That’s what happens when you check out of geopolitics and let problems fester uncontrolled. See also: Syria, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Lebanon, etc. Things don’t just magically get better when you take your ball and go home.
The sad thing here is how much work, including so many lost lives, has been squandered.
There is always the “the only way to be sure” option.
1) Record today’s newscasts.
2) Construct a time machine.
3) Use the time machine to carry the recording back to October 14, 2011.
4) Show the recordings to Barry and Hilly, then scream, “NEGOTIATE A PROPER SOFA AND DO YOUR FREAKIN’ JOBS, YOU MORONS!”
What happens after this gets a bit fuzzy and depends your tolerance for grandfather paradoxes.
Sadly, that still wouldn’t work. The narrative demands that Iraq fail and Obama will do everything he can to see that it does.
There’s a fourth option, only it’s politically unmentionable. Send in two or three brigades worth of infantry plus air/artillery/SF support units to stiffen the Iraqis and mop up the ISIS-occupied areas of Iraq. “Hot pursuit” into ISIS-controlled Syria should also be on the table.
The price should be Maliki’s resignation (to a guaranteed Swiss exile, if he’s smart), Iran’s total ejection, installation of a coalition government that will cut the Sunni and Kurds in for proportional shares of revenue and power, and signing of a proper SOFA right at the start.
I think it could even be sold to the American people that we need to go back in, sort out the mess, and keep it sorted out this time.
This would, of course, require a level of US leadership that’s not in evidence, so file it all under “Proposals, Modest.”
We did that back in 03. Substitute Saddam Hussein for Maliki and Iraqi Army and Republican Guard for ISIS.
Not at all the same degree of military problem as in 2003. We have a lot of our people with local knowledge, a lot of locals who’ll be glad to see us back, and a situation where the only way we’d go in is if we’re invited and they make a LOT of political concessions beforehand. Oh, and a far less formidable opponent.
Why exactly is this our problem? Why exactly should we care who runs Iraq, or even if there is such a country? (It didn’t exist prior to Gertrude Bell and Winston Churchill creating it by drawing lines on a map over cocktails in his office.)
We invaded to remove a dictator and destroy his chemical weapons. Done and done. Now the Iraqi people get to decide what happens.
Why should we have cared who ran Afghanistan in 2001?
Why should we have cared who ran Afghanistan in 2001?
Because they attacked the United States and killed Americans.
So we shouldn’t have cared on September 10th, 2001?
Of course we should have cared on September 10, 2001.
But let’s not forget that Bin Laden got his start on our payroll fighting the Soviets. We have developed this bad tendency to attempt to dictate who should govern other countries. It has repeatedly backfired (see, Iran, Afghanistan and Cuba). Maybe we ought to let the people who actually live there decide.
Even when they decide to harbor people who want to come here and kill us? Really?
But let’s not forget that Bin Laden got his start on our payroll fighting the Soviets.
By all means, let us not forget that, even if it isn’t true.
That claim comes from a single un-sourced statement in a BBC news story, back in 2004. But that’s all it takes for the Left, which can’t help believing that anyone who was anti-Soviet must have been a terrorist, or worse.
Besides back when Clinton was still President Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were bombed with cruise missiles after they bombed a series of US embassies in Africa.
So there was plenty of reason to be concerned about Afghanistan before 9/11. The problem was hardly new.
The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us. They did not bomb any of our embassies. There are not a current threat, and there is no particular indication that they will become one.
At some point, we need to allow the people of the Middle East the right to decide what kind of government they want.
The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us.
They have exactly the same ultimate goals as bin Laden. “I’ll see you in New York.”
“There are not a current threat, and there is no particular indication that they will become one.”
How can you be so stupid after the last 14 years?
“The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us.”
Perhaps not yet. (Perhaps – how do you know this for sure though? A separate and fascinating question.) Not until they finish the taking over part and get bored.
“The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us. ”
Prove it.
Actually we should have been concerned with who was running Afghanistan the minute the Soviets left. It was that inattention to detail (that Chris G wants to duplicate) that left the door open to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Ignoring the world is a dangerous hobby.
Chris G seems to be conceding that Iraq is now in total cluster-fornication mode, but it really shouldn’t matter to us. That’s been the Administration’s view about the ME in general from day one. The absurdity of the attitude would be almost funny if it weren’t for the fact that people are dying because of it. The next president is likely to be cursing (under his/her breath) this one as he/she tries to undo the damage done by this one.
