Things go from really bad to a lot worse in Iraq (and Syria)

[DR DOOM]

"Don't forget, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad"

[T.wa.T]

What they need over there is a good ole fashioned civil war.

[bran]

What they need over there is a good ole fashioned civil war.

we can just air drop food, water and medical supplies in the middle of the fray, and drop some video camera crews to film a reality show

iraq: shiite to shit. live on history between pawn stars and american pickers.

[SoulMonster]

What confuses me is that when Sadum was in power none of this stuff happened there.

Because Saddam Hussein was a strong tyrant who kept his people in check with violence and terror. Free of the tyranny inherent conflicts flare up again.

I want to know how these people get the guns and start to take over complete cities because they are a different race or faith or whatever?

You've heard of Sunni and Shia Muslims? Those are two different denominations of the Muslim religion and they are now going against each other in Iraq (and Syria, and elsewhere). Then you have different ethnicities, like the Kurds in the North of Iraq (and other countries) who want independence. Basically, Iraq (like most countries) is comprised of a mix of various groups of people and they simply haven't learnt how to live peacefully together. Like the beginning of USA, if you want, with the English, the French, the Mexicans, etc, all trying to establish their own territories. Iraq simply needs time to develop into a civilized democracy, basically to get all the "state machinery" in place that allows a democracy to be a peaceful and functioning system, but they weren't given that time - they were thrown into it with the allied forces toppling Saddam and his regime and then quite quickly leaving. It is sort of similar to what happens in Afghanistan, although I believe a greater amount of effort was put in to help the country become a functioning democracy after fighting the Taliban.

[shades]

I was listening to Republican news radio earlier today and they're going crazy over this.....they've even gotten to the point of playing George W. Bush soundbites and saying that he was right all along. It's disheartening seeing them turn this into something political.

Playing politics with people's lives.

the "right" is playing politics?

that's sarcasm right?

The whole reason for this latest crisis is due to Obama playing politics with Iraq.

"I ended the war, brought our troops home, vote for me"

well there you have it, left unattended, and obviously unmonitored this is what you get.

there's a vast majority of Americans calling for doing nothing on this, which is unwise, imo.

If he is poll watching and more concerned about the mid terms he would do just that.

I have to say this small incursion of troops, and strengthening of the American Fleet in the Persian Gulf is a good sign

maybe he gets it.

Iraq can not fall to ISIS, that would be very bad.

I am surprised, but in agreement that talking with Iran and forming a mutual concern is another good idea I see he has put on the table.

may be hope for him yet.

But don't accuse the "right" of politicizing anything when it is their duty to push for action when inaction is not an option.

[Georgy Zhukov]

What's important to America is that they help Iraq overcome ISIS before Iran takes the credit. Iran like Iraq has a Shiite majority which only a few countries have majority. So it is easy to see how they would get so much influence.

[downzy]

I was listening to Republican news radio earlier today and they're going crazy over this.....they've even gotten to the point of playing George W. Bush soundbites and saying that he was right all along. It's disheartening seeing them turn this into something political.

Playing politics with people's lives.

the "right" is playing politics?

that's sarcasm right?

The whole reason for this latest crisis is due to Obama playing politics with Iraq.

"I ended the war, brought our troops home, vote for me"

well there you have it, left unattended, and obviously unmonitored this is what you get.

there's a vast majority of Americans calling for doing nothing on this, which is unwise, imo.

If he is poll watching and more concerned about the mid terms he would do just that.

I have to say this small incursion of troops, and strengthening of the American Fleet in the Persian Gulf is a good sign

maybe he gets it.

Iraq can not fall to ISIS, that would be very bad.

I am surprised, but in agreement that talking with Iran and forming a mutual concern is another good idea I see he has put on the table.

may be hope for him yet.

But don't accuse the "right" of politicizing anything when it is their duty to push for action when inaction is not an option.

Does the concerns of the electorate not meaning anything? His 2008 election platform was that he'd end America's military presence within Iraq. John McCain ran on the opposite platform, arguing that the U.S. might have to remain in Iraq for fifty to a hundred years. The people chose Obama. So please explain why Obama deserves criticism for upholding the commitment that helped make him President? Regardless of whether it meant Iraq would turn unstable down the road, should the American people not have a say in the matter? Or should the U.S. simply become a stratocracy, where military concerns trump the will of the people?

