Let's talk about Iraq

>>35140813
that picture is smol brain .

when did america every defeat the kkk in a war? they didnt ever defeat russia as well, but Stalin is there?

>>35140813
1. Yes
2. Hot and boring
3. CIA
4. Poorly
6. The average soldier wanted to stop Saddam from gasing civilians. He never gased civilians and the goal of Bush was to get back and that mean old Arab fella for saying mean things about his pappy some years ago.
8. I know the Polish saved some of our guys who were captured.

>>35140813
Iraq infantry vet. Your post triggers me.

1. We fucking killed.sand niggers, deal with it.
2. Beating off in a portashitter
3.we funded both sides
4. We trained them they didn't learn. Blame the fags who suck.green berets.
5. Nobody knows.
6.6 is #5
7. meeting vets of that era or rare
8. American , we don't care
9.Turkey is a bird, nobody cares
10. Again a useless war.

>>35140921
and we showed up at the very end of the war, so 86 Kaiser Wilhelm from there as well

File: i feel bad for you I don't think about you at all.jpg (35KB, 490x554px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x554px

>>35140813
>1. Is the rise of ISIS Obama's fault or was Iraq's near-collapse inevitable?
Yes. Well, he and Nouri al-Maliki.
>2. What was day to day life like in Iraq? What were the people like? What were the living conditions like? Who were the forces that opposed the American occupation and how did they operate? How did the locals feel about this?
That's like five questions and they're all very complex. There were dozens of insurgent groups in Iraq vying for power, all with their own agendas. They fought coalition forces and the often fought each other.
>3. How did insurgents procure their weapons?
There were a multitude of different ways but Saddam turned his entire country into a military stockpile and coalition forces did a pretty shitty job securing those stockpiles as his regime collapsed.
>4. How was the new Iraqi military trained? Why did they fall apart so easily?
That varied wildly depending on what time frame you're talking about. Most units went through some sort of basic training and then were assigned to a coalition unit that would mentor them. When IA units fell apart or soldiers deserted it was because they had that option. If shit got too much they could just sneak off back home. Our only road home was through Baghdad. Surrendering meant getting your head sawed off by a hadji. That's a strong motivator to fight harder.
>5. What were relations like with Assad's Syria like at this time?
Pic related

>>35141345
>6. What were the goals of the Americans during the occupation and how did they try to achieve them?
Once again, that depends on what time frame you're talking about.
2003: ???? (Seriously, nobody had any idea what to do after Saddam's regime fell)
2004-2005: Oh shit! I guess we'd better leave them with something resembling a functioning government.
2006-2007: Sectarian violence. Lots of sectarian voilence.
2008-2009: The Surge. GEN Petraeus took advantage of the Al Anbar Awakening to curb stop AQI. Al Anbar is a predominantly Suni province in the west of Iraq. They had traditionally been pro-AQI because Al Qaeda was predominantly Suni as well. But they got tired of AQI treating them like a doormat and Petraeus was able to use that to his advantage.
>7. What was Saddam's military like just before the invasion? Is it true that many people thought that Iraq would put up much more of a fight than it did?
Very unmotivated. They were poorly equipted and poorly trained and they knew it. They had their asses royally handed to them in a 4 day long ground war 12 years before and they were never really able to rebuild their military after the Gulf War due to the sanctions. Most people thought they would fight harder because this time we were invading their home instead of just kicking them out of Kuwait. In a way they did fight hard, just not in the way people expected.
>8. How did smaller Nato countries (Denmark, Italy, and Poland) that participated in the conflict participate in the conflict?
They were given areas of operation proportional to the size of the contingent. I think Poland had the largest chunk of all of the smaller nations.
>9. What were relations like with Turkey during this time?
A little strained because of the Kurdish situation in the north but nowhere near as bad as now.
>10. What happened to the weapons and equipment of Saddam's military?
See #3.

not OP but I'm curious; did Desert Storm (Gulf War) affect Saddam's ability to put up a fight in '03 Iraq? I mean, 12 years is a long ass time militarily, but we did kinda make him eat his own cooked dick in '91. evidently it affected his perception of American air power since he beefed up his defenses, but anything else really of note?

