So much revisionism... Republicans were gleeful because we stopped Obama from interjecting us into a situation where there were no good guys. Let's recall what actually transpired, and ignore the lie you are trying to peddle. Obama wanted to launch an air campaign against the Assad regime. Who would that have helped? We argued here MANY times that it would have helped the nutcases (at that point ther AQ-aligned Nusra Front mostly, as ISIL was just getting its wheels going and hadn't yet had its fued with Nusra), to which your reply was effectively "Eh, so? We've got to punish Assad..." So, we tried to stop Obama from putting the nutcases in a better strategic position - one which might have allowed them to overwhelm Assad and win the war in Syria. You, and all of your brain-dead leftist buddies, argued that we should act as Al Qaeda's air force and attack Assad, simply because your king uttered a moronic phrase about "red lines" and we couldn't afford to let the deed go unpunished? I remember well what actually transpired, despite your disingenuous efforts to rewrite history. And I STILL don't want us getting involved in Syria. There is no one to ally with - they are all pretty much bad guys (if you can find reliable good guys there, please let the CIA know). At least in Iraq we have some actual good guys to align with, and we can at least blunt ISIS there. Syria is way, way to chaotic and messy to walk into and expect any reasonably reliable outcome.
Y'all aren't gonna believe this. Some guy wearing an ISIS uniform showed up to a local Shia mosque saying scary stuff a couple of days ago. HPD was called and he was ordered off of the party. I don't think they arrested him.
What the hell? There's a reason there was a green zone and our people stayed in the safe areas of Baghdad. There's a reason that our civilians had to be accompanied by military wherever they went outside of it. That is not what they do in the middle of South Korea or Germany. 54 troops died in combat the last year we were in Iraq - find the last year where that many died in combat in Germany? Are you really trying to pretend being stationed in Iraq in 2011 was like being stationed in Germany or South Korea? This might be true in fantasy world, but not in any sort of real world that actually exists. Iraq is unstable and ISIS has had success in large part because the government (that we were sustaining) was abusing Sunnis, which created resentment to their own government. There was no stability and it was only a matter of time before it all crumbled. ISIS existed while we were there. By some accounts, they developed their blitzkreig tactics and learned to fight through all their raids and surprise attacks against the US forces. The only thing US troops really did is temporarily put a lid on a boiling pot - we never stopped anything from boiling. Ah yes, the "great white man knows what's best for the stupid people on the other side of the world" strategy. That has worked so well everywhere we have tried it in the past.
It was actually pretty close. Go here and look: http://icasualties.org/ I have said this many times, the war was effectively over in Iraq by the time we left. And by that, I mean the large-scale fighting was over. Ther was still the occasional bombing or shooting, but for our troops at least it was basically over. We were losing more people to illness and auto accidents than combat. It was a manageable situation, is the point. And what you fail to mention is that those abuses began *after* we left, because when we left we lost all leverage over Maliki's government. Within a week of our departure Maliki bagan to turn on the Sunnis, charging their leadership with crimes and turning them into fugitives. He followed that up with stopping payments to Sunni militias that had turned on AQI - which removed their incentive to fight the nutcases. All because we left. That is absolutely not true. We decimated AQI while we were there - they were all but wiped out. We had thousands of their worst detained at Camp Bucca - where I was - until we turned them over to the Iraqis before we left. Inexplicably, the Iraqis released many of them, and the rest were broken out in a series of jailbreaks, the best known of them the BCP breakout in 2013. Your facts are off.
They also posted photos with the White House in the background. Those who think that this is all far away are delusional. It's already very, very, very close in Europe. They want to kill Europeans, and they will. And they are also among you guys in the USA, too.
Except you are forgetting that Obama also wanted to arm moderate rebel factions who were also fighting the radical Islamists factions. I actually agree with you that there aren't really any good guys in Syria. There are some though who are better than others. I was and still am very circumspect about US involvement in Syria and agree that there are many problems in it. That said it is still disingenuous to blame the lack of US forces in Iraq for the rise of ISIS when that rise has been fueled by the war in Syria.
I haven't forgotten anything. If you can find the "moderates" in Syria, by all means let us know. We tried arming them, and a bunch of weapons fell into the hands of extremists. It's a dicey business handing out weapons in such an environment. It's not disingenuous at all. AQI was on the ropes when we left, all that was necessary was to keep the pressure up on them. We left, the pressure left, and they took advantage of the situation next door to establish a foothold that they couldn't establish as easily in Iraq. And as I said, when we left Maliki turned on the Sunnis and stopped paying them, went after their leadership, started rounding people up, etc. He wouldn't do ANY of that if we are still there, because we wouldn't let him. His actions reversed all of the gains that the Sunni Awakening brought, and those actions allowed AQI to be welcomed back in. Right now ISIS is not fighting alone; they are working with Sunni militias who had previously turned on them, and have now turned back to them. None of that would have happened if we were still there, because if we were still there we would have had leverage. When we left we lost all leverage. And you know who gained leverage? Iran. And do you think they had anything to do with Maliki turning on and going after the Sunnis? You betcha.