“The US has a vital interest in helping Iraqis create a stable, democratic state. Would-be isolationists will quickly rediscover that economic links bind the 21st century world, once they see the oil price hikes spurred by the battlefield successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also translated as the media-friendly acronym ISIS, for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).”
I’d add the US interest in ISIS *not* gaining a secure base in a splintered-off western/sunni Iraq for wider operations, and the US interest in Iran not consolidating effective control of a splintered off eastern/shia Iraq.
once they see the oil price hikes spurred by the battlefield successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that ship has sailed – not that the previous war in Iraq did much to reduce oil prices.
Iran not consolidating effective control of a splintered off eastern/shia Iraq. – That ship sailed in 2002 when we invaded.
Have you been watching the oil markets lately? So far, they’re just a little nervous.
As for your latter point, well, perhaps Iranian domination of eastern Iraq WAS inevitable in the universe where we invaded it in 2002… You don’t seem to be putting enough effort into this to make it interesting.
Actually, it was 2003, for the record.
Well, yeah, that was my point – in THIS universe where we invaded Iraq in 2003, Iranian domination is not at all inevitable.
Given, of course, a level of US leadership that unfortunately is not in evidence.
Of course liberals don’t care if terrorists overrun a country of 20 million and decapitate people in the streets, then kill all the Christians and moderates, then build a terrorist super-state that sits on the border of Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, with a side-goal of killing Westerners anywhere in the world.
You assume Turkey and Iran would allow something like that to exist. The fact is if these bozos lost their Saudi Arabian support they would vanish in a day or two.
Ya, and who cares if they throw Jews in gas chambers. Germany isn’t even on our continent.
This isn’t Iraqis fighting with themselves over who gets to sit in the big chair.
I do agree that it isn’t our problem. It is the world’s problem and it will take a global solution. We used to have Presidents who could wrangle world leaders into addressing problems like this but now we have Obama.
It would be a major step, for Obama, if he would stop arming and training Islamic militants to overthrow their governments. Baby steps.
If the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates stopped funding Al-Qaeda in Syria and elsewhere you mean.
Yes.
It is mind boggling that we went from fighting Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan to arming and training them in places like Libya and Syria.
Not sure where this came from, but another option, that will probably get used sooner or later:
“Nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark.”
1) As long as Maliki and his loathsome cronies remain in charge, anything we do there will be a waste.
2) As long as Obama and his National Security team is in place, nothing we do will be a success.
3) Any result (good or bad) that leaves Iran with a significant presence in Iraq will be a net loss for the US
With these points in mind:
1) Maliki resigns, and his government is replaced by a coalition that is at least tacitly approved by the US. Whether this happens openly or behind the scenes is unimportant.
2) Iranian forces must leave Iraq. Verification of this is done by American recon assets, and is not subject to debate
3) Obama’s National Security team resigns. Once again, how they choose to do this is unimportant, only that they are gone, replaced by adults with IQs in the triple digit range.
If these conditions are met, air support and SOF, as well as limited humanitarian aid, will be provided, administered by American personnel. If not, the United States will remove its embassy, terminate all further support for Iraq (of any kind), and let them kill one another. If the current Iraq regime survives (unlikely) fine, if not, the new one will be informed that hostile acts will be treated as acts of war, and responded to appropriately.
Since there is essentially ZERO probability that any of the conditions that I specified will be met, let them burn. There is no vital interest in Iraq that has not already been compromised by this administration, and a timely use of a ‘rubble don’t make trouble’ policy will limit further damage till we can rid ourselves of our own problems.
It gives me no pleasure to take this approach, but there is simply no workable alternative.
Meanwhile our Glorious Leader is where?
Palm Springs playing golf and raising funds.
His Arrogance the Secretary of State?
In London with the brie and chardonnay crowd (and Angelina Jolie) decryingf “sexual violence during conflicts”.
Given what’s happening to the women in Syria and Iraq right now I’d say he’s more interested in the vintage of the chardonnay than in doing anything useful.
Has anybody mentioned that Iraq has oil. They can buy mercenaries. It’s there problem.
It only becomes our problem when they threaten us at which time we should affirmatively deal with that threat if the nation can’t do it for us.
f1b0nacc1 – ‘rubble don’t make trouble’ . Entirely correct. I would like to add that half-melted rubble which glows in the dark makes even less.
That’s what happens when you check out of geopolitics and let problems fester uncontrolled. See also: Syria, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Lebanon, etc. Things don’t just magically get better when you take your ball and go home.
