

May you live in interesting times.

This could be a real mess.
 
Old Sweat said:
Sorry to post this hear but I just saw a report that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has died. There is no telling what this will do to the stability of what is an already unstable and volatile region.

I was going to say that predicting what we may or may not do is a bit of a mug's game as things are changing rapidly, and now this just reinforces that. Let's watch and shoot.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah dies
BBC
22 January 2015 Last updated at 19:36 ET

Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has died in hospital, royal officials have announced.

A statement, made early on Friday, said his brother, Salman, had become king.

Before the announcement, Saudi television cut to Koranic verses, which often signifies the death of a senior royal.

King Abdullah, who was said to be aged about 90, had been in hospital for several weeks suffering from a lung infection.

Abdullah came to the throne in 2005 but had suffered frequent bouts of ill health in recent years.

King Salman, 79, had recently taken on the ailing monarch's responsibilities.

The late king's half brother Muqrin, who is in his late 60s, has been named the new crown prince, the official statement said.

All three are sons of the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz, usually referred to as Ibn Saud, who died in 1953.

King Salman called on the royal family's Allegiance Council to recognise Muqrin as his crown prince and heir.

"His Highness Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and all members of the family and the nation mourn the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, who passed away at exactly 1am this morning," the statement said.

US President Barack Obama expressed his personal sympathies and those of the American people, on the death of King Abdullah.

"As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions. One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the US-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond," he said.

Abdullah was the 13th of the 37 sons of King Abdulaziz. He is believed to have been born in August 1924 in Riyadh, although there is some dispute about his actual birth date.

When he came to the throne in 2005 he succeeded another half-brother, Fahd.

However, he had already been Saudi Arabia's de-facto leader for 10 years because his predecessor had been debilitated by a stroke.

Correspondents say Abdullah was seen as a reformer at home, albeit a slow and steady one.

He allowed mild criticism of his government in the press, and hinted that more women should be allowed to work.

More on This Story
Related Stories

Obituary: King Abdullah 22 JANUARY 2015, MIDDLE EAST
Saudi king suffering from pneumonia 02 JANUARY 2015, MIDDLE EAST
Saudi succession raises economic challenges 26 JUNE 2012, MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Arabia profile 02 DECEMBER 2014, MIDDLE EAST


More on LINK.



AND

Yemeni Government Collapses as President and Prime Minister Resign
New York Times
By SHUAIB ALMOSAWA and ROD NORDLANDJAN. 22, 2015

SANA, Yemen — The pro-American president of Yemen abruptly resigned Thursday night along with his prime minister and cabinet, leaving his Houthi opponents the dominant force in a leaderless country that is a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.

The Houthis, who are allied with Iran, have been strongly critical of the United States, particularly opposing Yemen’s cooperation with drone strikes against the Qaeda affiliate here, Al Qaeda in Yemen. At the same time, the Houthis, whose leaders are members of the Zaydi sect of Shiite Islam, are bitter opponents of Al Qaeda, which is Sunni.

The resignation of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi came immediately after an apparently unsuccessful meeting between government and Houthi representatives, brokered by the United Nations special envoy to Yemen, Jamal Benomar. It was intended to help carry out an agreement between the two sides that had been reached a day earlier.

Mr. Hadi’s abrupt resignation caught American officials off guard. Diplomats, military officials and counterterrorism analysts were scrambling to assess next steps, including any decisions to evacuate Americans at the United States Embassy and the impact on counterterrorism operations in Yemen.

“We’re not in a position — and I don’t think any of you are either — to assess what it means at this point in time,” the State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, told reporters in Washington as news of Mr. Hadi’s resignation was breaking.

“Our top priority in Yemen remains the counterterrorism effort, where we’ve been targeting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for a number of years,” said Ms. Psaki, using another name for Al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate. “That’s ongoing.”

Some American officials and lawmakers in Washington expressed grave concern. “The collapse of the government is devastating,” Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a telephone interview. “It’s very hard to say what comes after.”

Should the Houthis try to govern the country themselves, Mr. Schiff said, it could escalate sectarian violence with Yemen’s Sunni majority, and open the door for Al Qaeda to expand its reach.

“The Sunni tribes will not want to live under Houthi domination, and will look for any allies they can, including Al Qaeda,” he said.

With Houthi fighters already in control of much of the capital and many areas of northern Yemen, it seemed likely that they would take at least de facto control of the government.

A further concern is the prospect that southern Yemen will try to break away from the north, possibly threatening another civil war. The Houthis are identified with the old Kingdom of Yemen and the Arab Republic based in the north. The north and south were unified in 1990. In addition, they have aligned themselves with Yemen’s ousted former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was forced out in a deal brokered by the United States and Middle Eastern allies in 2011.

The resignation of Mr. Hadi, who was elected to succeed Mr. Saleh, came less than an hour after Prime Minister Khaled Mahfoudh Bahah said on his Facebook page that he and all of the cabinet members were stepping down. Their resignations came while the United Nations-brokered meeting was underway.