"The vast majority of Americans are calling on the President to do nothing"... So your argument is: fuck them and what they want. Never mind the fact that Iraqi PM Maliki has been ruling like an dictatorial thug even before U.S. forces left in 2011. That this is mostly the result of authoritarian leadership by the current ruling coalition in Iraq as well as the Syrian rebel movement that Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham blasted the President for not providing arms. That's right, if John McCain were president the U.S. would have essentially provided arms to all sides in this conflict.

Edited June 17, 2014 by downzy

[shades]

I was listening to Republican news radio earlier today and they're going crazy over this.....they've even gotten to the point of playing George W. Bush soundbites and saying that he was right all along. It's disheartening seeing them turn this into something political.

Playing politics with people's lives.

the "right" is playing politics?

that's sarcasm right?

The whole reason for this latest crisis is due to Obama playing politics with Iraq.

"I ended the war, brought our troops home, vote for me"

well there you have it, left unattended, and obviously unmonitored this is what you get.

there's a vast majority of Americans calling for doing nothing on this, which is unwise, imo.

If he is poll watching and more concerned about the mid terms he would do just that.

I have to say this small incursion of troops, and strengthening of the American Fleet in the Persian Gulf is a good sign

maybe he gets it.

Iraq can not fall to ISIS, that would be very bad.

I am surprised, but in agreement that talking with Iran and forming a mutual concern is another good idea I see he has put on the table.

may be hope for him yet.

But don't accuse the "right" of politicizing anything when it is their duty to push for action when inaction is not an option.

Does the concerns of the electorate not meaning anything? His 2008 election platform was that he'd end America's military presence within Iraq. John McCain ran on the opposite platform, arguing that the U.S. might have to remain in Iraq for fifty to a hundred years. The people chose Obama. So please explain why Obama deserves criticism for upholding the commitment that helped make him President? Regardless of whether it meant Iraq would turn unstable down the road, should the American people not have a say in the matter? Or should the U.S. simply become a stratocracy, where military concerns trump the will of the people?

"The vast majority of Americans are calling on the President to do nothing"... So your argument is: fuck them and what they want. Never mind the fact that Iraqi PM Maliki has been ruling like an dictatorial thug even before U.S. forces left in 2011. That this is mostly the result of authoritarian leadership by the current ruling coalition in Iraq as well as the Syrian rebel movement that Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham blasted the President for not providing arms. That's right, if John McCain were president the U.S. would have essentially provided arms to all sides in this conflict.

lets start with the hypocrisy of the ideology and sudden concern for the "will" of the people.

majority of Americans were against Obamacare. Didn't seem to waver his will.

of course the standard liberal response , "well he knew what was best for America, they just didn't understand", "they will see the light"

the point is, and especially in matters of national security, he's the President.

To make sure I am understanding your logic, does a president just take a poll when there is a matter of crisis and go with that?

Or does the fact that he got more votes than John McCain on certain issues that from that day forward he has a pass to implement that view?

help us follow you, you're all over the board here. And before you backtrack that's exactly what you're saying, one or the other, or both.

and on topic, I know it's hard for a liberal to see the forest for the trees,

but the bigger picture is what a president is supposed to act on regardless of the polls when the free world is threatened. He has all the resources and intelligence in the world at his disposal, we don't.

ISIS is taking over Iraq, they didn't just sneak in overnight, he missed the signs while he was busy covering something else up in the media.

And ISIS having control of Iraq is worse than anything previous, Including Bin Laden's rule from his hiding place.

Now what?

At some point even the cool aid drinkers will see Obama's inexperience.

I happen to be pulling for him, as an American. Don't mistake my pointing out the obvious for anything but pointing out the obvious.

Edited June 17, 2014 by shades

[downzy]

If a majority of Americans were against Obamacare, then how did Obama get re-elected?

Healthcare was no where near as important an issue in 2008 as ending America's military presence in Iraq. Obama's position on Iraq was a determinative factor in the election whereas healthcare was not. Now, if you want to criticize Obama for focusing on an issue, such as healthcare, once he became elected, then that's valid. But the overwhelming majority of Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - wanted America out of Iraq when they voted in 2008. And they still do.

Moreover, let's not pretend that conservatives and Republicans didn't tar and feather the President's healthcare reforms regardless of whether they once supported them. Most Americans agree with the components of Obamacare, unless you call it Obamacare.

The President isn't making moment-to-moment decisions regarding foreign policy based on the prevailing winds of public support. But America's involvement in Iraq wasn't, and still isn't, an issue where the American electorate is fickle and all over the place. Moreover, Obama's position on Iraq has been extremely consistent. It's an issue he ran on in both elections, the same way his position in support of America's mission in Afghanistan was something he campaigned on. I agree that public opinion shouldn't affect day-to-day decisions, but if you think the American electorate shouldn't have say in whether American troops are station in foreign lands for an extended period of time, well, how much support for democracy do you really have?