>>35141408
Absolutely. They got their shit pushed in in '91 and were never able to recover. Mostly due to the sanctions and the fact that Bill Clinton would fire off a few cruse missiles at Baghdad every time he needed to pull attention away from something stupid/illegal he was doing.

File: Shadow Company.webm (3MB, 640x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x352px

>>35140813
Don't know much about OIF, but I have some notion of how it was before and after.
>2. What was day to day life like in Iraq?
About as nice as you expect for a middle of the road Middle Eastern country in the late 90s. Cities had decent infrastructure. Hot, shit traffic, running water, electricity, most buildings had A/C and what not. My dad spent some time there in 87-88 and since Iran-Iraq was still happening you could hear the 23mm AAA going off at night. Rural areas were pretty wild, as you'd expect.
>What were the people like?
Mustaches for everyone above the age of puberty, generally have a very loose sense of time. Deadlines and meetings are either in English/American/French/etc. time or Iraqi time. Kind of a common theme in the third world, can't really call it being happy-go-lucky but they don't seem to take work very seriously.

>9. What were relations like with Turkey during this time?
Cannot speak for OIF, but Turkey has always been buying oil from Iraq. Even in the 80s the oil convoys were crossing the border every night, so buying from ISIS isn't so much collusion as it is SSDD for the Turkish government. They say the border is less porous nowadays (though foreign fighters don't seem to have much trouble passing), but those trucks the Russians blasted have been there since forever.

>10. What happened to the weapons and equipment of Saddam's military?
Same thing that happened to Qaddafi's massive stockpile, shit spread around. I guess this answers number 3 as well. Both pro- and anti-Coalition militias happily raided Saddam's armories, and since there's obviously no accountability a lot of it is still circulating (If you've ever wondered where ISIS got its tanks and mustard gas mortar shells). Same goes for Syrian gear, though Al-Assad's army still controls a decent amount of their weapons stockpiles. Prior to the invasion, weapons have been supplied by various foreign governments, like Iran with Shiite militias in the 80s

>>35141476
>Prior to the invasion, weapons have been supplied by various foreign governments, like Iran with Shiite militias in the 80s
Reached character limit.

As well as these, the Americans did encourage the Shiites to stir shit during Desert Storm so as to weaken Saddam, which also included the Christians In Action supplying weapons and (ALLEGEDLY) promising to overthrow Saddam after securing Kuwait, which obviously didn't happen and ended up with them getting their shit pushed in by Saddam's army when the Coalition went home. Part of the reasons Muqtada had (has? Not sure if he's still kicking) a massive hateboner for America. Arabs don't forget easy.

IF Americans really did promise to overthrow Saddam after Desert Storm, then yay for foreign policy I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGLpHUwAL_Q

>>35140813
Just play Conflict: Desert Storm I and II and you'll understand

>>35141476
>paul walker'ing it between convoys of abrams and humvees
living the fucking dream

1. We armed and trained a bunch of terrorists to overthrow add Assad, and as soon as we set them loose they turned into ISIS. Obama wanted to arm and train a second batch to fight the first batch, but Congress shut it down.

For Iraq war vets: how does it feel knowing that the 2003 Iraq War is "officially history" now? I mean there are even people going out of their way to collect and classify gear from the war like people do for Vietnam, WW2 and other "old" conflicts.

>>35140813
>that picture
>dead KKK like it wasn't a 100% American invention
>dead Hitler and Mussolini but heaven forbid a communist or Jap is shown defeated

File: 18766767_744905885689917_4992604529073809494_o.jpg (86KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1280x720px

>>35140813
On the first question don't look just here for that answer. You should research and compare and contrast how other countries occupied and then replaced national governments. Look up how it was done in Germany and Japan in after WW2 and then compare that planning to Iraq. Assuming you are entirely new to reading about it the term is De-Baathification. wikipedia for laziness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification

Look up what the U.S.'s plan for a post war Iraq looked like. How did it take into account the various ethnic groups. Who came up with and influenced the plan from the U.S. side of things. Whatever you do don't take it from just one source. It's modern history and everyone wants to win the narrative over it.

