Back to Baghdad

[BobD]

I don't think we should do a damn thing.

Seriously.... I also don't think we should do anything. No support. No taking of sides. These people just want to fight. And they will continue to do so. Western Democracy is not something they want. They want theocracy and they can have it.

Don't you think there will be consequences to pay if we don't do anything?

 

[greyhammer90]

In hindsight I suppose we all knew this would eventually happen once we got out of there. I was for the first two Iraqi wars, but I'm not sure this time. If we let them take over, then there will be a lot of killing of Sunni including women and children. Do we allow the killing of innocent people? I don't know.

There are reasons to go over there but this is my least favorite. If the United States is going to send our military everytime women and children might be killed, we might as well just try to conquer every country with problems. It's going to happen.

 

[Cackalacky]

Don't you think there will be consequences to pay if we don't do anything?

Anything more than what it's already cost us? No thank you. Let the take care of themselves.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Okay,

So we kept going in, even when we had no reason. We spent trillions. How much more did that cost us than 9/11 which had a temporary crippling effect.

The Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan. If we keep it up, we will follow.

We need to build a local coalition and let them police the situation.

The more we act inept, and put boots on the ground, the more chance there is we let the Iranians out of the world perceived role as bag guys and instigators.

Alienate the Middle East, let the Iranians on their feet, and deal with all the factions, including Iranian insurgents, in their own back yard? No thanks! I pray we gain wisdom and finally do the right thing.

 

[greyhammer90]

I wouldn't worry too much... it would seem that the US is mostly motivated by fossil fuels than by standing up for women and children! Some of the comments in this thread are mind boggling!

Sorry, why? How is me suggesting that the United States shouldn't send our military into every situation where women and children will be killed mind-boggling?

 

[GATTACA!]

Anyone know how much a few of these cost?

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[IrishMoore1]

Send troops back into Iraq in the middle of a civil war? ABSOLUTELY NOT. We should have never invaded in the first place. If we go back in, countless more Americans will die and we will be no closer to bringing peace to the region.

Other countries in the region need to come together and force a truce while they figure out a solution, which should be splitting the country into 3 countries. These people are fighting over religious differences. Let them have their own territories and laws. If they want to live in a backwards society like the dark ages, so be it.

 

[GATTACA!]

Send troops back into Iraq in the middle of a civil war? ABSOLUTELY NOT. We should have never invaded in the first place. If we go back in, countless more Americans will die and we will be no closer to bringing peace to the region.

Other countries in the region need to come together and force a truce while they figure out a solution, which should be splitting the country into 3 countries. These people are fighting over religious differences. Let them have their own territories and laws. If they want to live in a backwards society like the dark ages, so be it.

Lets put up a really big fence that should stop all this.

 

[irish1958]

Centuries old conflict ... we should stay out of it. If we would not have invaded and destabized Iraq we would likely not be faced with the current situation. Our involvement now will only prolong the inevitable and as solar n as we leave again, game back on. We might have thought of this a dozen years ago when we caused this to happen.

When G H W Bush was asked why he didn't go into Bagdad and end the mess, he said I know how to go into Bagdad, but I don't know how to get out. Unfortunately his son was't listening.

 

[IrishMoore1]

Lets put up a really big fence that should stop all this.

Britain made the original territorial line for Iraq without consideration of any of its ethnic groups. So yes, letting these groups have their own country would solve a lot of issues. A country of Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will not lend itself to long term stability. It just makes sense to do it this way.

 

[GATTACA!]

Britain made the original territorial line for Iraq without consideration of any of its ethnic groups. So yes, letting these groups have their own country would solve a lot of issues. A country of Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will not lend itself to long term stability. It just makes sense to do it this way.

I agree in theory. But a) why would anyone listen to westerners they already hate telling them how to split up their land and b) even if some did the ones being kicked out would just resort to violence to get it back.

 

[Cackalacky]

Britain made the original territorial line for Iraq without consideration of any of its ethnic groups. So yes, letting these groups have their own country would solve a lot of issues. A country of Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis will not lend itself to long term stability. It just makes sense to do it this way.

They also helped determine Israel's as well iirc. Should we also break them up by ethnicity? At some point these people have to figure it out on their own and we should facilitate it through discourse not resist it with military might history has shown that this region has always been unstable. Many empires have failed to secure a footing here for thousands of years.

 

[IrishMoore1]

I agree in theory. But a) why would anyone listen to westerners they already hate telling them how to split up their land and b) even if some did the ones being kicked out would just resort to violence to get it back.

a) Like I said, it should be a coalition of countries in the region to facilitate it. We should be on the sidelines.
b) I'm not sure it's a fight over territory as much as a fight over religious belief and legitimate religious authority.

They also helped determine Israel's as well iirc. Should we also break them up by ethnicity? At some point these people have to figure it out on their own and we should facilitate it through discourse not resist it with military might history has shown that this region has always been unstable. Many empires have failed to secure a footing here for thousands of years.

