Getting off topic but...you are right, we didn't invade Iraq for their oil, we invaded to keep their oil in the ground. An invasion planned before 9/11 even occurred. Saddam wanted to flood the market but we (Bush, Cheney, Baker, Exxon-Mobil, et al) could not ever think of allowing such a push to degrade the market price by almost 80%. Aren't we all over the fact that WMD's was window dressing for an alternative motive? http://www.gregpalast.com/how-george-bush-won-the-war-in-iraq-really/ If ISIS wanted to truly have an impact, they would flood the market with oil to lower the price. If that were to be a true threat by ISIS then guess what? They become a bonafide threat to those who have very much to lose with a tampered market.
Sorry, I ain't buying this story. The idea that Iraq could "flood the market" with oil does not jibe with their capabilities or Saddams best interests. But worse, this author Greg Palast has a reputation for "exposing" giant frauds with his "secretly obtained evidence" that he never seems to share with anybody else. This guy also claims that the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged by Jeb Bush and the Republican Party and the only way Obama won the Presidency was to beat McCain "by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering". His credibility is questionable to say the least. Winston wants me to expose left-wing whackadoos like I do the right-wing nut jobs. Since you brought Palast up, he gets my vote. Not at all. Saudi Arabia could easily curb such an attempt by slowing their own output and keeping prices high. They have unbelievable huge reserves of cash and oil. ISIS hasn't even captured the Iraqi oil fields yet. If they did, it is not sure that they could run them without help. They would need all of the money the oil could bring to fund their jihad. Why would they want to conspire with American capitalists to get Americans rich? It really makes no sense at all. It also runs counter to islamist principles. bin Ladin thought the Arabs were giving oil away and wanted to raise the price of oil to $400 or $500 a barrel.
In a stretch perhaps but mostly, no. That wasn't my point. You said Syria wasn't mentioned AT ALL but then took Winston to task for not having read the testimony from McGurk where Syria was, in fact, mentioned. You said, "the article says nothing whatsoever about Syria." Not so much. Ticky tack, I realize. Shame on me. I don't believe he has been prudent. I think as in most things with him, he hedges instead of leads and we find ourselves at the back end of the horse. I'm not fond of shit. Did you watch the video I linked? It had nothing to do with McGurk. But you did quote the man as an Obama official so....if he isn't a planner, then why is he giving testimony? I don't think he does know more. I am not ready to give McGurk idol status but his time in the region makes him more knowledgeable about the situation than the President....unless you consider what lies he has heard from Brennan. The pipeline was stated in the testimony as one of the primary goals of the US. Is McGurk lying, uninformed, clueless? Which is it? And again, if he is so lost, why is he testifying? You agree with me then.....the US always gives the public a face to hate.....from the Ayatollah to Sadam to Qadaffi to bin laden. We don't have to kill them all. We have to kill their spirit or at least let them know we see it like a game of Whac-a-mole. Military action doesn't have to be massive troops. We have to depend on intel, weapons, and stealth. They are and will continue to become global....access to Westerners and sympathizers who have US passports. That's what it's about. http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/06/20/isis-gets-support-dutch-islamic-political-party/ Little things like this....global support is built. They don't care about wrath. They don't value life.
Since when does Winston need you to defend him, anyway. He blew it and you know it. As she hedges . . . Look, if you believe that we have no business fighting Iraq's war for them, then it OK for you to admit that Obama is being prudent. But I think its clear that you are behind some king of military action. Why? Congress can require anybody to give testimony. Even you. You think he has more intelligence, diplomatic, economic, and policy resources than the President of the United States of America? You cannot possibly be that naive. He speaking as a mid-level bureaucrat who has a perspective of the local situation. He is talking about a "vision" to help the Iraqi oil industry get goods to market. It doesn't mean that this is a vital US interest. You might note that he also said that they have three separate export routes for redundancy. This guy does not speak for the President, who has many other officials working for him, each with their own expertise and perspective based on their jobs. The President is the decision maker who has to weigh national priorities and international geopolitical realities that are far above McGurk's pay scale. From time to time. Not today . . So you are determined that military action is the only remedy to middle eastern problems. Even problems that are not our own. How has that worked out in the past? Whack-a-mole is a good description of the Iraqi quagmire we were in from 2003-2011. We bashed the enemy repeatedly, several enemies, but there were always new ones. Whack-a-mole is a stupid game that you cannot win. You win by staying out of it. Yes, we have fine forces that can kill people and break things very well. But guerrilla wars are costly and difficult to win. Civil wars are similar. You can win every battle in such a fight, but lose the war, see Vietnam. We need to save our military for important fights like the big one brewing in the Pacific. If we have learned anything from our wars since WWII it is that we fight best when we fight our kind of wars . . . fast, extremely violent, and with an achievable endgame. We need to be fighting smarter wars--our kind of wars--and not get caught up in back-alley knife fights, playing by the enemy's rules, in a prolonged fight with no end in sight. Well, we do. I say we must stop squandering scarce resources on Whack-A-Mole solutions, stop taking the counsel of our fears, stay out of other people fights, and if something ever actually becomes our fight, then we deal with it.
