ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

Legal or not, it doesn't make the Iraq war any less stupid, which is the barometer I use for judging a government's decision to go to war in this day and age. Back in 2003, I predicted that the country would fall apart due to contesting interests, and our lack of stomach for taking the measures necessary to suppress these interests. As such, I wanted us to stay out and leave it to Saddam to deal with that mess of a country. It's hard to argue that I was wrong in any way.

[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.