Israel does not have a civil war raging inside their country, so breaking up the country doesn't apply to them.

I agree we should facilitate and not use military force. More violence won't solve anything. This is up to the Iraqi people and their leaders now.

 

[Cackalacky]

a) Like I said, it should be a coalition of countries in the region to facilitate it. We should be on the sidelines.
b) I'm not sure it's a fight over territory as much as a fight over religious belief and legitimate religious authority.



Israel does not have a civil war raging inside their country, so breaking up the country doesn't apply to them.

I agree we should facilitate and not use military force. More violence won't solve anything. This is up to the Iraqi people and their leaders now.

I will just say that the current state of Israel and it's relations with it's Palestinian constituents are a defined conflict that has been going on for better part of 70 years with no sign of ending. It's in a lull right now but we don't get reported everything that goes on there. It is still a flaming mess.

 

[D-BOE34]

We go in and gain control. We pull out, everything falls back to shit. We can't fix the issue, we can only slow it down. If we want to fix the issue, we nuke them all and fight for the territory from there. Or, we just let it go. They can figure it out.

 

[GATTACA!]

We go in and gain control. We pull out, everything falls back to shit. We can't fix the issue, we can only slow it down. If we want to fix the issue, we nuke them all and fight for the territory from there. Or, we just let it go. They can figure it out.

Those appear to be the only permanent options

 

[ND NYC]

entire middle east is such a f-ing hornets nest

 

[T Town Tommy]

I say divide them up, tell them if they violate the others borders, the US will bomb them back into the Stone Age. After a few times of that, they either behave accordingly or they cease to exist.

 

[Ndaccountant]

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
But when we are gone
It will still burn on and on and on and on
And on and on and on and on...

 

[RDU Irish]

When G H W Bush was asked why he didn't go into Bagdad and end the mess, he said I know how to go into Bagdad, but I don't know how to get out. Unfortunately his son was't listening.

I think we wouldn't have needed #2 if we would have finished #1. Saddam and Sons 6 feet under was the only way to move that country forward. From there, either GTFO and let them duke it out OR occupy and set up direct oil royalty checks to each citizen with a plan for handing over to some ruling authority or election with a prepackaged Western rule of law in place.

I have a hard time imagining how occupation ever works in this area and the periodic bitch slapping method only works if you are committed to going completely ape shit on a country when they overstep some pretty clear "lines in the sand", you know, like invading Kuwait.

In relation to the war on terrorism, you just let these places know we will be coming in any time we damn well please to blow up terrorist camps and if they don't like it they can eat a camel dong. I mean really, what is the point of trying to be civil with uncivilized twats?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think we wouldn't have needed #2 if we would have finished #1. Saddam and Sons 6 feet under was the only way to move that country forward. From there, either GTFO and let them duke it out OR occupy and set up direct oil royalty checks to each citizen with a plan for handing over to some ruling authority or election with a prepackaged Western rule of law in place.

I have a hard time imagining how occupation ever works in this area and the periodic bitch slapping method only works if you are committed to going completely ape shit on a country when they overstep some pretty clear "lines in the sand", you know, like invading Kuwait.

In relation to the war on terrorism, you just let these places know we will be coming in any time we damn well please to blow up terrorist camps and if they don't like it they can eat a camel dong. I mean really, what is the point of trying to be civil with uncivilized twats?

Did you read HW's quote? Any one with intelligence knows that you can't solve these kind of problems with ordinance, munitions, and sheer military force. As much as he wanted the big political payoff, he was smart enough not to step in the quicksand. I am pretty clear our recent past and current leaders are not.

 

[RDU Irish]

I wanted him to make an example of Sadaam and his sons. You knew they were psychopaths and made the choice not to knock them out of business. I would take civil unrest over that pack of loons any day of the week.

And were did I say we needed anything more than three bullets? "ordinance, munitions, and sheer military force" do no good if you aren't willing to cut the head off the snake.

That being said, I don't horribly fault HW for not going in the rest of the way. It really is an area where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't... as we are seeing now.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wanted him to make an example of Sadaam and his sons. You knew they were psychopaths and made the choice not to knock them out of business. I would take civil unrest over that pack of loons any day of the week.

And were did I say we needed anything more than three bullets? "ordinance, munitions, and sheer military force" do no good if you aren't willing to cut the head off the snake.

That being said, I don't horribly fault HW for not going in the rest of the way. It really is an area where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't... as we are seeing now.

The problem is, we put Sadam into business, more than once.

The old Washington insider joke : "How is Washington so sure Sadam had weapons of mass destruction? They have all the receipts."

 

[RDU Irish]

Which should make it all the easier to knock him down a peg when he gets out of line.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Which should make it all the easier to knock him down a peg when he gets out of line.

