First off: I do think they’re Islamic. No need to “protect” this religion.
I do like tying our military involvement to Iraq’s political progress.
His no boots on the ground is laughable. There are enough quotes by very famous military leaders that suggest things like this can never be controlled. We’re in this. He will finish where he started and that will be his legacy. The next president will have to fix this mess.
My off the cuff response is that you’re right. You need BOG to secure and control an area.
That being said- the American people won’t tolerate another all-out war right now unless an identifiable enemy can be targeted. If we did go in, it would likely devolve into a mess- Iraq would further destabilize, the government might fold entirely, and we’d then own building it again. I imagine it would be just as bad as the last time we were there.
.
I do like tying our military involvement to Iraq’s political progress.
Did not see the address, but that (STILL) seems like a terrible idea.
Are there specifics on that?
No specifics. More of a “we’re doing airstrikes because Iraq formed a new coalition government”.
Politically, this makes us into a stronger partner helping a legitimate government with a problem. Simply going in and occupying would be effective at first, but then we end up with an insurgency, a protracted exit, then a power vacuum that can be filled by a terrorist/revolutionary organization (hey, wait a minute…)
Any way you cut it, it’s a mess militarily and politically.
Politically, this makes us into a stronger partner helping a legitimate government with a problem.
Define “legitimate government,” please.
Simply going in and occupying would be effective at first, but then we end up with an insurgency, a protracted exit, then a power vacuum that can be filled by a terrorist/revolutionary organization (hey, wait a minute…)
Exactly, and I hate to say I told you so, but . . . No, I don’t hate that at all. Told you so.
Here’s the thing: Tying our involvement to political progress in Iraq (or any number of other hellholes in the world) is a fool’s errand. I think it would be better simply say that we’re not going to allow ISIS to continue to terrorize innocent civilian populations, or we’re not going to tolerate a hostile organization like ISIS to exist and to continue to make threats against us, and to act accordingly.
Define act accordingly…
Does that mean boots on the ground? Special Operations troops performing strikes vs leadership? Where do we stop?
Personally, I’d rather them do the heavy lifting, pulling the trigger in the sand, taking the combat losses- it’s their dysfunctional culture, let them die for it. To get them to do that, they have to have something resembling a government, then have an army that isn’t chickenshit and runs.
Personally, I’d rather them do the heavy lifting, pulling the trigger in the sand, taking the combat losses- it’s their dysfunctional culture, let them die for it.
What we’re faced with now is a humanitarian crisis that we’re largely responsible for. We have masses of innocents who are being slaughtered- we have a clear moral case for acting on their behalf. (To say nothing of our equally clear moral responsibility to act on their behalf.) It’s interesting to me that when we have an truly legitimate moral case for military action, we somehow have to couch it in terms of pragmatism and our own national interest. When we had a motivation that was (very mistakenly) based on our own interests, we went to great lengths to couch the argument in moral terms. Odd.
To get them to do that, they have to have something resembling a government, then have an army that isn’t chickenshit and runs.
True. And a government and an army that was committed to protecting all of its citizens, even those among the religious minorities of the country. But they don’t have that, do they? So having creating this vacuum of power, in which minorities are predictably victimized, you’re saying that it’s not our problem, and those minorities should help themselves by instituting a responsible national government?
His no boots on the ground is laughable. There are enough quotes by very famous military leaders that suggest things like this can never be controlled. We’re in this. He will finish where he started and that will be his legacy. The next president will have to fix this mess.
Mark my words Forge, if who ever runs in the next election even hints at sending forces over there, they will lose. Obama is only doing what he promised during his campaign and what the American people voted for. Get out of Iraq and no more wars. Something big will have to happen again before that changes.
One that is inclusive and doesn’t vilify those that disagree I guess. We don’t have one now that I think of it.
You’re preaching to the choir. I don’t think we should go back nor do I think we should have gone there to begin with. As bad as Saddam was he kept the region somewhat stable. I also don’t buy the argument that these guys are hell bent on making the world one Islamic caliphate. They are made up of malcontents. Some of these Brits who went there bought Islam for dummies. These are guys who want to rape and pillage and they are doing it over there. Had we not gone to Iraq, this might not have been an issue. But since we did spend over ten years and a bunch of treasure occupying the place. I see little reason to go back. But he is despite his promise.
