The US war in Iraq has ended what seems like a dozen times. On Tuesday, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter indicated that the Pentagon is preparing for yet another escalation in military operations in the beleaguered country.
Pentagon Plans Rapid Increase in Iraq Military Operations
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20160413/1037907217/pentagon-iraq-military-expansion.html
Over ten years since the US invaded Iraq, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi still struggles with problems in the newly formed government. Corruption, economic problems, and a splintered military; the lack of cohesion hinders Washington’s anti-terrorism efforts in the region.
Yet, during a visit to Baghdad last week, Secretary of State John Kerry indicated that the US would not be sending additional troops or equipment in support of the Iraqi Security Forces, but would instead focus on training.
In the coming weeks and months, the coalition will work with Iraq to turn up the pressure even further," Kerry told reporters. "We will continue targeting and taking out Daesh leaders and we will train local forces to take and hold more ground."
During a state visit to India, Carter appeared to contradict Kerry’s claims.
"We’re going to accelerate the military campaign as fast as we can," he told reporters. "There’s no question that some of them depend upon political cohesion and progress in Baghdad. But also Erbil. But, we’re moving as fast as we can on the military campaign."
Carter, asked whether infighting in the Iraqi government would affect Pentagon plans, claimed that the "political part of the healing" can only take place after Daesh is "destroyed and the country is given back to its own people."
Still, Abadi’s political troubles could spell trouble for Carter’s plans.
Carter’s talk of escalation being independent of the Iraqi political situation is perhaps unreasonable, as Prime Minister Abadi signed off on 3,870 US ground troops, but the Pentagon is openly talking about having closer to 5,000 troops in Iraq…" Jason Ditz writes for AntiWar.com.
Acknowledging the delicate situation in Baghdad, US Vice President Joe Biden expressed his support for a unified Iraqi government on Tuesday.
"The vice president conveyed continued US support for a unified, federal and democratic Iraq, and encouraged close cooperation between the government of Iraq and the Kurdistan regional government as they take steps to strengthen political unity and economic stability," a White House statement reads.
The Pentagon doesn’t just have its sights set on Iraq. Over the weekend, the Obama administration indicated that it may send an additional 250 special forces to Syria.
"We should no longer tolerate the kinds of positioning that is enabled by them having headquarters in Raqqa and Mosul," Obama said last week, referring to Daesh, in a meeting with military officials. "We’ve got to keep putting pressure on them."
The Americans are planning the largest increase of their military presence in Eastern Europe since the Cold War. The Pentagon announced plans to deploy a tank brigade in Europe in February 2017.
US troops in Europe to outnumber all European troops combined
http://www.pravdareport.com/world/europe/12-04-2016/134143-usa_troops_europe-0/
Not that long ago, Pentagon officials announced plans to deploy 4,000 troops, 250 tanks and Bradley armored vehicles, self-propelled howitzers and 1,700 pieces of other wheeled vehicles and trucks in Eastern Europe.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Wark said that many countries of Eastern Europe questioned the readiness of the United States to protect them, especially against the background of the "Russian aggression." The above-mentioned measures were taken to prove otherwise.
Poland and Bulgaria to have the honor to die first in nuclear war A report from the European Command of the US Armed Forces said that the total number of US troops in Europe would thus be equal to three brigades. This contingent will be shared between Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria. American people and equipment will be present in each of these countries, Gen. Ben Hodges said.
According to The National Interest, NATO's growing presence in the Baltic States - the most likely flashpoint for a confrontation with Russia - will demonstrate NATO's determination to protect its members. However, it turns out that the tank brigade will not be deployed in Eastern Europe under the aegis of NATO. The move will be made as part of the US program titled European Reassurance Initiative. The $3.4-billion program requires approval from Congress to become reality.
Secondly, who is the aggressor? Is Russia building its bases near the USA to protect Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela and other countries? Does Russia need to give way to "peace loving" initiatives of the North Atlantic Alliance? Does Russia's military doctrine mention anything about a preemptive nuclear strike? No other country has started so many bloody conflicts all over the world. There is also a very nice American tradition to betray allies, should something go contrary to plans.
The Americans prefer to bomb someone and see what happens. They will not die for Europe. The main concern is the Russian-German alliance that targets Asia. Yet, it is possible to end this initiative by bribing politicians and spreading adequate propaganda.
Thirdly, if the threat of the Russian aggression is as serious as it is painted, why not increase the military presence immediately? Why does the USA want the unlucky Balts, Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians tremble with fear for nearly a whole year? Is the Russian aggression an imaginary threat? Why send tanks to Europe if a nuclear conflict could destroy them in minutes?
USA occupies Europe on Roman Empire principles As for Europe, it is not just dependent on the United States - it is occupied by the United States. The occupation is based on principles of the Roman Empire: the Romans used military garrisons to contain local population should they rebel against Rome's exploitative and predatory policy. What if a country of Eastern Europe decides to re-engage with Russia despite the Transatlantic Pact and sanctions? That would be a reason to use American military garrisons. Nobody will dare to utter a word, because US troops in Europe will soon outnumber all European troops combined. With the help of US troops, Poland, Bulgaria and others of the ilk will have the honor to die first in the much-talked about nuclear war. Russia has no territorial or other claims to Europe. However, moving troops to its borders without a good reason for it is a very dangerous game. Russia will not repeat the experience of 1941.
Russia will take necessary security measures in response to NATO's growing military presence in Europe, especially in the eastern part of the continent, Alexander Grushko, Russia's Ambassador to NATO said. Moscow's reaction to such a move will be adequately efficient, he added. The USA never sends its troops to places where it smells war - it evacuates them from such places instead. For example, We have recently seen the evacuation of NATO's troops from Turkey, a NATO member. "The Americans do not want to get involved in a real war. They do not want to mess with North Korea, - Eduard Limonov, writer and political activist told Pravda.Ru. - Donald Trump says that it is about time the Americans should stop protecting all for free. The Americans have a plethora of their own problems: a huge public debt, high unemployment, and the situation is getting worse. Instead, they spend enormous money on other countries. This will stop soon. The Americans will return to their North America, and their interference in global affairs will decrease.
Pentagon and White House officials openly flaunt the 2011 US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement in an effort to conceal an anti-Daesh troop surge.
America’s Secret Army in Iraq: US Says ‘Temporary’ to Mask Troop Surge
http://sputniknews.com/military/20160408/1037726690/america-troop-surge-iraq-daesh.html
Under the 2011 US-Iraq Status of Forces agreement, the US is prohibited from deploying more than 3,870 troops within Iraqi territory at any given time. Notwithstanding the agreement, the Pentagon has conceded in recent days that there are over 5,000 troops presently stationed in Iraq. The Pentagon justifies those 5,000 as being less than 3,870, as the extra troops are “temporary.”
The high US deployment numbers came to light after Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren conceded that 200 US Marines were stationed at Firebase Bell, with many more throughout the northern region of Iraq, but claimed that these troops don’t count because of their temporary status.
The disclosure came following the battlefield death of a US marine on March 19, 2016, who was not initially included in US troop figures.
The Pentagon has made abundantly clear that the use of the term “temporary” does not suppose an imminent drawdown of these troops. Rather,
Pentagon officials have confirmed that there is no scheduled end date for their operation, saying that temporary troops will remain until there is an “enduring solution.”
Defense analysts speculate that the “temporary” label has been artificially added to recent troop deployments to keep the nominally reported number of troops capped at 3,870.
However, as the US continues to add troops to repel repeated incursions by Daesh in Northern Iraq, it is thought that the US may be compelled to renegotiate the Status of Forces arrangement.
