Iraq

[clacy]

Well, it appears the time has come for Iraq to descend into chaos.  I think everyone knew this would likely happen eventually. 

Bush, clearly started this mess.  He thought deposing Saddam and installing a democratic government would spread freedom throughout the Middle East.  Noble enough in principle, but clearly naive and foolish.  I guess it's the thought that counts, but man what a dumb move.  Getting rid of the counter-balance to Iran was REALLY DUMB.

Obama, on the other hand, had the idea of "ending two wars".  Like Bush, it sounds noble enough.  I applaud the thought.  The country had war fatigue, plus there are a hundred other reasons why we should bring out troops home.  But like Bush, he was foolish and naive thinking that you could reasonably quickly pull our troops out of a Middle Eastern country and not have it quickly unravel at some point.  There are just too many unscrupulous groups with agendas over there that will quickly move in and fill that power vacuum that was created by us leaving. 

I can't say I have a great solution.  It looks like the strategy of backing US-friendly dictators similar to the way we used to support Mubarak in Egypt is the only thing that works over there.

[Mountaineer]

Well, it appears the time has come for Iraq to descend into chaos.  I think everyone knew this would likely happen eventually. 

Bush, clearly started this mess.  He thought deposing Saddam and installing a democratic government would spread freedom throughout the Middle East.  Noble enough in principle, but clearly naive and foolish.  I guess it's the thought that counts, but man what a dumb move.  Getting rid of the counter-balance to Iran was REALLY DUMB.

Obama, on the other hand, had the idea of "ending two wars".  Like Bush, it sounds noble enough.  I applaud the thought.  The country had war fatigue, plus there are a hundred other reasons why we should bring out troops home.  But like Bush, he was foolish and naive thinking that you could reasonably quickly pull our troops out of a Middle Eastern country and not have it quickly unravel at some point.  There are just too many unscrupulous groups with agendas over there that will quickly move in and fill that power vacuum that was created by us leaving. 

I can't say I have a great solution.  It looks like the strategy of backing US-friendly dictators similar to the way we used to support Mubarak in Egypt is the only thing that works over there.

I think it began after WW1 when the Allies "made" a country.

...Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

I agree with your assessment, Clacy. There  are only three real options I can see after starting such a mess:

1. Just leave and don't care about the consequences. Let the world burn!
2. Drop the pretense and turn the country into an official colony, territory, or protectorate, then assume responsibility for what goes on there forever.
3. Leave after installing an iron-fisted dictator or democratic-in-name-only one-party government headed by a strongman to replicate the conditions prior to the invasion.

Obama clearly chose option 1. I can't say I blame him. Options 2 and 3 are pretty distasteful. Unfortunately there is no option for "leave as triumphant heroes, having brought peace and order to a lawless and barbaric region, and having kindled the spirits of democracy and freedom that will last generations."

[WiseOne]

I think it began after WW1 when the Allies "made" a country.

Bingo.

Perhaps the best solution is to let the country split up along the obvious ethnic/religious lines.  A nasty and possibly long civil war will happen between now and then, but it's probably impossible to avoid anyway.  The only question is whether one side gets the "terrorist" label which unfortunately has become a synonym for "bad guys that we don't like." 

Given that the U.S. managed to have our own civil war at one point without interference, why not let other countries have theirs...

[Pointedstick]

What a shame:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/opinion/b ... ?hpt=hp_t1

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in 2008, as every other investigation had before, that there was no "cooperative relationship" between Hussein and al Qaeda. The committee also found that "most of the contacts cited between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war by the intelligence community and policy makers have been determined not to have occurred."

Instead of interrupting a budding relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Iraq War precipitated the arrival of al Qaeda into Iraq. Although the Bush administration tended to gloss over the fact, al Qaeda only formally established itself in Iraq a year and a half after the U.S. invasion.

[...]

Three years into the Iraq War, [al Qaeda in Iraq] seemed all but unstoppable. A classified Marine intelligence assessment dated August 17, 2006, found that AQI had become the de facto government of the western Iraqi province of Anbar, which is strategically important because it borders Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia and makes up about a third of the landmass of Iraq.

[...]