And let's not make the same mistake the previous administration made. If you really think what's happening in Iraq right now threatens the free world, then just wow.

A war is winnable not simply because of military capacity, but also whether it has the support from the homeland. The U.S. had more than enough firepower to prevail in Vietnam, but it didn't have the support back home. The country isn't a stratocracy; the President is responsible to not only the decisions of his generals but also the will of the people. It's why a civilian (the President) is put in charge of the military.

Edited June 17, 2014 by downzy

[Ace Nova]

the "right" is playing politics?

that's sarcasm right?

That was directed at both sides. The left shouldn't be blaming this on Bush just like the right shouldn't be blaming this on Obama. This is a crisis and needs to be treated as such. The broadcast I listened to must have said George Bush's and Barrack Obama's names hundreds of times.....playing the finger pointing game and making everything political. I think it was Hannity's show.

They need to focus on the best way to resolve this and whether or not the U.S. should resolve it....not on who's shit does or does not stink.

[downzy]

the "right" is playing politics?

that's sarcasm right?

That was directed at both sides. The left shouldn't be blaming this on Bush just like the right shouldn't be blaming this on Obama. This is a crisis and needs to be treated as such. The broadcast I listened to must have said George Bush's and Barrack Obama's names hundreds of times.....playing the finger pointing game and making everything political. I think it was Hannity's show.

They need to focus on the best way to resolve this and whether or not the U.S. should resolve it....not on who's shit does or does not stink.

Well, when you have Senator Lindsay Graham on the Sunday talk shows saying, unequivocally, that "the next 9/11 level of attack is going to come from Iraq because of Obama's mishandling of the situation" (I'm paraphrasing there), it's a little different than Democrats suggesting that the current levels of violence and the threat to the cohesion of Iraq was a result of Bush's decision to invade in 2003.

Iraq, as a country, is the production of Western interference from a 100 years ago. It is a country that doesn't want to be a country. It's only ever been held together by a tremendous amount of brute force. For a short, but decent account, of the woman who was responsible for the creation of Iraq as a country a hundred years ago, read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/gertrude-of-arabia-the-woman-who-invented-iraq.html

The country of Iraq, in its current conception is nothing more than a powder-keg. Unless the U.S. is willing to install another dictator who could do the job that Saddam did (but then betray the reason for invading - bring democracy to the Middle East) or carve up the country to its natural boundaries (where each sect gets its own territory), the country will never work since it's not a natural creation.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Well we shouldn't blame it entirely on Bush. He had people working for him. This disaster goes as far back as the British carving up a piece of land, calls it Iraq without thinking about the different ethnicity and sects of Islam. The US, supported a Shah or King that was very friendly to Americans and other Westerners but tortured and mutilated his own people. When they lost him as an ally, they chose another family that tortured and mutilated their own people only this time they were much smarter than the Shah. That is the Saud Family.

Saddam should have never been removed from power. He was no different from the other ruthless leaders. If they've waited, he would have gotten a taste of Arab Spring. He may have found himself involved in a civil war. At least his sons would have. They wouldn't have needed foreign troops on their soil.

We all know the Middle East is fucked up, but efforts have been made to stabilize it. The people are getting bolder, it looks though that no one wants to live under ISIS rule. The Syrian Civil War and the ongoing Egyptian crisis shows the determination of the people. They all have different ideas. You know what I will think will happen next? Migrant workers will strike.

[Ace Nova]

Well, when you have Senator Lindsay Graham on the Sunday talk shows saying, unequivocally, that "the next 9/11 level of attack is going to come from Iraq because of Obama's mishandling of the situation" (I'm paraphrasing there), it's a little different than Democrats suggesting that the current levels of violence and the threat to the cohesion of Iraq was a result of Bush's decision to invade in 2003.

Iraq, as a country, is the production of Western interference from a 100 years ago. It is a country that doesn't want to be a country. It's only ever been held together by a tremendous amount of brute force. For a short, but decent account, of the woman who was responsible for the creation of Iraq as a country a hundred years ago, read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/17/gertrude-of-arabia-the-woman-who-invented-iraq.html

The country of Iraq, in its current conception is nothing more than a powder-keg. Unless the U.S. is willing to install another dictator who could do the job that Saddam did (but then betray the reason for invading - bring democracy to the Middle East) or carve up the country to its natural boundaries (where each sect gets its own territory), the country will never work since it's not a natural creation.