Go to the library and find a relevant book. Then read another one. Maybe look up something on the political economy of insurgency. The strictly military stuff won't be well covered but the collapse of Iraq, it's various insurgencies over time, and the rise of ISIS are all situations with a political dimension and have been written about extensively.

For what it's worth start here.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Terrorism-Ends-Understanding-Terrorist/dp/069115239X

Either buy it and read it or get it through an inter library loan. Read the whole thing, don't just skim it or look for stuff relevant to Iraq. Understanding terrorism and insurgency and the tactics against it will be useful for detecting bullshit when you read about Iraq elsewhere.

But wtf do I know. I'm just posting some bullshit on an Indonesian Shadow Puppet Theater Discussion Circle.

File: Prepped.jpg (562KB, 2112x2816px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 2112x2816px

>>35140813
Well, fuck it, lets mix K with my famous /PTR/ -/Pol Tier Rants/-
Without going into extreme detail, let me attempt to answer your questions. The ones I can, anyway. Ask the vets for others. AHEM.

1) ISIL/ISIS rose to existence as a result of further intervention of intelligence entities in the region, particularly tying into #5 as an answer.
2)defer to veterans to answer, apparently >>35140940
3)Armed by CIA, Mossad also working in more recent times. Though there WAS an Iraqi armory which was left unattended for several months, which allowed the insurgents to procure many of their warsaw pact armaments after gulf war 1.
4)from what I've read, they were a good army by a decent standard, but could not compete with the US military at all.
5)Relations with Assad's Syria were a so-so non concern, he only came up in 2011 when he dumped the private central bank in favor of a commodities based currency if memory serves, it could have been gold based like Libya in 2009.
6)contentious between merely waste material or clearing the way for greater Israel AND waste resources, other subversive motives have been suggested.
7)33 nations ganged up on them, and they had good equipment for the time. However, not good enough that they could compete with the US military.
8)Defer to other answers.
9)Defer to other answers.
10)Much of their war material was destroyed or captured, possibly circulated to other factions such as the ANP, Iraqi army, ISIS, etc. Few examples of Saddam's standard issue rifles exist today, you only need to look to the "highway of death" to see where their armor went in gulf war one, or 73 easting. And imagine Iran's shock when Iraqi planes start entering their airspace seeking asylum.

Long story short, Iraq invades Kuwait, gets steamrolled. A decade later they tried to trade oil for something other than the dollar or something and THEN, 9-11 happens and the media figures "Hey, people will still be thinking about them in 1991." and... Axis of Evil.

>>35141693
In essence, the plan worked far better than expected.

>>35140931
>He never gased civilians

He litterally gassed civilians. Don't be that guy.

>>35143310
>Relations with Assad's Syria were a so-so non concern
Assad was firmly in Russias grasp and was more than happy to work with Iran and let insurgents/material flow into iraq.

>>35143310
>Relations with Assad's Syria were a so-so non concern
Uhhh, they have been on the US State sponsors of terrorism list since the late 70s. Inclusion in that list includes some pretty hefty sanctions. Calling it so-so is either pure ignorance or revisionism.

>>35143336
>>35143359
Being a Russian satellite seems like a so-so non concern to me. It's not so much of a concern what "the top competitor's" friends think of us. Seems we'd just as happily not do any business and not make deals with each other as long as we don't want what they have hard enough.

File: image.jpg (64KB, 343x344px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 343x344px

1-10= Zionist

>>35143533
>>35143533
What part of "they were under heavy sanctions" did you not understand anon?

>>35143595
the part where it matters? The part where it somehow effects their ability to get what they need? If they're buddy buddy with Russia and get their shit that way, and don't really have and dealings with us, how does us saying "We're not making any deals with you." effect the situation? At the end of the day, they're still buddies with Russia, we still don't have dealings with them, they don't really lose a whole lot of business or sleep over our disapproval either way.

>>35143670
>where it matters

Nobody asked if it "matters", the issue is if the relationship was "so-so" or if it was bad. It was clearly bad. Now you are just damage controlling.

>>35143880
Eh, I'd say they're bad when we're invading the country, so, maybe next year. But frankly, sanctions don't concern me, the norks have been under that shit forever and they STILL have nukes.