In other words, the Bush administration had presided over the rise of precisely what it had said was one of the key goals of the Iraq War to destroy: a safe haven for al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world.

By 2007, al Qaeda's untrammeled violence and imposition of Taliban ideology on the Sunni population provoked a countrywide Sunni backlash against AQI that took the form of Sunni "Awakening" militias. Many of those militias were put on Uncle Sam's payroll in a program known as the "Sons of Iraq".

The combination of the Sunni militias' on-the-ground intelligence about their onetime AQI allies and American firepower proved devastating to al Qaeda's Iraqi franchise. And so, between 2006 and 2008, AQI shrank from an insurgent organization that controlled territory larger than the size of New England to a rump terrorist group.

But AQI did not disappear. It simply bided its time. The Syrian civil war provided a staging point over the past three years for its resurrection and transformation into the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria," or ISIS. And now ISIS has marched back into western and northern Iraq. Only this time there is no U.S. military to stop it.

Could Obama have maybe fixed the almighty mess left to him by Bush? Maybe. Clearly he hasn't been able to. But blaming this crap on him strikes me as akin to blaming a firefighter for failing to save the house instead of the arsonist who set the blaze in the first place.

[clacy]

I agree with your assessment, Clacy. There  are only three real options I can see after starting such a mess:

1. Just leave and don't care about the consequences. Let the world burn!
2. Drop the pretense and turn the country into an official colony, territory, or protectorate, then assume responsibility for what goes on there forever.
3. Leave after installing an iron-fisted dictator or democratic-in-name-only one-party government headed by a strongman to replicate the conditions prior to the invasion.

Obama clearly chose option 1. I can't say I blame him. Options 2 and 3 are pretty distasteful. Unfortunately there is no option for "leave as triumphant heroes, having brought peace and order to a lawless and barbaric region, and having kindled the spirits of democracy and freedom that will last generations."

Yeah, I agree.  The U.S. can't afford option 2, in lives or dollars.  And option 3 hasn't worked well in the past (e.g. Shah of Iran). 

As Colin Powell warned Bush, "Once you break it, you're going to own it."  And now Bush owns it.

I agree that Bush owns it, but the entire country owns it as well.  Bush can't do anything to affect the outcome any longer, so Obama owns it by default.  Kerry and Clinton both voted for it and supported it.  Let's not forget that majority of our elected officials at the time were in favor of it, including Ms. Clinton.  Plus public opinion actually supported it at the time.  Hell, I'll admit that I mistakenly supported it.  It was stupid, but what's done is done.

Now we're in the bad spot of having to choose the least worst option.

[Mountaineer]

Yeah, I agree.  The U.S. can't afford option 2, in lives or dollars.  And option 3 hasn't worked well in the past (e.g. Shah of Iran). 

As Colin Powell warned Bush, "Once you break it, you're going to own it."  And now Bush owns it.

I agree that Bush owns it, but the entire country owns it as well.  Bush can't do anything to affect the outcome any longer, so Obama owns it by default.  Kerry and Clinton both voted for it and supported it. Let's not forget that majority of our elected officials at the time were in favor of it, including Ms. Clinton.  Plus public opinion actually supported it at the time.

Though I agree with the option PS listed (and support choice #1), it is important to remember these (bolded) points via clacy.  But let's also remember how the war machine (particularly that of the Republicans) treated those who disagreed with the war.

So maybe Bush "owns it", but I don't really think that matters.  But at least GWB has stayed in the background since leaving the presidency.  What really chafes me is that some members of the Bush administration, as well as leading neocon pundits and policy makers, are still taken seriously and maintain stature in foreign policy discussions.  Hell, John F'ing Bolton* is an AEI Scholar and is considered some sort of foreign policy expert on the right.

All these people ought to be ignored (and, preferably, mocked).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Bolton's real middle name is "Broomstache".
[img width=50]http://rightweb.irc-online.org/images/u ... olton1.jpg[/img]

I think it is also important to remember that most of these politicians are duly elected by largely the politically uneducated or as Rush would say "low information" voters  - that possibly includes many of us.  So the root problem is not necessarily the goofballs occupying the office but we goofballs more interested in learning about the latest football score, who is banging who in Hollywood, the latest job requirement, etc. than really understanding the pluses and minuses of those we vote for, or even worse, not even caring enough to take the time from our busy schedule to vote.  Quoting the old WWII slogan by Pogo, "we have met the enemy and it is us". 

