![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
underlankers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/11/iraq-isil-radical-al-qaeda-obama-us/10344719/
A new phase in the Iraq War has begun. Every single area where former insurgents were given US money and US weaponry not to shoot at US soldiers has fallen to a new type of all-regional ideology tied to Syria and Iraq. After spending years and thousands of American lives and wasting countless amounts of money to create a new order in the region sans Saddam, all that has been accomplished is to lead to a new type of Iraqi-Syrian joint bloc. Not the Baath this time, not a secular movement of hardline totalitarian nationalists, but a group of Sunni wannabe Khomeinists. Iran's pet terrorist, installed by US money, with US weapons, in a US-model army is as feckless against this drive as Saigon was in the 1970s, showing that the pattern of America creating these movements and then being incapable of making a movement able to fart and chew gum at the same time by itself is continuing. Iran, even, has offered its proxy help against this new movement:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/295406
So, after all of this, what did Mr. Bush's 'We'll be hailed as liberators in a bloodless war thanks to our good friend Curveball' gambit do? Nothing much except take a situation already unpleasant and make it a great deal worse. All those lives wasted, in terms of the coalition, and in terms of Iraqis, and for nothing in the end. A new rough beast now slouches toward Baghdad to be born, as the center can no longer, seemingly, hold.
A new phase in the Iraq War has begun. Every single area where former insurgents were given US money and US weaponry not to shoot at US soldiers has fallen to a new type of all-regional ideology tied to Syria and Iraq. After spending years and thousands of American lives and wasting countless amounts of money to create a new order in the region sans Saddam, all that has been accomplished is to lead to a new type of Iraqi-Syrian joint bloc. Not the Baath this time, not a secular movement of hardline totalitarian nationalists, but a group of Sunni wannabe Khomeinists. Iran's pet terrorist, installed by US money, with US weapons, in a US-model army is as feckless against this drive as Saigon was in the 1970s, showing that the pattern of America creating these movements and then being incapable of making a movement able to fart and chew gum at the same time by itself is continuing. Iran, even, has offered its proxy help against this new movement:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/295406
So, after all of this, what did Mr. Bush's 'We'll be hailed as liberators in a bloodless war thanks to our good friend Curveball' gambit do? Nothing much except take a situation already unpleasant and make it a great deal worse. All those lives wasted, in terms of the coalition, and in terms of Iraqis, and for nothing in the end. A new rough beast now slouches toward Baghdad to be born, as the center can no longer, seemingly, hold.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:45 (UTC)I haven't had a chance to really look into this much, but there has always been concern about leaving too quickly, and Obama using the Bush timetable as a rule and not a benchmark is doing more or less what some expected.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 14:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 15:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 15:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 16:07 (UTC)My not really subtle point is, given the present situation, one could almost see a replay in Iraq. Except that I think all the residual (such as it is) force will be gone before the Iranians and Syrians are within shelling distance of Bagdad.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 16:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 09:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 23:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 20:59 (UTC)Yes. Let's stay longer than a decade and provide more targets and kill more American soldiers. It should be an indefinite war until the entire caliphate is peacefully quelled.
The horrible state of Iraq today is the direct result of an invasion and occupation. That marginalized segments of the Iraqi population would be unmanageable after toppling Saddam was entirely predicted. Having more American soldier around to die in the crossfire isn't any solution.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 21:18 (UTC)I disagree. When people spend their lives under the rule of dictators, and get extremist leadership to usher them out while ignoring who did the legwork, you get situations like this.
When you abandon the country when it's still in need, it's no wonder the extremists win.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 21:34 (UTC)Bush didn't have a handle on the history of the Sunni / Shia conflict (http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/looming-extremist-militias.html) in the region either, to be fair.
When you abandon the country when it's still in need, it's no wonder the extremists win.
