ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Husar]

What I've learned is that situations like Syria, Bosnia, Libya are ideal for us to get involved in, while countries who are irksome but not spiralling out of control should just be undermined. This is what happens when you ignore a catastrophe on the level of Syria - it spreads.

If I could go back, I still would have supported Afghanistan, but would have tried to find other ways of undermining Saddam.

You mean stable countries should be undermined to get them to a level of instability where you think an intervention is feasible?

[Fisherking]

Meantime another SNAFU.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/06/200-u-...fLuq3XwBbZW.01

Poor bastards. I hope they are good.

[Fisherking]

And what is with Iraq to the rescue? This mess does not bode well on any front.

The US is either caught flat footed on intel or involved in it. It is beyond belief or comprehension.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When will we see the picture of Iraqi refugees surrounding the last chopper out of Baghdad?

[Fisherking]

Yes Iran.

Iraq has been asking for help for quite some time so this is something we let happen for sure.

What ever is going down is for strictly political reasons on the part of the US.

I am not for troops on the ground but I can still see it as a betrayal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't be so quick to see it that way. Iraq had a chance to retain over 10,000 US troops after the pull-out, if they had only signed an agreement saying our Soldiers retained their immunity from the Iraqi court system. They absolutely refused, and so this is the bed that they made for themselves. As a nation, we made the choice to let this happen in 2010. Pretty much everyone knew it was going to happen, and said it was going to happen, and it all rested on the security agreement.

Your dignity or your security. It was their choice of course, but the options were ones we decided upon.

[Pannonian]

Balad is a big base, and if they take it then Baghdad is in fairly imminent danger. Its really pretty painful watching Iraq fall apart after all we did. The US casualties from the Iraq war still dwarf the casualties from the Afghan war, in terms of dead and wounded. All those elections we provided security for, all those check-points we manned, all those meetings with angry Sheiks, all those big brief-cases full of money for placating the tribal elders, all those up-armored Humvees, MRAPs, even Abrams that we gave to the Iraqi Army. All those 18-hour days of driving around the Baghdad ghettos, doing the jobs of the police who were too busy screwing their own people over to do their jobs right... All of it wasted because the Maliki government was more interested in sectarian power-grabbing than in inclusive government. This freakin' sucks, but they have to deal with it on thier own. If we back anyone else with money (and we probably should not..), it should be the Kurds. Not giving them their own state from the start was a huge mistake.

And I maintain the same argument that I made in 2003, that Iraq was a problem that should have been left to Saddam rather than taking it on ourselves, and that the biggest problem with the whole affair wasn't that it was ethically wrong or founded on lies, but that it was so plainly stupid and unnecessary. I'm not so bothered by my country's decisionmakers being liars and cheats, but I do expect more of them than that they should be idiots who waste our money for a lack of gain that was obvious from the beginning.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's fair.

I disagree.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I meant your analysis. As to the situation, fair or not, it is what it is. 8 years should have been enough to get them ready to govern themselves again, but it wasn't. Should we have given more? Without that immunity, they would have spent more time prosecuting Americans for political reasons than anything else. We were right to keep that in the agreement, and they had every right to not sign it. I wouldn't call the current situation fair, but I wouldn't call it all that unfair either. Maliki was fairly elected.

My mistake for misinterpreting you. I don't think any amount of time would have had Iraq become what we imagined it to be. I am just mad that we destabilized an entire country and worked against our own efforts for literally nothing. Nothing that can be done at this point but let Iraq fragment and see if we can work with the Kurds and Shia's.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You and me both. I like to think some day I'll be able to visit Baghdad and hang out in the palm tree forests without the threat of war, but its looking like that may never be. Its a total waste.

That sums it up perfectly. What a waste. Is it any wonder why millennial's are apathetic when the US started the 21st century under the policies of Bush?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We do not have what it takes to be a Great Power.

We need to vacate the field for the real contestants: China and Russia.

Go back to the Monroe Doctrine and spend a couple of decades building real relationships with the rest of the New World.

The Old World will get along just fine without our boorish efforts.

[Fisherking]

It only gets worse.

The US arms sent to Syria that helped arm these guys and this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...years-ago.html


We are Imperialistic. It is all about the money of course and making a safe business environment for the banks and corporations funding our politicians and directing policy.