My previous point was that Iraq (at this point) shouldn't be political at all. The lives of millions of Iraqi's and possibly thousands of troops (U.S. & its allies).... are at stake here.... so for once, both the right and the left need to let the past stay in the past and focus on the subject at hand.

The history of Iraq should be considered, but the real issue is that the U.S. toppled Hussein's regime....therefore, there is a certain amount of responsibility that the U.S. has, to clean up what it has done....even though it may have been the previous administration's fault. When Obama was elected president, he inherited a ton of problems....and Iraq was one of them. I think he did the right thing by pulling our troops....and I don't think anyone expected this to happen....not this soon, anyway. But now he needs to figure out how much responsibility the U.S. still has for toppling Hussein's regime and inadvertently causing this to happen. Was it enough that we set up a government for them, trained their military and installed democracy?.... or is it our duty to protect them until peace and stability is secured for years to come?

The Iraqi government must share a huge part of the blame for their unwillingness to negotiate terms to keep U.S. peace keeping forces there.... had they at least done that, most of this probably wouldn't of happened.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Kasanova King

[shades]

The country of Iraq, in its current conception is nothing more than a powder-keg. Unless the U.S. is willing to install another dictator who could do the job that Saddam did (but then betray the reason for invading - bring democracy to the Middle East) or carve up the country to its natural boundaries (where each sect gets its own territory), the country will never work since it's not a natural creation.

I'm going to have to agree with that.

My thought process on the Iraq war was that we had intelligence that said Saddam had WMD's with intent on using them on the west. I was as skeptical as the next guy, but there were basically three factors that put me behind the invasion.

We managed to get UN weapons inspectors in but he kept kicking them out, 911 was still very engraved in our minds, and most importantly at least to me was that Colin Powell was very convincing, I saw Bush as a bit confused and Cheney as a bit too anxious, but Colin Powell was the rock.

His take on it was it look at is as serving a search warrant and we were going to have to kick the door down and serve it.

But once you serve a search warrant and do not find anything you then have to leave. It took me a long time to buy into the premise that if you tore the house apart looking you then were obligated to clean up after yourself.

Now as we are seeing first hand there is no end to the sectarian violence and divide.

I do however still maintain if we were to have kept a peace keeping presence with the might and resolve akin to our presence in South Korea at the very least ISIS would be unable to come in and turn the place upside down. It is my belief there is a lot more at stake than some obviously feel there is in letting that happen.

Either way Obama has no good option.

Edited June 17, 2014 by shades

[Georgy Zhukov]

I just don't see why Iraq can't be divided into separate states. It seems the Kurds are working towards that, taking advantage of the chaos and adding to their territory. The Shiites could just create their own country in the south, but I guess our leaders would be worried about Iranian influence. Maybe annexation. The US desperately needs a buffer between Iran and the Levant. Between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The 275 troops will be there to protect the embassy. They won't fight any battles unless they have no choice.

[downzy]

To be honest, I was actually in favour of America's intervention when it launched its occupation of Iraq. As you point out Shades, a lot of people were convinced when Colin Powell articulated the case. The problem was that most of the evidence Powell presented was given to him by the CIA, which saw a tremendous amount of interference by the Office of the Vice President. There had never been a Vice President in U.S. history who had met with CIA officials as often as Dick Cheney. Information and details were filtered on the basis of whether it helped or hindered the administration's case for military intervention. Bush officials, with the exception of Powell, did not let the evidence drive their policies, but instead let the policies dictate the evidence. It's like starting with an argument and using only the information that supports the initial thesis.

I think most would have agreed that keeping a military force behind in Iraq would have been a good idea. I do think the sectarian violence we're seeing today was inevitable, unless of course the U.S. was willing to keep a large force present in Iraq. If it took over a 100k troops, a lot of money, and many years to pacify sectarian strife from 2005 to 2008, what was 20k to 40k troops going to do? Most of the remaining force was going to be station within the green zone within Baghdad. Mosul would have still fallen. And as we've covered before, Obama in 2011 did extend an offer to Maliki to keep a small contingent of U.S. forces present but Maliki balked.

I think the best option going forward is for the President to sit down with the Saudis, Iraqis, the Kurds, and Iranians and carve up Iraq. Allow the country to return to an autonomous tribes whereby each sect can govern themselves. Keeping Iraq whole will only prolong the inevitable.