The press secretary for Mr. Hadi said he had formally handed over power to the speaker of Parliament, Yahya al-Raye, who would be required by the Constitution to form a caretaker government. It was not clear, however, if Mr. Raye was taking charge.

An official close to the president, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of apparent concerns about his safety, said in a phone interview that the president believed that he had no choice but to resign. “The president expresses his disappointment at the difficult circumstances and challenges surrounding what is going on from the conflict with the Houthis,” said the official, sounding nervous and hanging up immediately.

The agreement reached on Wednesday brought a temporary end to fighting in the capital, but Houthi fighters did not leave as promised from their posts around the presidential palace, and some officials described their actions as amounting to a coup.

The Houthis denied that, however, and as an apparent concession, by Thursday had withdrawn from their positions around Mr. Hadi’s personal residence. On Thursday only private guards from Mr. Hadi’s home province, Abyan, could be seen outside his home.

Emissaries from both Mr. Hadi and Houthi leaders were seen visiting one another Thursday in an atmosphere of calm, and there were no initial reports of fighting after the resignations.

There were reports of violence in the province of Marib, an important oil-producing area east of Sana, with the Houthis clashing with Sunni tribesmen. Marib is also home to fighters from Al Qaeda in Yemen. Two people were reported killed on Thursday, according to elders in the area.

Mr. Benomar, a Moroccan diplomat and the representative of the United Nations secretary general, had returned to Sana on Thursday and immediately gone into meetings with representatives of Mr. Hadi and the Houthis.

The Houthis had agreed to pull back their fighters from central installations in Sana, including the palace, in exchange for several political concessions from Mr. Hadi, like amendments to a draft constitution. The deal was widely seen as a victory for the group, which has repeatedly used military force as a cudgel during political negotiations.

Another central provision of the agreement — the immediate release of one of Mr. Hadi’s top aides — also remained unfulfilled late Thursday. Yemen’s information minister, Nadia Sakkaf, said on Twitter that the aide, Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak, was still being held hostage by the Houthis despite a deal.

“They got what they want,” she said. “Why should they fulfill their promise?”

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the Houthi political bureau, confirmed that Mr. Mubarak had not been freed.

In signing the deal, the Houthis had stopped short of a military takeover of the government, an outcome that analysts said the Houthi leadership preferred. Since taking over parts of the capital in September, the Houthis have become Yemen’s de facto ruling power, exerting control over important ministries and, increasingly, the country’s security forces.

At the same time, they have been able to lay blame for continuing challenges — including corruption and meager government services throughout the country — at the feet of Mr. Hadi and his leadership.

In addition to the crisis in Sana, many in Yemen have also been looking nervously to Marib, as a point of contention for the tensions unleashed by the Houthis’ military advances.

The Houthis are eager to assert their control in the province, which includes much of Yemen’s oil infrastructure and is seen as a strategic gateway to other parts of the country. But in a country that is two-thirds Sunni, Al Qaeda has been able to gain support among many opposed to the Houthis, breathing new energy into what had been a greatly weakened extremist movement.

The Houthis’ plans have prompted resistance and a furious reaction from Sunni tribesmen in the province, including some aligned with Islah, Yemen’s most prominent Sunni Islamist movement — now eviscerated by the Houthis, who considered it a hated rival. The province also has many followers of Al Qaeda in Yemen, whose opposition to the Houthis has helped them recruit there.

Saudi Arabia, which has recoiled at what it sees as the Houthis’ strong ties to Shiite Iran, has begun sending aid to the tribes in Marib, according to diplomats, raising fears that the province will become a focal point for an escalating proxy war.

Shuaib Almosawa reported from Sana, and Rod Nordland from Amman, Jordan. Nasser Arrabyee contributed reporting from Sana, Kareem Fahim from Baghdad, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

More on LINK.
 
cupper said:
Seriously though, I can't see anything happening beyond what we are already doing. There is no political will to send in troops by either  US or any of the allies.

How about a serious terrorist attack that results in significant loss of Canadian lives and the attackers can be directly linked to ISIS?
 
Retired AF Guy said:
How about a serious terrorist attack that results in significant loss of Canadian lives and the attackers can be directly linked to ISIS?

Depends who's running the country. Trudeau and his ilk would prefer we send parkas. Muclair would have already gutted the CAF so we couldn't respond even if we wanted to.
 
PuckChaser said:
Depends who's running the country. Trudeau and his ilk would prefer we send parkas. Muclair would have already gutted the CAF so we couldn't respond even if we wanted to.

One of Chretiens more outlandish campaign promises was to have the CF clean up the environment.

Pray to the god(s) of your choice that Trudeau the Younger is not elected as PM.
 
With what money?

Multiple bases have infrastrutcture that is falling apart right now, there are cutbacks everywhere, and anywhere.

 
Quote from: cupper on January 22, 2015, 16:33:05

    Seriously though, I can't see anything happening beyond what we are already doing. There is no political will to send in troops by either  US or any of the allies.

Why should the west have the will to save the country (Iraq) when the Armed Forces of Iraq won't rise to the occasion. They've had multiple years and billions from the Americans and others to get their act together......now it's tough love.....
 
Back
Top