The idea of Saddams capability to flood the market holds much more water than the fact that no WMD's exist. It actually holds more water than the assumption we went in to actually get the oil. With no oil and no WMD's, there is little left to point at a motive. That is your opinion on Palast. Unless you have something other that someone else's opinion to discredit him, we have your opinion. He has collaborations with the Wall Street Journal to serve this story. I have read all of his books and other than the reports on voter fraud (he cited 500 Rove emails but not all have been released) he puts out his documents...shares his file cabinet to make his point. Dude ain't a hack but he is a journalist, a respected investigative reporter that want's to sell books, so opinions will vary...I have seen very little on him to suggest he is making shit up other than some drama to sell the story. Dude hates Dems just the same as Bush and the gang so lets not get all dismissive because he actually makes a point. Dude supplies the BBC with a cesspool of material including this very story. There is more to his credibility than anything to take away from it, with exception of your opinion. If you re-read what you just said, you and the rest of the planet would surmise the example I gave to be a pretty extreme stretch for even a formidable threat. What I said and meant was should ISIS even get remotely close to that kind of holding, they will be the threat they dream to be. Till then, if at all, they continue to make their charge.
Move your focus....I held you to the letter of your post as you are often want to do with others. You went after Winston for not reading the link within the text, claimed that Syria wasn't mentioned, but it WAS mentioned in the same link you hit him over the head with. It was baiting IMO so I addressed it. Apologies for going after the nit. He was not prudent IMO because he pursued a drawdown with a date that was too aggressive and a numer that was too low. I am not behind a military action. I believe we are pursuing one no matter what PBO says. So, in that vein, do it quickly and effectively. So your take is that McGurk was being forced to testify? I don't agree but does that make his testimony less valid? Here is what he closed with, "I want to thank this Committee, in particular, for working so closely with us over the past six months to approve the Apache helicopter lease and sale through our Foreign Military Sales program. While this is not an immediate remedy to the current problem, they will provide the ISF with the most effective platform possible for denying ISIL a safe haven in the remote western deserts of Iraq. They will also ensure that we can provide effective oversight on the end use of attack helicopter systems, as well as influencing planning and operations. Similarly, the Iraqis have recently proven effective at deploying Hellfire missiles against remote ISIL targets from a Caravan aircraft. The ISF have equipped Caravans to launch Hellfire strikes, but the overall supply of Hellfire missiles was not adequate to tackle the threat and number of targets they had located and surveyed. Again, thanks to close coordination with this Committee, this situation has begun to change. Before concluding, I would like to say a brief word to our men and women who served so bravely in these areas of Iraq. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to see al-Qa’ida raise its flag once again in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I was sickened by the spectacle. But I want to ensure everyone who served, and this Committee, that we will do everything possible to help the Iraqis take back their streets. The situation in Ramadi is slowly improving, and we will support the Iraqis – and the tribes of Anbar province – to secure the city of Fallujah. Conclusion Vital U.S. interests are at stake in Iraq. While my testimony today has focused on the threat from ISIL, the issues of oil, regional stability, and Iranian influence, are also central to our policy during this pivotal new year. I look forward to working closely with this Committee to ensure that we are doing all we can to protect and 11 advance U.S. interests month-to-month. Thank you again for the opportunity to address these complex issues today. I look forward to answering your questions. " Obama relies on folks like McGurk....hell, you quoted him earlier in the thread. "In May, Iraq notched a near-record level of crude exports out of its Persian Gulf terminal in Basra, though overall Iraqi exports are still below the 2.8 million barrels a day reached earlier this year because of the damaged northern pipeline. Ongoing repairs on the pipeline have been disrupted because of the ISIS offensive, raising questions over just when that export route will again be safe and operational, despite Iraqi promises Wednesday that repair work continues. But the bigger concerns are two-fold: The ISIS offensive comes at a time when global oil markets could soon look tight due to supply disruptions in a number of big producers, and it could have important knock-on effects on Iraqi oil production over the medium term. Although OPEC seems content with global oil supplies, that's largely because of continued growth in U.S. oil production, which has risen more than 1 million barrels a day since the beginning of last