Explain how the Iraqi Civl War "threatens us all"? You can't complain about imaginary WMD's this time. How exactly does this Iraqi-on-Iraqi fight endanger us all? Very good analogy. Don't forget that both the British and Roman empires collapsed under their own weighty responsibilities to an empire composed of mostly reluctant participants. Suspicion of American Imperial ambitions is largely what created AL Qaeda in the first place. The Middle east does not want to be a component in an American economic Empire. That is not even our desired model. We want the international trade without becoming the worlds policeman, fighting and dying expensively over foreign lands that are not vital to our interests. Let the locals fight their own wars and select their own leaders in their own fashion. We are willing to trade with the winners and all get rich. Then can you not interpret Obama's reluctance to engage in another such venture to be prudent rather than weak? The only way to win a foreign civil war is to stay out of it. What absence? The US has been totally involved in international politics! From North Korea to Libya to Syria to the Ukraine to the South China Sea. Obama has not been shy about the use of American military power, nor US economic influence through sanctions and trade agreements. Explain to us how Obama has "withdrawn the US from a leadership role". What examples of this do you offer?
I have said it before and I will say it again, the answer to the ME problem ends in megaton. Anything short of that is useless and the best thing is to just stay out of it.
At least one of your sources isn't advising to stay out of it. It looks to me as if he's saying we are staying out because Obama has pledged no boots on the ground. The action being taken is described as all that we can do based on directives from the White House. Big difference IMO. And even Dempsey describes the situation as a long-term threat. Bottom line, they are still "evaluating" without making a commitment to more troops but leaving the door open. Syria was discussed in McGurk's testimony. In a sense they were unheeded. He warned that terrorist factions would disrupt our ability to bring infrastructure, build an oil pipeline, and continue to help build their economy with contracts involving US companies. He voiced concern that Iraqi forces would be able to do what US forces did, even with training. "while security operations may not be the lead element of a holistic strategy against AQ/ISIL, they remain essential. In previous efforts with U.S. forces in the lead, we worked to ensure – through targeted and relentless military operations – that AQI could not establish a sanctuary or staging presence in Iraq. Today, we believe AQ/ISIL is trying to establish camps and staging areas in Iraq’s western border regions. Iraqi forces are working to target these camps. But they lack the equipment for relentless and effective operations in remote areas, and over the past few months, we have seen a number of unarmored helicopters shot by heavy machine guns, and pilots – who we trained – maimed and killed.4 To combat this threat more effectively, the Iraqis hope to purchase U.S. equipment. We are confident that this equipment, pursuant to a holistic strategy that we have developed together, can be used effectively and with precision against AQ/ISIL targets." So we train them to fly shit, but they get shot down and tortured. And the answer is to give them US weapons or else the Russians will. What a waste. To me, it's clear that he doesn't have faith in the Iraqi Army to fight groups like ISIS but we are hamstrung by the concept of no more troops. We can supply weapons all day long but if they don't fight or don't know how to effectively use them, it is a waste of time and money. If the strategy really is a pipeline to guarantee more oil supply and to orchestrate contracts with US companies, then McGurk is right....it won't work counting on the Iraqi's to regularly defeat ISIS. They will continue to disrupt and threaten and our goals will not be possible. Either go in and absolutely devastate ISIS leadership, knowing there will be collateral damage, or stay out and that means hands off Iraqi oil reserves.
Too much blowback . . . literally and figuratively. Killing 26 million people is kind of Hitleresque don't you think? Agreed.