The sad thing here is how much work, including so many lost lives, has been squandered.
There is always the “the only way to be sure” option.
Sounds better coming from Ripley.
Option 4:
1) Record today’s newscasts.
2) Construct a time machine.
3) Use the time machine to carry the recording back to October 14, 2011.
4) Show the recordings to Barry and Hilly, then scream, “NEGOTIATE A PROPER SOFA AND DO YOUR FREAKIN’ JOBS, YOU MORONS!”
What happens after this gets a bit fuzzy and depends your tolerance for grandfather paradoxes.
Sadly, that still wouldn’t work. The narrative demands that Iraq fail and Obama will do everything he can to see that it does.
There’s a fourth option, only it’s politically unmentionable. Send in two or three brigades worth of infantry plus air/artillery/SF support units to stiffen the Iraqis and mop up the ISIS-occupied areas of Iraq. “Hot pursuit” into ISIS-controlled Syria should also be on the table.
The price should be Maliki’s resignation (to a guaranteed Swiss exile, if he’s smart), Iran’s total ejection, installation of a coalition government that will cut the Sunni and Kurds in for proportional shares of revenue and power, and signing of a proper SOFA right at the start.
I think it could even be sold to the American people that we need to go back in, sort out the mess, and keep it sorted out this time.
This would, of course, require a level of US leadership that’s not in evidence, so file it all under “Proposals, Modest.”
We did that back in 03. Substitute Saddam Hussein for Maliki and Iraqi Army and Republican Guard for ISIS.
Not at all the same degree of military problem as in 2003. We have a lot of our people with local knowledge, a lot of locals who’ll be glad to see us back, and a situation where the only way we’d go in is if we’re invited and they make a LOT of political concessions beforehand. Oh, and a far less formidable opponent.
Why exactly is this our problem? Why exactly should we care who runs Iraq, or even if there is such a country? (It didn’t exist prior to Gertrude Bell and Winston Churchill creating it by drawing lines on a map over cocktails in his office.)
We invaded to remove a dictator and destroy his chemical weapons. Done and done. Now the Iraqi people get to decide what happens.
Why should we have cared who ran Afghanistan in 2001?
Why should we have cared who ran Afghanistan in 2001?
Because they attacked the United States and killed Americans.
So we shouldn’t have cared on September 10th, 2001?
Of course we should have cared on September 10, 2001.
But let’s not forget that Bin Laden got his start on our payroll fighting the Soviets. We have developed this bad tendency to attempt to dictate who should govern other countries. It has repeatedly backfired (see, Iran, Afghanistan and Cuba). Maybe we ought to let the people who actually live there decide.
Even when they decide to harbor people who want to come here and kill us? Really?
But let’s not forget that Bin Laden got his start on our payroll fighting the Soviets.
By all means, let us not forget that, even if it isn’t true.
That claim comes from a single un-sourced statement in a BBC news story, back in 2004. But that’s all it takes for the Left, which can’t help believing that anyone who was anti-Soviet must have been a terrorist, or worse.
There was a WTC bombing before that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
Besides back when Clinton was still President Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were bombed with cruise missiles after they bombed a series of US embassies in Africa.
So there was plenty of reason to be concerned about Afghanistan before 9/11. The problem was hardly new.
The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us. They did not bomb any of our embassies. There are not a current threat, and there is no particular indication that they will become one.
At some point, we need to allow the people of the Middle East the right to decide what kind of government they want.
The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us.
They have exactly the same ultimate goals as bin Laden. “I’ll see you in New York.”
“There are not a current threat, and there is no particular indication that they will become one.”
How can you be so stupid after the last 14 years?
“The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us.”
Perhaps not yet. (Perhaps – how do you know this for sure though? A separate and fascinating question.) Not until they finish the taking over part and get bored.
“The current people trying to take over Iraq are not harboring people trying to kill us. ”
Prove it.
Actually we should have been concerned with who was running Afghanistan the minute the Soviets left. It was that inattention to detail (that Chris G wants to duplicate) that left the door open to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Ignoring the world is a dangerous hobby.
Chris G seems to be conceding that Iraq is now in total cluster-fornication mode, but it really shouldn’t matter to us. That’s been the Administration’s view about the ME in general from day one. The absurdity of the attitude would be almost funny if it weren’t for the fact that people are dying because of it. The next president is likely to be cursing (under his/her breath) this one as he/she tries to undo the damage done by this one.