year. But traditional suppliers are faltering: Libyan oil production has fallen to about 10 percent of levels before militants took over eastern areas of that country; South Sudan's modest oil production has roughly been cut in half by the civil war there; and Western sanctions are keeping roughly 1 million barrels of Iranian oil off the market." "Most oil fields remain unaffected by the insurgency. But the Islamist militants have seized control of Mosul, an important Iraqi city, and captured sizable amounts of military weaponry, vehicles, and money. They have surrounded the country's largest refinery in the northern town of Baiji. And they are trying to capitalize rapidly on the absence of pressure from Iraqi forces. ISIS “is almost certain to attempt to exploit the current momentum of its offensive in northern Iraq and seize as much territory as possible in an attempt to maintain serious political pressure on the government” in Baghdad, says Matthew Henman, head of IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center in London. ISIS “may be aiming for the government to involve Shia Muslim militia groups, as it would play into its narrative of presenting itself as the defender of Iraq’s Sunni population,” he says in a written analysis. President Obama said he is actively considering options for a US response. “I don't rule out anything because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria,” Mr. Obama said when asked whether he was contemplating airstrikes." If McGurk is so far off-base why is he giving Congressional testimony and why did Obama so strongly back him as an Ambassador to Iraq? Read....IF our goal is a pipeline and the protection of oil AND the fomenting of contracts with US companies, then it seems to me that our ONLY option is JSOC type operations....not what I would describe as guerilla warfare. If we truly are going to opt out of Iraq, then we should denounce any use of Iraqi oil....period. I'm waiting for PBO to do so.
It's not just my opinion. The guy is very controversial and many of his "collaborations" have been with the British tabloids, who also have credibility issues. His stuff reads like Guy Noir, Private Eye. But you can donate to his "investigations" on his website. I'm sure he is quite engaging, but the scandals he has unearthed have never gained much traction and seem designed to sell books. Baghdadi is not the first middle eastern dictator with big dreams. But he will be surrounded with enemies that have even more riches, bigger armies, and far more powerful allies. I think he has as much chance of establishing a single caliphate in the middle east as flying to Mecca on a magic carpet.
Nothing in the article or the link backed up Winston's thesis. Nice try, but no cigar. The President thanks you for your support. That's not what I said. My take is that Congressional panels ask or require anyone they wish to give testimony. That was in answer to your question, "why was he giving testimony?" Yes, but Obama relies on about 30 other advisors from across the spectrum, not just the diplomat tasked with supporting Malaki. Note that his statement you quoted was all about making the Iraqis more capable, not about the US returning to war. I didn't say he was off base, I said that he was not the only voice making recommendations to Obama. You seem to take one mid-level administrators viewpoint and demand that the President follow this without question nor regard any other counsel. Pipelines are famously difficult to defend from sabotage. This is why Iraq has other pipelines and sea transport options. The enemy decides if it is to be a guerrilla war and yes, ISIS is only equipped to wage a guerrilla war against US forces. They have no armor, no airpower, no heavy artillery, and no logistics to sustain a field army. They would be guerrillas and saboteurs just like their predecessors were in the war that we were recently engaged in over there. Why? Once it hits the market, oil is oil. A commodity with the same value as all other oil. My engine does not care if its oil comes from Texas or Kuwait. If we need the oil, we can buy it. If we have other sources we can choose not to . . . or even place sanctions or embargoes against Iraqi oil as we did to Iran.
Yeah, I watched it and I have not called anyone an idiot. The commentator was useless of course and the analyst said the same thing you have been saying. That our withdrawal from Iraq emboldened ISIS and reduced our capabilities over having force there on the ground. Kind of stating the obvious I thought. But the fact remains that we left the Iraqi army well equipped and as well trained as we could, the US public wanted us out of Iraq, and the Iraqi government required us to leave! Everything you do in the middle east has a flip side. The alternative to leaving would have been to rebuild a full occupation army, defy the government that we had just established with free elections, resume fighting both Sunni and Shiia militias, and continue hemorrhaging $billions and taking heavy casualties. And for what? Iraq has nothing we need. It is not vital to our national interests. You suggested that we should go back to war to defeat ISIS and now you say that Obama made a mistake to withdraw from Iraq, suggesting that we must now go back. It is time you make a logical case for such action. I just don't see it.
