Jump to content

Iraq is Burning


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 639
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that answers it. In other words your foreign policy on this matter can fairly be characterized as - Create a vaccum and whatever happens, happens *fingers crossed* -

lacking proof of effectiveness of intervention, no, we shouldn't intervene. same as in medicine - do no harm. do studies both observational and prospective but wait til there's proof that the proposed intervention is likely to result in desired outcomes. we don't have that proof in "vacuum filling". Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America as Spectator to History

by Bing West

 

In 2003, President George W. Bush persuaded Congress and the United Nations to authorize the invasion of Iraq. After Saddam Hussein’s forces were quickly routed, Mr. Bush declared we had an obligation to install a democracy. Our generals agreed to undertake the role of nation-building.

 

By 2006, Iraq teetered on the verge of civil war between the newly-enfranchised majority — 18 million Shiites — and the resentful losers — nine million Sunnis. But by 2009, most Sunnis, trusting America as their guardian, accepted the authority of the sectarian Shiite Prime Minister, Nuri Maliki. The Sunni terrorist cells seemed to be beaten. Mr. Bush agreed to withdraw American troops by 2011, claiming the move “had the blessing of Generals Petraeus and Odierno,” and that “Maliki’s political instincts proved wise.”

 

In 2011, President Obama triumphantly withdrew our troops and supported Maliki in a deadlocked race to retain the post of prime minister. Both presidents proved unwise in reposing trust in Maliki, whose oppression of the Sunnis caused the resurgence of the terrorist cells.

 

Now Sunni Islamists have seized the Sunni Triangle and the Kurds have employed military force to safeguard their de facto state. As Iraq has splintered apart, Iran is offering military support to Maliki. Two Iranian battalions are reported to be fighting alongside the beleaguered Iraqi battalions.

 

The morale of the Islamists has soared inside its rump state of western Iraq/eastern Syria. Their victories ensure more recruits. The Sunni tribes and their supporters (Saudi, etc.) are embittered toward us. Depending whether you are among the winners or losers, you jeer or curse American passivity.

 

Mr. Obama has not indicated whether the Islamists sweeping into Iraq constitute an enemy of America deserving of military attack.

 

Given that we are killing Islamists hiding in caves in Pakistan and Yemen, the answer may be yes.

 

Given that we do not attack the Islamists in Syria, the answer may be no.

 

President Obama has declared there is not a War on Terror. He personally reviews the target packages and selects whom to attack or to spare.

 

 

Keep reading this post . . .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lacking proof of effectiveness of intervention, no, we shouldn't intervene. same as in medicine - do no harm. do studies both observational and prospective but wait til there's proof that the proposed intervention is likely to result in desired outcomes. we don't have that proof in "vacuum filling".

 

Seems too often that the prescribed approaches are of that of a zero-sum nature. Black or white, on one extreme you have the Joe 6's of the world and on the other you have the Cheney's. Doesn't have to be that way, everything doesn't have to be black or white, and it's like this in many solutions, which is that there are many shades of grey in between. The best answer lies somewhere within these shades.

 

I can tell you this, your approach is the wrong one, it's the sort of thinking that helped produce 9/11.

 

That's the current administration's position.

 

From Morning Joe & Mika: David ignatius' response to Dan Henninger's "While Obama Fiddles..."

 

Yeah, I watched that live yesterday. Ignatius who I consider to be very knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy, certainly is a sympathizer and supporter of the president, so for him to make that assessment, carries a little more weight.

Edited by Magox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems too often that the prescribed approaches are of that of a zero-sum nature. Black or white, on one extreme you have the Joe 6's of the world and on the other you have the Cheney's. Doesn't have to be that way, everything doesn't have to be black or white, and it's like this in many solutions, which is that there are many shades of grey in between. The best answer lies somewhere within these shades.

 

I can tell you this, your approach is the wrong one, it's the sort of thinking that helped produce 9/11.

 

 

 

Yeah, I watched that live yesterday. Ignatius who I consider to be very knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy, certainly is a sympathizer and supporter of the president, so for him to make that assessment, carries a little more weight.

are you saying that there is a gray course of action towards vacuum filling that has proven efficacy? what exactly is that course. i can only recall failed attempts regardless of approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"The sources contend the U.S. military could provide the necessary air cover to protect C-130s or other air transport craft sufficient to make the evacuation, but so far officials have refused to get involved."

 

so we'll trade 5 Taliban for one deserter, but won't come to the rescue of 200 men who are where we paid them to be?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you saying that there is a gray course of action towards vacuum filling that has proven efficacy? what exactly is that course. i can only recall failed attempts regardless of approach.

I don't claim to have the solution, but what I do know is that both extremes aren't the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Is this Benghazi, only on a larger scale?

 

From your link:

 

The sources, private contractors who have recently returned to the U.S. from Iraq, said Friday their former colleagues effectively have been abandoned by the U.S. military and are fighting for their lives against an army of jihadists surrounding the base who belong to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

The U.S. contractors are at Balad to help the Pentagon prepare the facilities for the delivery of the F-16 aircraft the Obama administration has agreed to provide the Iraqi government.

The surrounded Americans said they currently are under ISIS fire from small arms, AK47s, and rocket propelled grenades, or RPGs.

The contractors so far have been able to hold the base, but those on the scene reported it was only a matter of time before the ISIS terrorists succeed in breaking through the perimeter.

WND has learned from sources that the jihadists have closed down escape routes, and the U.S. Air Force is in a stand-down position. U.S. forces are not assisting even with air cover so a private extradition flight could land for a rescue, the sources said.

Privately scheduled exit flights have fallen through, sources said, as several private pilots originally scheduled to make the flights have quit.

The sources contend the U.S. military could provide the necessary air cover to protect C-130s or other air transport craft sufficient to make the evacuation, but so far officials have refused to get involved.

Balad Air Force Base has been under attack since Wednesday, when ISIS rebels seized the nearby town of Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein.

 

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2...EE26ErugZSX7.99

Edited by 3rdnlng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems too often that the prescribed approaches are of that of a zero-sum nature. Black or white, on one extreme you have the Joe 6's of the world and on the other you have the Cheney's. Doesn't have to be that way, everything doesn't have to be black or white, and it's like this in many solutions, which is that there are many shades of grey in between. The best answer lies somewhere within these shades.

 

I can tell you this, your approach is the wrong one, it's the sort of thinking that helped produce 9/11.

 

 

 

Yeah, I watched that live yesterday. Ignatius who I consider to be very knowledgeable on matters of foreign policy, certainly is a sympathizer and supporter of the president, so for him to make that assessment, carries a little more weight.

 

Not only that, just think of the technology since 9/11. Drones to be specific. Imagine the damage that could be done on American soil if the insane radicals bulldozing Iraq eventually got a hold of this technology and eventually used it to produce a mass attack on America.

Edited by 1billsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not only that, just think of the technology since 9/11. Drones to be specific. Imagine the damage that could be done on American soil if the insane radicals bulldozing Iraq eventually got a hold of this technology and eventually used it to produce a mass attack on America.

 

it would be interesting to see where all those drones would be launched from.

Edited by Azalin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...