I understand your point. And I am not trying to antagonize you. But the simple fact is we have never been able to control and of the despots we put in charge, Diem, Samosa, Noriega, the Shaw, etc. Ever. It is a flawed policy from the start, and it leads to running out of options.

What if we would have backed a popular leader in any of these cases?

 

[RDU Irish]

What's a better example? Gulf War I and II or a complete bulldozer job on Iraq when they invade the sovereign ally of Kuwait unprompted? Then we start having mountains blow up "randomly" after 9/11, otherwise appearing to turn the other cheek. Maybe a few less than cooperative dictators wake up dead around the world. Temporary power vacuum in the Middle East but a long lasting respect for the US from whomever emerges as the new leadership.

 

[RDU Irish]

Don't back anyone, just make it clear that if you wake the sleeping giant it will make you regret it. Generally, GTFO of the way and respond with ridiculously over the top force when they try playing outside their own sandbox.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Paul Pillar at The National Interest just published an article titled "ISIS Challenge in Iraq: Let the Neighbors Lead":

If any governments, besides the one in Baghdad, ought to be especially concerned about the recent advances in western Iraq by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), it would be ones in the immediate Middle Eastern neighborhood at least as much as the United States. To the extent any action by outsiders can make a difference in what is happening in Iraq, it ought to be those neighboring states that undertake it. We in the United States have a hard time realizing that, however, for two reasons.

One is the habitual American tendency to equate problems anywhere in the world with problems that are assumed to be within the capacity of the United States to solve and thus are problems that the United States ought to solve. This tendency is, in other words, the inclination to think of the United States as the world's policeman—although put in that clichéd form, everyone would deny that this is what they want.

The other reason is the even stronger tendency to think of other players in world affairs in terms of rigid rosters of allies and adversaries. We condone what those on the first list do and condemn the actions of those on the second list, while failing to realize that each other country in the world, regardless of the labels we may habitually apply to it, has some interests it shares with us and others that conflict with our interests.

The ISIS story is leading Arabs in the Persian Gulf states, and especially in Saudi Arabia, to do some hand-wringing and forcing them to do some policy reappraisal. The Saudis, like Americans, have a habit of rigidly dividing their world into friends and foes, with all the automatic condoning or condemning involved, except that in the Saudis' case the division is defined in sectarian terms. In the Saudi view it's Sunni good, Shia bad. But ISIS is a Sunni group that is so nasty and vile that Saudis in and out of government surely realize it is bad news not just for Shia but for themselves as well. The Saudis could usefully try to exercise some direct influence, including with positive incentives, on the Maliki government, with the objective of enhancing the status and political role of Iraqi Sunnis and thereby undermining the main appeal of ISIS. But first the Saudis have to get over their disdain for dealing with Maliki at all.

The neighboring state that has perhaps the biggest concern about the ISIS story, however, is Iran. The ISIS surge is one of the most salient and clearest examples in which U.S. and Iranian interests are congruent. Both Washington and Tehran want ISIS to be stopped. Iranian public statements have been clear about this objective, although reports vary as to exactly what Iran has done so far regarding assistance or intervention in Iraq.

There is right now an excellent opportunity for useful coordination between Washington and Tehran regarding messages to be sent to, and pressure to be exerted on, Prime Minister Maliki. If both the United States and Iran—the two foreign states on which Maliki's future most depends—tell him the same thing about the need to move beyond his destructively narrow ways of governing, such pressure might begin to have a beneficial effect. Although the Iranians have been happy to see the Shia majority in Iraq finally get out from under Sunni political domination, they also are smart enough to realize that Maliki's performance is more a prescription for unending instability and Sunni radicalism, which neither the Iranians nor we want.

The United States and Iran have wisely been concentrating over the past year on the nuclear issue, so as not to complicate the negotiations with a premature broadening of the bilateral agenda. The ISIS offensive may be a reason to move up the broadening a bit.

If Iran starts taking, or is already taking, more forceful measures such as insertion of Revolutionary Guards into the fight, this probably will stimulate some of the usual alarms among commentators in the United States who are always alarmed about the idea of Iran doing just about anything in the region. The alarms will be misplaced. The immediate goal would be defeat of ISIS, a goal that we share. More broadly what the Iranians want most in Iraq is to prevent a return to the sort of aggressive Iraqi behavior that in the 1980s, with Saddam Hussein's launching of the Iran-Iraq War, brought immense suffering to Iran. Preventing such Iraqi behavior is certainly consistent with U.S. interests, too.

It has often and correctly been observed that by waging a very costly war that ousted Saddam Hussein, the United States did a big favor to Iran—which had far more reason than the United States did to regard Saddam as a menace. Wouldn't it be only fair for Iran now to do most of the heavy lifting in dealing with the current situation?

And if in so doing, the Iranians incurred substantial costs, got overextended, and started experiencing back home their own version of Iraq War syndrome, we wouldn't be unhappy about that either, would we?