[Georgy Zhukov]

The Turks will need to sit down too. They have their problem with the Kurds as well. They might even need to give up some of their own territory to the Kurds.

[Ace Nova]

The 275 troops will be there to protect the embassy. They won't fight any battles unless they have no choice.

If any harm comes to those troops, ISIS will wish they were never born. That would probably be enough to infuriate the American populace, giving Obama the go ahead for all out war.

I doubt they're that dumb.....but you never know.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Georgy Zhukov]

The 275 troops will be there to protect the embassy. They won't fight any battles unless they have no choice.

If any harm comes to those troops, ISIS will wish they were never born. That would probably be enough to infuriate the American populace, giving Obama the go ahead for all out war.

I doubt they're that dumb.....but you never know.

Yeah because there's been an out all war every time a US soldier gets killed. Don't be one of those guys. Nobody wants a war. This country has (hopefully) learned their lessons from being blood thirsty and wanting to go to war. A lot of people are dead, some will never be the same. It pales in comparison to the previous wars but the psychological effect remains the same.

Take a look at the people who are going to help deliver Iraq from ISIS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-class-army-that-could-beat-isis-2014-6?op=1

[Georgy Zhukov]

And a look inside of ISIS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-jihadist-state-would-look-like-2014-6

[Ace Nova]

The 275 troops will be there to protect the embassy. They won't fight any battles unless they have no choice.

If any harm comes to those troops, ISIS will wish they were never born. That would probably be enough to infuriate the American populace, giving Obama the go ahead for all out war.

I doubt they're that dumb.....but you never know.

Yeah because there's been an out all war every time a US soldier gets killed. Don't be one of those guys. Nobody wants a war. This country has (hopefully) learned their lessons from being blood thirsty and wanting to go to war. A lot of people are dead, some will never be the same. It pales in comparison to the previous wars but the psychological effect remains the same.

Take a look at the people who are going to help deliver Iraq from ISIS.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-class-army-that-could-beat-isis-2014-6?op=1

Well, actually....wars have started for much less. And no, I'm not "one of those people"....you should know me better. Look at what the U.S. did to bring home Sgt. Begdahl....and we did that somewhat peacefully.

Long story short, listen to some conservative talk radio and the vast majority of them wouldn't blink an eye about going to war....couple that with the left's getting tired of being (basically) called a bunch of (insert derogatory name for female genitalia here).....and yes, all of a sudden, you have a country united, ready to kick some ISIS ass.

In all seriousness, I really hope you're right. I hope Iraq can hold its own....and maybe, if we're lucky, we might just get out of this by just hitting a few strategic targets with some tomahawks.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Georgy Zhukov]

ISIS has only succeeded because they've made good use of the chaos that went on around them. The Kurdish Peshmerga are not the poorly disciplined Iraqi toops that were suppose to protect Mosul. These guys are the real deal. Look at a map of their territory, they've only been able expand where there is weakness. Last we heard there were only 3,000. The numbers may have likely grown, some volunteers perhaps, inspired by their dreams of a new Islamic Caliphate and how they were able to overcome an army that outnumbered them 10 to 1. They will force locals to join their ranks, arm them with weapons found in depots abandoned by the Iraqis. They have money some seizing banks and oil fields. If they were given time to build up their forces, they may be a formidable force.

The Kurds are willing to work with the Iraqis, even though they have no love for them. They will work together to dislodge ISIS from most of Iraq. I am afraid they will remain by the Syrian border as long that war was going on.

[downzy]

The 275 troops will be there to protect the embassy. They won't fight any battles unless they have no choice.

If any harm comes to those troops, ISIS will wish they were never born. That would probably be enough to infuriate the American populace, giving Obama the go ahead for all out war.

I doubt they're that dumb.....but you never know.

Tough to say. That wasn't the reaction when 299 American forces were killed in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of two truck bombs going off outside the military barracks. Reagan did not respond with military force but with a complete withdrawal.

Edited June 18, 2014 by downzy

[AxlisOld]

Dear Iraq,

We're sick of hearing about you and don't care anymore.

Signed, The USA.

[downzy]

Obviously not a huge fan of Fox News, but give credit where credit is due. Cheney would never appear on an actual news network with his recent criticisms, so it's nice to see Fox News actually turn into a news organization for a minute or two. Now Megyn doesn't actually press Cheney on his answers, which are utter nonsense and revisionism at its most absurd and unfounded, but at least Cheney was finally asked point blank about the hypocrisy he continually demonstrates when he criticizes other administrations on foreign policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW6dWbbaylo

Edited June 19, 2014 by downzy