What is means that people who were ignorant about the Middle East enough to believe and push the ideas that started all this have no credibility to claim that now they have the answer-- the same as you always do more war for peace. Of course even a broken clock can be right occasionally, but don't ask the rest of the world to believe that this time you have it right.
Verified Pyle - I like how you dropped the slang "terp" and then followed it up by interpreting the phrase for us civvies with "(interpreter)" - a boss move to bolster the cred.
My experience was a little different. I ran into a good number of Iraqis who wanted us there. Granted, most didn't, but some understood that our presence was a stabilizing force. True Story Time: While working S2 one night I got a report that some a$$hole was trying to take over one of the Shiite quads. This is after we had moved to a different compound that had a different layout (8 "quads" with approx 60 detainees each). This was a high security quad. Each quad was broken down by category: AQI, Takfiri, Foreigners, Mehdi Army, etc. The trouble this night was with the Mehdi Army quad. Shiites. I get down there and ask Chief WTF is going on, he says a Mehdi Army commander just came into the quad and is trying to become Imam and Chief. I look up the guy's profile and he is a mid-level SG guy with a religious history, no big links. I go down there, call him to the gate, he tells me that his guys are going to riot if they don't get what they want. So I stood there and talked to him all night about what he wanted. Long night of talking, woulda been better with beer, but we hashed out lots of stuff. I explained that we did NOT want to be there, first and foremost. He didn't either. We talked about lots of things; I let him hold onto the Imam position, but we would keep our Chief. Eventually we shook hands and agreed not to fight anymore. We started the night off in a close-to-riot situation, and we ended it on a peaceful note. We agreed to pray for each other. That quad was peaceful, and we had no more issues with that quad for the rest of the deployment. That was not the ISIS leader's quad. It was a shiite quad. And I will bet money that most of those guys are signing up to fight ISIS right now. They are backed by Iran.
So... looks like we're sending at least some SoF back to Iraq. Numbers between 100-250 or so. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-considers-special-forces-help-iraq Twitter is saying the decision is made. Grain of salt, but I think this is probably true. Expect to see more reports on it. (or not, it is SoF) Nimitz carrier moving into the Gulf, and these guys can call in air. Air can run out of Kuwait and Incirlik as well. I approve. We can pull them back at any time, but this gives us leverage over Maliki, over the Iranians, and it allows us to have a say in the outcome. No one has the stomach for a bigger presence, so for now this will have to do. Given the situation this is an appropriate response, I think. Ultimately this will require a political change. Biden was probably right that Iraq will be partitioned. (yes, the Moron was right - even a clock is right twice a day). It;'s happening whether we want it to or not; the best hope at this point is a Federalist approach, with three autonomous regions under one national banner (with national oil-profit sharing and a national Army, with a Constitution - notice which comes first?). And if that doesn't work then we do everything we can to deny ISIS or a similar group a safe haven. That would likely require military force, but as far as possible we want the locals to do the fighting.
The fact that most of them don't want us there is why everything we do there is fruitless and keeps turning to hsit.
Well let us hear from other experts on the Middle East and what we should do about the mess we have contributed to by two mistakes-- overthrowing Sadam and backing the Syrian rebels. First, Washington needs to acknowledge the mistaken premises of its Syria policy—that Assad has lost the support of most Syrians and can be overthrown by externally-supported oppositionists—and recognize that ending the anti-Assad insurgency is essential to cutting off ISIS’s base in northeastern Syria. Second, Washington needs to accept Tehran as an essential player in containing and rolling back ISIS’s multifaceted challenge and—as we have been advocating inside and outside government for over a decade—embed that acceptance in a broader realignment of U.S.-Iranian relations. It is crucial, though, that America engage Iran over ISIS politically—not, as some suggest, by U.S. warplanes covering Iranian foot soldiers in Iraq. (Most responsible officials and politicians in Tehran appear too smart to fall for such a “trap,” which would also play into al-Qa’ida’s grand strategy.) Third, Washington must finally confront Saudi Arabia over its longstanding support for jihadi militants as a policy tool. Riyadh’s resort to this tool has proven serially damaging for U.S. interests; time has come for U.S. leaders to make clear to Saudi counterparts that their tolerance for it is at an end. Flynt Leverett is professor of international affairs and law at Penn State. Hillary Mann Leverett is senior professorial lecturer at American University’s School of International Service. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-middle-east-delusions-10672?page=show
I don't know the source and didn't research it, but I agree with all of the above. The really worst villain is not Iran. It's Saudi Arabia.
Momentus day on the D&D. I sorta agree with Treeman. I sorta agree with Glynch and I sorta agree with Around The World, all on the same page. The US will have to do something militarily. I think it's telling such a small force can terrorize a nation with an army of 300,000 but it also should be addressable with air power and intelligence. And Iraq will be partitioned. Iran will be an equal partner in Shia-stan. It's in the world's economic interest to keep the oil exports flowing and to protect Kuwait. Iran is strategically located to do that. Saudi export of Wahhabism and supplying the most violent factions is the fuel behind the chaos.
This is the reality of long term foreign policy in a democracy and is one of the major reasons we shouldn't have been there in the first place. The public doesn't have the patience for war ad infinitum, if there is going to be military action, it needs to have clearly defined goals and exit strategies, you know, the exact opposite of what Iraq had when Bush invaded. Do you really believe that there was any possibility of a permanent, 100k strong force in Iraq? If so, you are dramatically further from reality than I. FWIW, I'm fully on board with pulling troops out of Germany, there is very little good reason to have as large a force as we have there. However, sending them to Iraq is NOT a strategy I would support. It is time to stop doubling down on stupid, as Bush did over and over again and as you apparently would in this instance.
It certainly seems more and more likely that we were duped into going into Iraq in the first place by Iranian "intelligence" plants. They couldn't get Saddam out, even after a war between the two countries, so Iran needed us to do their dirty work. Chalk up another tick mark in the "Ways Bush was stupid when it came to Iraq" column.
Great news for the Kerry 2004 campaign! let's focus on the here and now -- the past is done. We have to make decisions based on the current situation.
Bobby claims to be sort of "libertarian" --the American version of it which is usually combined with neo-confederate conservatism--is not big on democracy you know. Democratic governents tend to have some taxes on the masters of the universe after all. We should not let the wishes of the majority of the American people (Bobby the Great) or the Iraqi people (Treeman) into account when doing wars or foreign policy.
Wouldn't in theory pure libertarianism lean towards isolationism? Defending your borders is one thing. Shipping them out to prop up puppet leaders to feed energy interests seems outside the lines of government intervention.