Further, it does little good to bitch about the past or who shot whom.  All we can do is learn from our mistakes and try to avoid making the same ones again and again.  Unfortunately, my opinion only, the type of people attracted to office have very little firm ethical or moral substance and frequently lack proven leadership skills and experience.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

I think it is also important to remember that most of these politicians are duly elected by largely the politically uneducated or as Rush would say "low information" voters  - that possibly includes many of us.  So the root problem is not necessarily the goofballs occupying the office but we goofballs more interested in learning about the latest football score, who is banging who in Hollywood, the latest job requirement, etc. than really understanding the pluses and minuses of those we vote for, or even worse, not even caring enough to take the time from our busy schedule to vote.  Quoting the old WWII slogan by Pogo, "we have met the enemy and it is us". 

Further, it does little good to bitch about the past or who shot whom.  All we can do is learn from our mistakes and try to avoid making the same ones again and again.  Unfortunately, my opinion only, the type of people attracted to office have very little firm ethical or moral substance and frequently lack proven leadership skills and experience.

And like you say, we elect them instead of laughing them off stage.

The trend of declining levels of voting, civic knowledge, political participation, and trust in politicians is not a U.S.-only phenomenon. It's happening all across the democratic world. It would appear that a few generations of democracy are sufficient to convince people to vote with their apathy to abandon it, turning what remains into a popularity-content slugfest between the rich and the clueless.

[Jan Van]

About Obama pulling out of Iraq:

Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq?

If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for “losing Iraq,”? what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country’s collapse. But let’s remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.”? He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian.

So the US should have stayed their against Iraq's will?

[Pointedstick]

Allow me to reiterate that once we invaded and blew the place up, there was no good solution for fixing it. That's the tragedy of the situation. Sure, the damage was done in the past, and we have to make decisions in the present about the future... but that damage, for all intents and purposes, cannot be undone, and all of the available options are painful or costly. Not surprisingly, we chose the option that was the least painful and costly to us, the the most painful and costly to the weak and pathetic Iraqi government. Should we have done something different? It's hard for me to condemn any position because they are all so bad.

[clacy]

I think it is also important to remember that most of these politicians are duly elected by largely the politically uneducated or as Rush would say "low information" voters  - that possibly includes many of us.  So the root problem is not necessarily the goofballs occupying the office but we goofballs more interested in learning about the latest football score, who is banging who in Hollywood, the latest job requirement, etc. than really understanding the pluses and minuses of those we vote for, or even worse, not even caring enough to take the time from our busy schedule to vote.  Quoting the old WWII slogan by Pogo, "we have met the enemy and it is us". 

Further, it does little good to bitch about the past or who shot whom.  All we can do is learn from our mistakes and try to avoid making the same ones again and again.  Unfortunately, my opinion only, the type of people attracted to office have very little firm ethical or moral substance and frequently lack proven leadership skills and experience.

And like you say, we elect them instead of laughing them off stage.

The trend of declining levels of voting, civic knowledge, political participation, and trust in politicians is not a U.S.-only phenomenon. It's happening all across the democratic world. It would appear that a few generations of democracy are sufficient to convince people to vote with their apathy to abandon it, turning what remains into a popularity-content slugfest between the rich and the clueless.

Yes, we get what we deserve in this country.  We elect them and love to complain about them.

[clacy]

Yeah, I agree.  The U.S. can't afford option 2, in lives or dollars.  And option 3 hasn't worked well in the past (e.g. Shah of Iran). 

As Colin Powell warned Bush, "Once you break it, you're going to own it."  And now Bush owns it.

I agree that Bush owns it, but the entire country owns it as well.  Bush can't do anything to affect the outcome any longer, so Obama owns it by default.  Kerry and Clinton both voted for it and supported it. Let's not forget that majority of our elected officials at the time were in favor of it, including Ms. Clinton.  Plus public opinion actually supported it at the time.