[Lemur]

Go back to the Monroe Doctrine and spend a couple of decades building real relationships with the rest of the New World.

The Old World will get along just fine without our boorish efforts.

A decent take from today:

I’d say eight years of blood and treasure and failure in Iraq is enough. Unless, like Wieseltier, you see the entire planet as a patient and America as the only nurse. [...]

So let me put this as kindly as I can. We lost 5,000 young Americans trying to keep this centrifugal country in one piece. After eight years, and huge expenses in training and equipping the Iraqi army, we bear no blame and never have for the pathological sectarianism of so many Arab countries, culturally or politically. And it’s time to have enough self-respect to say so. The sanest, wisest way to wriggle out of this trap is precisely to do nothing – again and again – until the pathology of dependence is finished.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A decent take from today:

I’d say eight years of blood and treasure and failure in Iraq is enough. Unless, like Wieseltier, you see the entire planet as a patient and America as the only nurse. [...]

So let me put this as kindly as I can. We lost 5,000 young Americans trying to keep this centrifugal country in one piece. After eight years, and huge expenses in training and equipping the Iraqi army, we bear no blame and never have for the pathological sectarianism of so many Arab countries, culturally or politically. And it’s time to have enough self-respect to say so. The sanest, wisest way to wriggle out of this trap is precisely to do nothing – again and again – until the pathology of dependence is finished.

Hey, you guys won 2 elections. Let's try it your way for a while, see how it goes.

[HopAlongBunny]

We can be great without being imperialistic. Pacifying another nation requires true hatred and brutality,

This. You understand how to supplant a culture/nation, you just don't have the will.
Extermination of the existing population and declaring the land open for settlement worked well in the past; selling such a policy to your citizens is much tougher.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A decent take from today:

I’d say eight years of blood and treasure and failure in Iraq is enough. Unless, like Wieseltier, you see the entire planet as a patient and America as the only nurse. [...]

So let me put this as kindly as I can. We lost 5,000 young Americans trying to keep this centrifugal country in one piece. After eight years, and huge expenses in training and equipping the Iraqi army, we bear no blame and never have for the pathological sectarianism of so many Arab countries, culturally or politically. And it’s time to have enough self-respect to say so. The sanest, wisest way to wriggle out of this trap is precisely to do nothing – again and again – until the pathology of dependence is finished.

Translation: Filthy WOGs.

Let's be clear, America, along with the UK and France, is directly responsible for every stage of this mess. The partitioning after WWI, the establishment of Israel after WWII, the toppling of the relatively progressive monarchs in favour of Tyrants during the Cold War, and then the post-Cold War invasions, along with the Soviet-Afghan War which has created not one but two generations of Jihadist fighters, and the failure to support Israel even when it tries it's best to emulate Nazi Germany.

Before you disagree with the last, remember the Israelis state was sterilising "Black Jews" to keep the race pure.

Now, let me quote the bit right before the bit you quoted:

I love this formulation: hegemony means inaction is action, so there’s no difference between the two!

Yes, that is what it means. If you have the power to act and choose not to, then you have chosen and becomes responsible. What the writer is saying is that Iraq is not worth dead Americans, implicit in this is that Americans are, as individuals, worth more than Iraqis. If he had said, "intervening will not help" then that would be one thing, but what he said was "we have already expended enough blood."

Oh, and Vietnam was winnable, had the NVA been crushed in the North.

[Viking]

Unconfirmed pictures appearing of ISIS massacring captured government soldiers. Link via journalist Jenan Moussa. Nasty stuff.

On another note, a highly accurate cartoon of what happened in Mosul; I suppose:

[HopAlongBunny]

Friends like these:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ding-isis.html

[Fragony]

Unconfirmed pictures appearing of ISIS massacring captured government soldiers. Link via journalist Jenan Moussa. Nasty stuff.

On another note, a highly accurate cartoon of what happened in Mosul; I suppose:

Pretty much comfirmed that about 1700 executions took place, these guys aren't kidding.

[Lemur]

Let's be clear, America, along with the UK and France, is directly responsible for every stage of this mess. [...] If you have the power to act and choose not to, then you have chosen and becomes responsible.

For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers. Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?