Well, it's starting to look like Maliki likes his job and doesn't want to leave. Looks like Maliki is launching a coup: Troops surround Baghdad ‘Green Zone’ as embattled Prime Minister Maliki appears to cling to power TROOPS loyal to controversial Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki have sealed off Baghdad’s “Green Zone” in an apparent coup. “There is a huge security presence, police and army, especially around the Green Zone,” the highly-protected district that houses Iraq’s key institutions, a high-ranking police officer has confirmed to AFP. He said the deployment started at around 10:30 pm Iraq time, just 90 minutes before Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced on state television he would file a complaint against the president for violating the constitution. Full Story: http://www.news.com.au/world/troops-surround-baghdad-green-zone-as-embattled-prime-minister-maliki-appears-to-cling-to-power/story-fndir2ev-1227020033404 BREAKING: Military Coup Rocks Iraq Iraq’s parliament just chose a new President who refused to rename Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki to a third term. Maliki declared the move unconstitutional and his own State of Law Party pulled support from him. Now his forces are seizing government buildings in Iraq, have closed the airport, and are surrounding the Green Zone. His speech refusing to step down occurred at midnight and was followed by the military action. http://thepunditpress.com/2014/08/10/breaking-military-coup-rocks-iraq/ Well, if this pans out then at least it will clarify things and allow us to work directly with the Kurds. After they declare independence.
More: Iraq Coup Chatter Spikes as Special Forces Loyal to PM Reportedly Deploy to Strategic Areas in Baghdad http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/10/iraq-coup-chatter-spikes-as-special-forces-loyal-to-pm-reportedly-deploy-to-strategic-areas-in-baghdad/ Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki Orders Troops To Guard Baghdad Amid 'Coup' Talk http://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-prime-minister-maliki-defiant-as-allies-call-for-his-ouster-2014-8 US officials quoted in the last piece to be supporting Iraqi President, not Maliki. Sound's like all hell is breaking loose...
Well if he is trying to cling to power and pull off a coup, it makes sense why he'd want US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and even more reason why we shouldn't have listened to him.
There would certainly be no coup if we had boots on the ground... This guy is an Iranian stooge. I think the Iranians don't want to lose their man in the Green Zone.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>WOW WHAT A SIGHT! American Muslims demonstrating against ISIS @<a href="https://twitter.com/GIJenn4VETERANS">GIJenn4VETERANS</a> @<a href="https://twitter.com/LOVE4NOLA">LOVE4NOLA</a> @<a href="https://twitter.com/100percFEDUpmom">100percFEDUpmom</a> @<a href="https://twitter.com/peddoc63">peddoc63</a> <a href="http://t.co/VwydtCD7ov" title="http://twitter.com/AirmanKolfage/status/498586762483351552/photo/1">pic.twitter.com/VwydtCD7ov</a></p>— A Wounded Warrior (@AirmanKolfage) <a href="https://twitter.com/AirmanKolfage/status/498586762483351552" data-datetime="2014-08-10T21:48:42+00:00">August 10, 2014</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That is only because you just accept it on face value without understanding that ISIS is a guerrilla force that is fighting out side of standard rules of warfare including wearing uniforms. So that someone shows up in Houston wearing an ISIS uniform as a sign that ISIS is in the US is highly suspect when ISIS forces in the Middle East aren't wearing uniforms, other than maybe ones looted from Syrian and Iraqi army forces. I don't doubt that some nutcase might've shown up in Houston claiming to be ISIS. I strongly doubt that said nutcase really is a member of ISIS. For that matter if ISIS was in America wouldn't they want to draw less attention to themselves so they could carry out a terrorist attack than parade around in something recognizable as ISIS?
Several of the Syrian groups are not radical Islamists and have fought Al-Nusri and the extremists groups. The Syrian National Congress which acts as an umbrella for many groups and is tacitly supported by the US is opposed to Al-Nusri. I agree we don't really if they are good guys but they are better than the radicals. My understanding is that the US didn't end up sending many arms to Syrian groups and many of the promises that were made to arm Syrian groups didn't materialize. If you have other evidence I would be interested to see it. I think most ISIS's arms are weapons bought on the open market, supplied by the Saudis or seized from Syrian and Iraqi forces. As you say yourself though the radical Sunni extremists took advantage of the situation in Syria. The US wasn't and isn't in Syria so withdrawing from Iraq doesn't change that. You're are right that Maliki probably can't cut out the Sunnis from government as much as he had if the US was still there the problem though is that unless the US stayed indefinitely there is no guarantee that the Shiite majority doesn't just do what Maliki did later. Iran isn't going anywhere and always going to be a player in Iraq. Your argument for staying just likely forestalls things while Americans continue to spend blood and treasure in an occupation that the vast majority of Americans were sick of. Of asked this of you before though and haven't seen, or perhaps missed the answer since I can't always be here, answer. You served in Iraq would you personally be willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
First of all, the "unless the US stayed indefinitely" part is right, which is why that's exactly what should have been done, just like in Germany, Korea, and Japan. When you keep a presence there, you ensure you don't have another war there and it makes life easier for the upstart government because they are given the stability to make something of their country. The second part about how Americans were "sick of" Iraq is true as well, but the point of having a leader is to have someone make the right choice as opposed to just going by opinion polls. The general public is not who you want making your decisions day to day.
We had ~1000 Americans in Iraq as ambassadors or reps to help build this government after the troops left. Personally I believe that ISIS is formed regardless of the presence. They are recruiting young, mostly lesser educated, and some what hopeless muslims out of a belief. These thoughts are not changed by the troops in place. Military action only has an effect if the general populous can get behind the movement of an outer body. I do not see this to be the case in ME. I am not throwing up the white flag, but im just saying it is far more complicated than war in a country and surly not one president, or multiples, faults.