Doesn't that seem wiser than a rash decision to re-engage in an Iraqi civil war that it took us years to disengage from already? I ask you again . . . Are you advocating war in Iraq or not? if you are, then make a case for it. If not, then why do you consider Obama's prudent policy to be improper? Yes, but it was regarding Iraq's stance with regard to Syria, not Winston's remark that Obama's "dithering about Syria made this whole thing worse" and that this came from a member of Obama's administration. That doesn't mean that his warning was ignored, it only means that it was not in our best interests to go to war on Iraq's behalf. Why do you wish to fight their fight for them? Iraq is not an ally. So is another ground war in Iraq. We can't win a foreign civil war and we have no business engaging in un-winnable wars. Vietnam, Lebanon, and Iraq have taught us nothing if we do. Our best bet here is diplomacy with the other Sunni nations around the Gulf who are funding ISIS to fight in Syria. A viable Iraq is their best insurance against a resurgent Shiite Iran. Forget the Iraqi oil reserves. There is plenty more oil available in the world, we are not dependent on Iraqi oil. Much of it will end up in Kurdistan anyway. Most of the rest will end up in Shiite dominated areas where ISIS is unlikely to gain control. In any case, even oil controlled by ISIS will be sold on the international market, where oil is a commodity. It will be resold and if we were to need it we can get it far cheaper by simply buying it. It is economically, militarily, morally and politically unsound policy to invade countries to gain access to their oil.
Look, turn that whole region into a nice shiny sheet of glass. Just leave a few spigots here and there for the good stuff.
But we already did. Not advocating that we should again just that, we already did so it should be okay for ISIS to have what they took, right?
I addressed your comment that Syria wasn't even mentioned when it fact, it was, in the link which you had already read for yourself. Ignored, unheeded.....the info was there, a different decision was made. I have never said nor advocated re-engaging in Iraq. We find ourselves in a questionable situation IMO, because PBO was too focused on the drawdown date and numbers. The truth is, and it was stated by McGursky as well, we knew for months what was going on. He advocated acting quickly. We have not done so and the current situation is not a surprise. As a result of the drawdown, we also lost our intel ability and that was a cornerstone of McGursky's plan....provide the Iraqi Army intel...now what? http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/flash-points-did-u-s-drawdown-in-iraq-facilitate-isis-rise/ Tell the President. McGurksy's testimony was that securing an oil pipeline and contracts with US companies were 2 significant goals for the US. Without crushing terrorist insurgency, those goals cannot be met. If we are after a pipeline, then go in and take out ISIS leadership....period. Again, tell McGursky, Obama. His testimony made it very clear that we didn't necessarily need Iraqi oil, but that we wanted it....and that in part, makes us less dependent on Iranian oil. It seems to be our plan. That and dealing with the threat of ISIS type terrorists who aim to take their war to a global level and to the West.
We didn't invade Iraq for their oil. We are buying it just like we always did. We invaded Iraq because our leader told us that they had WMD's that they planned to use against the US. If ISIS ends up with the oil fields, then they will have to sell it on the open market at the market rate. It doesn't stop us from buying it or buying it elsewhere.
And Winston's remark is to be found in neither of them. Right? Then why are you criticising Obama for being prudent? Wiser heads than McGurk are in charge, thankfully. So you really do think we should have gone to war already for Iraq? You are giving mixed signals. We have not lost our intel ability. McGurk is not an administration planner. So you do advocate going to war with ISIS? I don't have to tell the President anything, he knows more than McGurk about the situation, everybody is reporting to him. Those pipelines are important to Iraq but not to the US. They deliver oil to the EU. Let the EU protect them if it is that important. Turkey is right there and is plenty powerful enough to take on ISIS. But it ain't that important to them, there are alternate pipelines and tanker transport for EU oil. Another leader will just step up. Radical Islam is not going away and we can't kill them all. We must be far more careful than we have been in the past. Military action is not the solution to every problem. Especially not this one. When have we been dependent on Iranian oil? Like . . . never. We have had sanctions against them for 35 years. Third world dictators make boastful statements all the time. It doesn't mean that they can pull it off. ISIS is fighting on two fronts against more powerful states with more resources. Their base is mostly desert with little oil. The last thing they need is to be in a shooting war with the USA. And they know by now that a 9/11 type of operation will bring down the full wrath of the USA upon them.