Though I agree with the option PS listed (and support choice #1), it is important to remember these (bolded) points via clacy.  But let's also remember how the war machine (particularly that of the Republicans) treated those who disagreed with the war.

So maybe Bush "owns it", but I don't really think that matters.  But at least GWB has stayed in the background since leaving the presidency.  What really chafes me is that some members of the Bush administration, as well as leading neocon pundits and policy makers, are still taken seriously and maintain stature in foreign policy discussions.  Hell, John F'ing Bolton* is an AEI Scholar and is considered some sort of foreign policy expert on the right.

All these people ought to be ignored (and, preferably, mocked).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Bolton's real middle name is "Broomstache".
[img width=50]http://rightweb.irc-online.org/images/u ... olton1.jpg[/img]

Let's not pretend that the left has done any better on foreign policy since Obama's been in office.  Both sides deserve to be mocked. I can't think of one thing that either Bush or Obama has done really well, except maybe Bush recognizing that Rumsfeldt needed to go and the troop surge was needed to stablize Iraq.  Of course that was made to correct the mistake that he had previously made, so it's not worthy of any sort of recognition.

[dualstow]

Perhaps the best solution is to let the country split up along the obvious ethnic/religious lines.  A nasty and possibly long civil war will happen between now and then, but it's probably impossible to avoid anyway.  The only question is whether one side gets the "terrorist" label which unfortunately has become a synonym for "bad guys that we don't like." 

I feel the same, mostly. I think it will create tons of suffering (and tons of fighters who will earn & deserve the terrorist label), but I also think it's like trying to avoid a forest fire. You can only delay it and make it worse when it finally burns, so maybe it's time to let it burn.

[Ad Orientem]

I think it began after WW1 when the Allies "made" a country.

...Mountaineer

+1
The Great War is the font from which almost every geopolitical catastrophe of the last 100 years has flowed. It is certainly the worst disaster for civilization since the French Revolution, and arguably since the Black Death.

[Tortoise]

The West is basically locked in a duel to the death with Islamic fundamentalism.

It wants to spread; we want to prevent it from spreading. Islamic fundamentalism won't stop until it has gained control of the entire world and submitted it to sharia law (the openly stated goal), and the only choice the West has is to either submit (which some European countries are doing by allowing massive Islamic immigration and changing their laws to accommodate sharia law) or to fight back.

Even if every Western power were to adopt a strict "hands off" policy regarding Middle Eastern countries, the stated goal of fundamentalist Islam is to take over the world by any means necessary. It doesn't seem like this can end well.

[Pointedstick]

The West is basically locked in a duel to the death with Islamic fundamentalism.

"Islamic fundamentalism" is an idea. Ideas cannot be fought with weapons, except for if you literally kill everyone who believes in the idea, which rarely seems to work. If we are really fighting an idea, I think we need to change our tactics pretty radically. Because despite more than ten years of conflict, this idea seems stronger than ever.

[Kshartle]

The West is basically locked in a duel to the death with Islamic fundamentalism.

"Islamic fundamentalism" is an idea. Ideas cannot be fought with weapons, except for if you literally kill everyone who believes in the idea, which rarely seems to work. If we are really fighting an idea, I think we need to change our tactics pretty radically. Because despite more ten years of conflict, this idea seems stronger than ever.

well my my PS..........Lawd have mercy........the bombs and the guns ain't solvin problems.......who'd of thunk it?

[Benko]

"Islamic fundamentalism" is an idea

So words i.e. ideas aside, if starting now we leave moslems alone, you expect them to leave us alone?  or
It is too late because of our past acts?

How well have increasing moslem populations worked in Europe e.g.:

A  "PARIS -- Violent crime can happen anywhere and to anyone and for many reasons, but in Muslim-controlled parts of France, it has become especially dangerous to be white"

B French City with 40% Muslim Population is the Most Dangerous City in Europe

[Pointedstick]

"Islamic fundamentalism" is an idea

So words i.e. ideas aside, if starting now we leave moslems alone, you expect them to leave us alone?  or
It is too late because of our past acts?

Huh? Who said anything about that?