The Iraqi parliament voted US out of Iraq in 2011. When your "democratically elected" government (installed via shock and awe) asks you to leave....its not abandoning. Nice spin though.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 00:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 18:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 04:41 (UTC)I guess, but three years ago, Iraq was doing okay and getting better. Since then, things have been getting much worse. How about if we ask what has gone wrong in the past few years and see if this gives us some answers about what our next step should be as undoing our 2003 invasion is not an option.
(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 13:44 (UTC)Okay. By what measure? Citation needed. Seriously, its just an unsupported or extremely selective view.
How was Syria looking at the time?
I wonder how much treasure America will pour into Iraq before we accept reality?
Related:
"Report From Iraq: U.S. Invasion in 2003 Helped Set Path For Crisis Pulling Nation Apart (http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/13/report_from_iraq_us_invasion_in)"
"The Second Iran-Iraq War and the American Switch (http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/second-american-switch.html)"
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 12:13 (UTC)Measures like lower numbers of casualties, Sunni militias working with the US and government forces against folks like the ISIS, and enough stability that the Iraqis were confident enough to go it alone.
"How was Syria looking at the time?"
Three years ago, Syria had a despotic government in firm control. Those protesting had just taken the first steps towards violence in Jisr al-Shughour. You're going to have to help me with the relevance of this and how it supports your statement that this is all due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq because it seems like a really poor red herring.
"I wonder how much treasure America will pour into Iraq before we accept reality?"
So far, it seems we're going to be doing more considering and keeping options on the table than spending any treasure this time. Maybe we'll see better results, but I'm not holding my breath. My guess is that if the ISIS manages to hold a significant chunk of Iraq, a lot of lives and treasure are going to be expended to increase as time goes on.
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 23:57 (UTC)There were daily bombings and thousands slain in 2010 and 2011. Less horrible losses than 2006, okay sure, but by no measure was anything "won". That it was Iraqi blood and not US blood was the only improvement. And everyone knew it wasn't sustainable (pdf) (http://csis.org/files/publication/121024_Iraq_Violence.pdf) then, and we paid billions to train those troops who ran away when ISIL came for them. What an investment.
the Iraqis were confident enough to go it alone.
The sunni/shia tensions created when we toppled Saddam coupled with our occupation were fuelling the Al-Qaeda/ISIL/ISIS types. We let that genie out of the bottle in both Iraq and Syria. Saudis etc. were happy to pour money into us doing so. And our soldiers bled. For what? Petrodollars? The Iraqis knew this and facing no good options decided to ask us to stop making it worse. Hardly "confidence", but sick of eating our poison.
Three years ago, Syria had a despotic government in firm control.
Considering the likes of their opposition (al-qaeda and ISIL types), its no wonder Assad looked "despotic". Our airstrikes will look pretty despotic too, especially if we hit the city of Mosul.
The Iraq war had a negative effect on Syria (http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/827/syrias-role-in-the-iraq-insurgency) and its blowing back pretty hard.
So far, it seems we're going to be doing more considering and keeping options on the table than spending any treasure this time. Maybe we'll see better results, but I'm not holding my breath. My guess is that if the ISIS manages to hold a significant chunk of Iraq, a lot of lives and treasure are going to be expended to increase as time goes on.
Its simply not worth more American blood. Unless you want to make Syria and Iraq a state. I'm not following anyone else into battle. What part of mosul would you like to bomb and where will it be five years from now?
Deja vu.
(no subject)
Date: 15/6/14 01:05 (UTC)From your source:
"Iraq’s leaders must try to build a new structure of governance, economics, and social order after a mix of dictatorship, war, sanctions, occupation, and civil conflict that began in the 1970s and have continued ever since."
These tensions have been there for quite a while and were in place under Saddam, only the Sunni minority had enough control to shoot any Shiite who complained. These tensions haven't been effectively dealt with by the current Iraqi administration, which is why we're seeing a rebellion. There is of course some history behind the current state in Iraq, the 2003 invasion being a big part, but dwelling on this is gives no ideas about how to deal with the current state of affairs.
You seem very fixated on bombing Mosul. I'm thinking this would be a terrible idea.
