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



## Arcset (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## sidemount (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2015)

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:


----------



## YZT580 (22 Jan 2015)

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


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## jeffb (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jan 2015)

Have to wait two years until Pres Obama is out and a Republican President elected.


----------



## cupper (22 Jan 2015)

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


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## cupper (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## cupper (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2015)

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
> 
> ...




More on LINK.



AND



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



More on LINK.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Jan 2015)

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?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

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.


----------



## upandatom (29 Jan 2015)

With what money?

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


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2015)

> 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.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jan 2015)

IMO, it's not only the Iraqis who are solely responsible for the state of the country as it is this day.


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO, it's not only the Iraqis who are solely responsible for the state of the country as it is this day.



The state of the country has been well engineered by multiple parties to make it ineffective.


----------



## Lightguns (30 Jan 2015)

Anyone who knows the answer to this question would not post on here.  Although it is "highly unlikely" as the 8 Ball would say.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> The state of the country has been well engineered by multiple parties to make it ineffective.



It's fails because it was a poorly designed country in the first place. The brits were requested to help set the border between the Ottoman and Persian Empires back in the 1600's setting up the eastern border along the river. The Ottoman Empire was a mess when the Brits and French took over their Mandates. In interest, both the population rose and the Infant mortality fell in the duration of the British Mandate of Palestine, I don't have similar information for Iraq, but likely things improved. Apparently Iraq was initially run out of the India Office and the Indian rupee was one of the official currencies.


----------