I was speaking in a strategic sense. If you wish to destroy an idea, you need to use weapons that can destroy ideas. You wouldn't stubbornly attack a tank with small arms, would you? That would be stupid. Yet what's what we're doing with our current strategy, by destabilizing stable nations, altering the balance of power in favor of nations more hostile to us, and providing an opportunity for terrorists to sharpen their skills fighting us in their home territory.

My point is that so far, the people who are threatened by Islamic fundamentalism are waging a poor fight against it because they re striking at the branches, rather than the root. They misunderstand the nature of the fight. In this, I am neither passing judgement on them nor their goals; merely pointing out that, given the framework of wanting to combat Islamic fundamentalism, their approach seems to be backfiring.

[Ad Orientem]

The West is basically locked in a duel to the death with Islamic fundamentalism.

"Islamic fundamentalism" is an idea. Ideas cannot be fought with weapons, except for if you literally kill everyone who believes in the idea, which rarely seems to work. If we are really fighting an idea, I think we need to change our tactics pretty radically. Because despite more ten years of conflict, this idea seems stronger than ever.

well my my PS..........Lawd have mercy........the bombs and the guns ain't solvin problems.......who'd of thunk it?

Unfortunately, ISIS and their co-fanatics don't seem to agree with you. The guns and bombs are working fine for them.

[Tortoise]

well my my PS..........Lawd have mercy........the bombs and the guns ain't solvin problems.......who'd of thunk it?

Unfortunately, ISIS and their co-fanatics don't seem to agree with you. The guns and bombs are working fine for them.

Yes. It makes me sad as an empathetic human being--and as a Christian--to admit this, but if that's what it takes to prevent Islamic fundamentalism from spreading... so be it.

Some ideologies are inherently opposed to reason and other non-violent methods of influence. Some people argue that all religions fall into that category, but I don't think so. Most religions have at least some level of cultural flexibility and openness to reason, but Islam seems to be among the most culturally inflexible and hostile to reason. Indeed, Islam is more than just a religion--it is a total, all-encompassing way of life (religious, legal, etc.). Inflexibility is built into its very core. Sadly, force may be the only way to keep it in check.

[Pointedstick]

Unfortunately, ISIS and their co-fanatics don't seem to agree with you. The guns and bombs are working fine for them.

Are they, though? Every time we kill a leader, stamp out a cell, push them out of a country... they just get new leaders, recruit new brainwashed zealots, and take more territory elsewhere, or retake their losses later. That we can kill them doesn't seem to be affecting that fact that we don't seem to be able to kill what makes them want to fight. Our current strategy seems oddly focused on winning the battle rather than the war.

Look, I'm no dove. I don't reject violence, even state-initiated violence in international conflicts. I'm simply observing that we don't seem to be accomplishing our goals--only setting ourselves up for at best endless stalemate.

[MachineGhost]

All these people ought to be ignored (and, preferably, mocked).

If I had my way, I'd have them all arrested and tried as war criminals.  If Osama was enough to terminate for being a spiritual leader, then so are they.  Lack of accountability is exactly why we keep finding ourselves in this fvcking mess over and over and over.

[clacy]

All these people ought to be ignored (and, preferably, mocked).

If I had my way, I'd have them all arrested and tried as war criminals.  If Osama was enough to terminate for being a spiritual leader, then so are they.

War criminals?  These people are voted in by the American public.  40% of the US would still vote for Obama over Romney if he were convicted of child molestation.

[Ad Orientem]

Unfortunately, ISIS and their co-fanatics don't seem to agree with you. The guns and bombs are working fine for them.

Are they, though? Every time we kill a leader, stamp out a cell, push them out of a country... they just get new leaders, recruit new brainwashed zealots, and take more territory elsewhere, or retake their losses later. That we can kill them doesn't seem to be affecting that fact that we don't seem to be able to kill what makes them want to fight. Our current strategy seems oddly focused on winning the battle rather than the war.

Look, I'm no dove. I don't reject violence, even state-initiated violence in international conflicts. I'm simply observing that we don't seem to be accomplishing our goals--only setting ourselves up for at best endless stalemate.

When I said the guns and bombs were working fine for them, "them" meant ISIS.