(no subject)
Date: 15/6/14 01:31 (UTC)Acknowledged. Sloppy wording on my part. Perhaps "unleashed"?
I do recall arguing that displacing Saddam by force would have consequences that would be worse than the devil we knew. It wasn't an argument taken seriously though. Fugly nowadays, aint it?
These tensions haven't been effectively dealt with by the current Iraqi administration
Go figure. USA complained that Assad's elections were laughable due to the conditions under which they were held. But we have the gall to think that the Iraq elections we forced under occupation would be taken seriously and effectively embraced by the population when they were under arguably under worse conditions. Didn't work out well.
You seem very fixated on bombing Mosul. I'm thinking this would be a terrible idea.
Its all the talks of airstrikes in American media (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aircraft-carrier-iraq-isis-strike-persian-gulf)
Weapons are drawn.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 16:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 17:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 17:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 22:17 (UTC)Truth. And battle hardened jihadists in Syria were a spillover from our invasion in Iraq in many ways. We fund the Iraq's fight against ISIS and arm ISIS in Syria.
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 09:29 (UTC)What matters is that cash keeps flowing, whichever direction.
(no subject)
Date: 15/6/14 00:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 17:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/6/14 00:36 (UTC)"The jihadists seized huge stores of American-supplied arms, ammunition and vehicles, apparently including six Black Hawk helicopters and 500 billion dinars ($430m) in freshly printed cash. Some 500,000 people fled in terror to areas beyond ISIS’s sway." - link (http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21604230-extreme-islamist-group-seeks-create-caliphate-and-spread-jihad-across)
Yes, congress, send more weapons to Iraq and Syria. Let the shia militias target our bombs. Sigh.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 17:30 (UTC)Here'ssssssss Dick!
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 19:19 (UTC)This is what happens when politicians view the world as a chessboard rather than actual people.
(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 20:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 20:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 23:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/6/14 23:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 15:57 (UTC)THIS. IS. CRAP.
MOHAMMED AL DULAIMY: "Well, the weapons—we saw in the previous few days the use of American-made weapons like Hellfire missiles, which can be used with great accuracy. The Iraqi military used it to target Fallujah Hospital, Fallujah Teaching Hospital, that hospital that the United States helped building in Fallujah. It is the same hospital that witnessed the increasing numbers of birth defects that is attributed to the use of different kinds of weapons, chemical and all different kinds of weapons that allegedly was used by the United States troops over there. These weapons are now falling into the hands of ISIS. And we saw images of these weapons being transported across the border to Syria. The United States has always worried that sending weapons to the Syrian more liberal opposition might fall into the hands of Islamists. Well, now they are falling into the hands of Islamists."
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/12/iraq_in_crisis_militant_advance_sparks
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 17:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/6/14 01:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/6/14 19:29 (UTC)We didn't "run". We didn't "abandon". We were voted out by the same puppet regime we installed at the point of a gun. Ya know, democracy whiskey sexy?
""We have serious security problems in this country and serious political problems," he said in an interview late last month at his heavily guarded compound in Baghdad. "Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn't the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it's definitely not the solution to the problems of my country."" - Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-24/news/bs-ed-iraq-democracy-20111024_1_residual-force-iraqi-lawmakers-iraq-war
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/us-troops-are-leaving-because-iraq-doesnt-want-them-there/247174/
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 02:39 (UTC)Also, it is pretty much de rigeur for the US to support an oppressor and then start wringing its hands when the oppressed rebel.
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 15/6/14 01:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 09:20 (UTC)http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Iraq+brink+cataclysmic+civil/9939312/story.html
"That all this happened so quickly and with little actual fighting has lent credence to widespread rumours here that Sunni tribal leaders had made a deal beforehand with ISIL because they hated al-Maliki more than they hated religious zealots. Curiously, these same tribal leaders worked with U.S. troops only two years ago to try to rid Iraq of Sunni extremism."
Dreadful miscalculation has always been a feature in US long-term foreign policy (if there ever was one).
(no subject)
Date: 14/6/14 17:58 (UTC)