From Austin Bay’s piece “Making Sense of the Meltdown in Iraq”:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/13/meltdown-in-iraq/
“The US has a vital interest in helping Iraqis create a stable, democratic state. Would-be isolationists will quickly rediscover that economic links bind the 21st century world, once they see the oil price hikes spurred by the battlefield successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also translated as the media-friendly acronym ISIS, for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).”
I’d add the US interest in ISIS *not* gaining a secure base in a splintered-off western/sunni Iraq for wider operations, and the US interest in Iran not consolidating effective control of a splintered off eastern/shia Iraq.
once they see the oil price hikes spurred by the battlefield successes of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that ship has sailed – not that the previous war in Iraq did much to reduce oil prices.
Iran not consolidating effective control of a splintered off eastern/shia Iraq. – That ship sailed in 2002 when we invaded.
Have you been watching the oil markets lately? So far, they’re just a little nervous.
As for your latter point, well, perhaps Iranian domination of eastern Iraq WAS inevitable in the universe where we invaded it in 2002… You don’t seem to be putting enough effort into this to make it interesting.
Actually, it was 2003, for the record.
Well, yeah, that was my point – in THIS universe where we invaded Iraq in 2003, Iranian domination is not at all inevitable.
Given, of course, a level of US leadership that unfortunately is not in evidence.
Of course liberals don’t care if terrorists overrun a country of 20 million and decapitate people in the streets, then kill all the Christians and moderates, then build a terrorist super-state that sits on the border of Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, with a side-goal of killing Westerners anywhere in the world.
You assume Turkey and Iran would allow something like that to exist. The fact is if these bozos lost their Saudi Arabian support they would vanish in a day or two.
Ya, and who cares if they throw Jews in gas chambers. Germany isn’t even on our continent.
This isn’t Iraqis fighting with themselves over who gets to sit in the big chair.
I do agree that it isn’t our problem. It is the world’s problem and it will take a global solution. We used to have Presidents who could wrangle world leaders into addressing problems like this but now we have Obama.
It would be a major step, for Obama, if he would stop arming and training Islamic militants to overthrow their governments. Baby steps.
If the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates stopped funding Al-Qaeda in Syria and elsewhere you mean.
Yes.
It is mind boggling that we went from fighting Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan to arming and training them in places like Libya and Syria.
Not sure where this came from, but another option, that will probably get used sooner or later:
“Nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark.”
1) As long as Maliki and his loathsome cronies remain in charge, anything we do there will be a waste.
2) As long as Obama and his National Security team is in place, nothing we do will be a success.
3) Any result (good or bad) that leaves Iran with a significant presence in Iraq will be a net loss for the US
With these points in mind:
1) Maliki resigns, and his government is replaced by a coalition that is at least tacitly approved by the US. Whether this happens openly or behind the scenes is unimportant.
2) Iranian forces must leave Iraq. Verification of this is done by American recon assets, and is not subject to debate
3) Obama’s National Security team resigns. Once again, how they choose to do this is unimportant, only that they are gone, replaced by adults with IQs in the triple digit range.
If these conditions are met, air support and SOF, as well as limited humanitarian aid, will be provided, administered by American personnel. If not, the United States will remove its embassy, terminate all further support for Iraq (of any kind), and let them kill one another. If the current Iraq regime survives (unlikely) fine, if not, the new one will be informed that hostile acts will be treated as acts of war, and responded to appropriately.
Since there is essentially ZERO probability that any of the conditions that I specified will be met, let them burn. There is no vital interest in Iraq that has not already been compromised by this administration, and a timely use of a ‘rubble don’t make trouble’ policy will limit further damage till we can rid ourselves of our own problems.
It gives me no pleasure to take this approach, but there is simply no workable alternative.
Meanwhile our Glorious Leader is where?
Palm Springs playing golf and raising funds.
His Arrogance the Secretary of State?
In London with the brie and chardonnay crowd (and Angelina Jolie) decryingf “sexual violence during conflicts”.
Given what’s happening to the women in Syria and Iraq right now I’d say he’s more interested in the vintage of the chardonnay than in doing anything useful.
Has anybody mentioned that Iraq has oil. They can buy mercenaries. It’s there problem.
It only becomes our problem when they threaten us at which time we should affirmatively deal with that threat if the nation can’t do it for us.
f1b0nacc1 – ‘rubble don’t make trouble’ . Entirely correct. I would like to add that half-melted rubble which glows in the dark makes even less.