What the writer is saying is that Iraq is not worth dead Americans, implicit in this is that Americans are, as individuals, worth more than Iraqis.

To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

[HoreTore]

Holy hell, that was a bloody fast advance. When did this thing start again, on Monday? And they reached the cities to the north of Baghdad? Didn't the US use a 3-week bombing campaign until they got that far?

How on earth did they manage that?

And no, Frags, 1700 is not "pretty much confirmed". Isis has reported 1700, the Iraqi government has confirmed some 50-ish people, with guesses going anywhere in between. They've obviously executed pow's, but how many is a wide open question.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For the sake of discussion, let's all accept that. Everything happening in Iraq can and must be laid at our door. Cool.

By that logic, are we (the U.S., U.K., and France) obliged to make a generational commitment of unlimited treasure and blood? Even if the Iraqis themselves do not want to be our colony? Do we stand over them, protecting them, shouldering the white man's burden indefinitely, in the hopes that they will grow into something that more resembles our ideals? How long can we sustain that? How long will the Iraqis tolerate it?

Infinite occupation of a place that doesn't really want you there has not worked out well for: the U.K., Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and many other would-be colonial powers. Why do we imagine indefinite occupation of Iraq would be different?

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."

To Americans, yes, Americans are more valuable than Iraqis. I don't sere how that's amoral or wicked; every society values its own a bit more. You'd be more shocked by a guy down the street getting run over than you would be by 300 people dying in a ferry accident in Bangladesh. That's not some horrible racist thing; that's a perfectly normal response. I'm sure Iraqis value Iraqi lives more than they would American lives. And why on Earth not?

Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, not an indefinite commitment, but a "generational" commitment was required, that being roughly 25 years - and America in particular does not spend blood if it can spend bombs instead - this is a flaw in the American doctrine of occupation from at least Vietnam onwards.

What is required to persuade the Iraqis that America are the "Good Guys" are lots of dead Americans, considerably more than five thousand, in particular what is required are dead American soldiers instead of dead Iraqi Civilians.

The requisite narrative you need Iraqi mothers to tell their sons is, "The Islamists came and killed your father, but then the Americans came and fought them off."

What Iraqi mothers actually tell their sons is probably more like, "The Americans found some Islamists here, so they dropped some bombs and one killed your father."



Maybe you'd find that more shocking - I find the fact that we think using unmanned drones to drop bombs to be an effective form of assassination pretty shocking, and I find it even more shocking that we use air power in occupied areas rather than infantry.

It's stupid - it shows that we aren't willing to die for our principles, we'd rather risk collateral damage than the lives of our own men. It's no wonder they hate us.

As a general metric, I would say that the Iraqi civilian, or any civilian, is worth roughly two American soldiers at least. So, if your bombing strike kills 10 Iraqi's you would need to show that going in and finding those guys on foot would cost 20 American lives before you could reasonably say that was the best choice, operationally.

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied. 5,000 dead Americans and a few hundred dead Brits is nothing compared to the thousands of Iraqi's who died and continue to die.

In this day and age, no one will ever commit to a 25 year occupation, especially one that requires deaths of soldiers as you describe. To be honest, I don't quite understand why you seem to paint modern conflicts as "war without the war". Just because it looks bad that we are able to replace human deaths with drones and bombs doesn't mean we should switch gears and start throwing young men into the meat grinder.

[Husar]

That's all fine but then maybe you should not go in and expect them to love you after ten years. I think that is what PVC is trying to say indirectly. It's easy to blame them for not understanding you, but maybe it's because you're not really communicating it right.
Or in other words, if there is a left way and a right way and you go down the middle, you may end up on rough ground.

And I'm not claiming that any of this is universally true/applicable.

[HoreTore]

That's all fine but then maybe you should not go in and expect them to love you after ten years. I think that is what PVC is trying to say indirectly. It's easy to blame them for not understanding you, but maybe it's because you're not really communicating it right.
Or in other words, if there is a left way and a right way and you go down the middle, you may end up on rough ground.

And I'm not claiming that any of this is universally true/applicable.

If the US, or any other nations, wants an occupied country to love them after 10 years, they have no choice but to do it as if they were occupying Washington DC.

Anything less is going to make people hate your guts. And the US occupation of Iraq has definitely not been done the same way as if they were occupying parts of the US.