The place was a mess before us, and is a mess again. We traded one sort of horror for another.
On the humanitarian position: yes, we should help. We don’t need to put boots on the ground. We screwed up with the last Iraq war, but we need to figure out another way to help than going back with a ground force. We won’t win the Iraqi people that way- they’ll turn on us.
It’s a shitty position- we go in, and American troops are sure to be killed. We stay out, and innocents there die. Is the answer someplace in the middle, or something else entirely?
I agree with much of that.
I think that these guys ARE actually hell bent on making the world one Islamic caliphate. I also think that they’re made up of malcontents. (A not terribly relevant fact, often. People say that as if to label someone a malcontent renders them impotent. It doesn’t. Malcontents are responsible for much of history’s upheavals.) I also think that despite their desire to install a global caliphate, they are wholly impotent to do so unless we allow them, as some segments of Europe are currently doing. They pose no significant threat to us, and we should not fear them. (Not because fear is the only thing we have to fear, but because they’re weak, and really can’t hurt us, and to be afraid of them would be cowardly in the extreme.)
That said, they are massacring entire segments of the population, and that would not be happening were it not for our prior interference. Our response shouldn’t be predicated on some imaginary threat they pose to us (ISIS on the Mexican border!!! OMG!!! This is Fox News!!!), but on the moral responsibility we have to protect the innocent, especially when the innocent are put in harms way as a direct result of our own actions.
The place was a mess before us, and is a mess again. We traded one sort of horror for another.
Was it, and did we? This, I think, is turning into some kind of unquestioned meme. The fact is, Saddam was pretty well contained before we decided to invade Iraq and make sure he got DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. We had all of the benefits (stability, protection of many of Iraq’s minority population groups) and none of the drawbacks (chemical attacks on the Kurds).
It’s a shitty position- we go in, and American troops are sure to be killed. We stay out, and innocents there die.
I don’t know how shitty the position is, and how many Americans would be sure to be killed. We’re talking about ISIS, not the Chi-coms. I do not get the feeling that people are hesitant to send in American troops because they worry about the number of casualties ISIS can inflict on us. (Nobody’s paid much attention to American casualties over the course of over a decade in Afghanistan, for example.) Regardless, the situation is of our making. I say it’s our obligation to solve it.
Not just Fox news.
“A senior Homeland Security (DHS) official confirmed to Congress on Wednesday that militants associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) are planning to enter the United States via the porous southern border.”
Seems like DHS is associated with Fox News…
It’s late, so I’ll be brief then gone (until tomorrow)!
Saddam was a shit- we didn’t see a lot of what he did on the evening news, but he did a lot of bad things. We got rid of him, now another group of nuts is terrorizing the populace.
As for boots on the ground- we were there recently, and a lot of Iraqis dislike us. They would see us as occupiers, and we’d be in another insurgency. ISIS would be just one facet of it.
I agree we should help, just in a more limited and measured fashion.
As for what that should look like… I wish I had the answers.
Maybe some sheep I mean groups are meant to be led by strongmen or rabble that flex muscle and slaughter the innocent. Who are we to undermine this natural progression from savage to tribal society to warlord fiefdoms to monarchy to the next phase. The seeds for all this were planted long ago by centuries of conquest and social experimentation under colonial rule. To push democracy on them is just dumb. It hasn’t been fruitful. The guy we wanted lost and we were stuck with Maliki. Now it turns out the guy was corrupt and trusted nobody. Who will be next. It seems like the goal of every group in that region, except the Jews, is to use whatever power earned to unleash decades maybe centuries of payback on other groups. Meanwhile squandering any assets that manage to be present. I’m just tired of our money and blood being spent on their problems.
How long would it have taken me to get drunk if I had watched and played the bullshit or liar drinking game?
We have never stopped having boots on the ground contrary to the Dear Leaders misleading suggestions. When he says we are out again and declares a victory before going back on a fundraising tour or out for a round of gold we will still have boots on the ground.