Either change strategy, or suck it up and accept being hated(with reason).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a typical misconception in your logic, PVC. Most of the Iraqi civilians killed in the war were killed by IEDs or sectarian kill squads. While collateral damage from US ordinance did happen, it was far more common for AQI or some small-time sectarian group to indiscriminately lay waste to neighborhoods and blame it on us. We had no real grassroots propaganda tools over there, no way to counter that sort of message other than by patrolling the streets. The people we were able to work with on a daily basis tended to understand our role and our limits, but there was very little we could do to control the message in areas where we weren't operating in. Our very presence gave ammo to the bad guys, and it would have taken a lot more than any one country is capable of giving to pacify it the way you describe.

No, I get that the US wasn't killing Iraqi's, and I get that you guys had a horrid time of it, I really do. However, what the Iraqi's did not see was Americans dying FOR them, and that's why you lacked the "grass roots" support you needed, and that was why it was a waste of your time.

In this day and age, no one will ever commit to a 25 year occupation, especially one that requires deaths of soldiers as you describe. To be honest, I don't quite understand why you seem to paint modern conflicts as "war without the war". Just because it looks bad that we are able to replace human deaths with drones and bombs doesn't mean we should switch gears and start throwing young men into the meat grinder.

From Vietnam onwards US military actions have been characterised by a lack of genuine operational commitment, this has led to quite a few dead Americans, lots wasted money and no successes other than Desert Storm.

One can only conclude that when the world's only Super Power cannot win even a minor war that something it wrong at the strategic level.

[Pannonian]

If the US, or any other nations, wants an occupied country to love them after 10 years, they have no choice but to do it as if they were occupying Washington DC.

Anything less is going to make people hate your guts. And the US occupation of Iraq has definitely not been done the same way as if they were occupying parts of the US.

Either change strategy, or suck it up and accept being hated(with reason).

Alternatively, do it the WW2 way and obliterate the enemy country in alliance with an infinitely worse partner, then occupy the obliterated enemy with you and your partner as direct comparisons of how life could be. You'll also need to wait for your enemy to invade someone first. So for PVC's plan to work, we should have bombed Iraq to the Stone Age after GW1, then occupied Iraq with Iran and Turkey having their own zones.

[Husar]

Doesn't that scenario also require that the USA wait until the other side declares war? And that the USA have no real air force to speak of.

[Furunculus]

This isn't a moral question so much as a practical one - there's no point occupying somewhere at all if it's not going to have a net positive affect on the occupied.

that is a moral position.
it is also a position i broadly agree with, and i say this as someone who supported the iraq war in 2003.
hague would probably call it "the enlightened national interest".

i made two mistakes:
1. in underestimating the colossal mess the occupation would make in not occupying iraq. disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy. rumsfelds light-weight invasion was brilliant, his light-weight occupation was stupid. when castigating the coalitions disgraceful lack of post-war planning, how do we assess the wilful intransigience of Clare Short in preventing her DfID department from contributing to post-war planning?
2. in overestimating the capability to the british army to take part in 2003 while continuing afghan. arguably, in joining in with iraq we prolonged the bloodshed in Afghanistan by five years through neglecting the country at a time when it needed our political and military attention.

i'm not one of those getting my knickers in a twist over illegal wars. as far i am concerned there was legitimate motive for doing so, and parliament said yes, end of. that does not mean however that we should have done it, because it fails your test above, and in so failing likewise failed to make the act in our national interest, let alone enlightened.

[Lemur]

disbanding the army and de-baath'ing the government was idiocy.

I don't know that it does us much good at this late date, but you are 100% correct. Those two moves were probably the most damning things out of a large mess of bad choices—worse than the decision to invade in the first place. The importance of the army disbandment and gov't sunni purge cannot be overstated.

On the bright side, maybe this crisis will push Iran and the U.S. into being the allies/frenemies we were always meant to be?

[T]he Obama administration said it is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents.

The U.S.-Iran dialogue, which is expected to begin this week, will mark the latest in a rapid move toward rapprochement between Washington and Tehran over the past year. [...]

The U.S. and Iran have publicly committed in recent days to provide military support if requested to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and help his government repel an offensive the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, has launched against Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities over the past week.