Iraq: What to do?

[DaveC]

It's really uncanny how similar this is to Vietnam at this point.

US puppet government suddenly invaded by "the bad guys" from the north (1960: Communists/2014: Islamists), the army crumbles to the point where it is incapable of defending itself, so the US sends "advisers" (MACV-SOG) and starts with air strikes. I truly won't be shocked if there's an incident where the US Embassy in Baghdad is attacked to provide justification for actual combat troops (Gulf of Tonkin) - although I don't think Obama would go quite this far, I wouldn't put it past some rogue general or administration staffers to set up.

The US is so deep into Iraq that the only way out at this point seems to be to wash their hands of the whole thing and leave the country to its own fate. That won't ever happen, so be prepared for war in Iraq for our entire lives, folks. It is genuinely only a matter of time until the country becomes another Syria or Afghanistan, because ISIS and all its like-minded paramilitary friends won't stop as they know they can eventually win simply by attrition, US politics and sheer numbers (kinda like the Viet Cong).

At least Iran seems to be concerned to the point that they are willing to actually do something rather than sit by and watch ISIS take over Iraq and start another Iran-Iraq War.

[Irvine511]

The truth, though, is that there is no Iraq. It was invented by some guys in London looking at maps.

[Buk]

According to Christopher Hitchens, Iraq was created by a women named Gertrude Bell.

The Woman Who Made Iraq - Christopher Hitchens - The Atlantic

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

The truth, though, is that there is no Iraq. It was invented by some guys in London looking at maps.

Along with the entire rest of the Middle East.

The only hope I think the US has here is to make an alliance with the Kurds (ideally with the Iraqi government, but I doubt that will ever happen) to use the peshmerga fighters with US drone/air support to decisively defeat ISIS in the north, on condition that the Kurds finally get their own state in northern Iraq. Turkey would like it as there would be a mass exodus of Kurds to Kurdistan, although ISIS being crushed also would be a huge win for Assad in Syria.

That's really the only situation I can conceive that would stop the ISIS advance without requiring US combat troops on the ground.

[Vincent Vega]

First early signs of ISIS and Ba'ath remnants splitting? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/wo...imesworld&_r=0

Greatest irony anyway, considering that the Ba'ath party has always been anti-fundamentalism and saw islamism as a threat.

In Kurdistan we are now dealing with another influx of up to 500,000 people from the city of Mossul as well as the Nineveh, Anbar and Diyala regions. This on top of about 250,000 Syrian refugees. Both the IDPs and the Syrian refugees are going to stay (just consider that for decades now several thousands of Turkish and Iranian refugees have been living in the Kurdish region with no end in sight). It's straining the economy and at the moment is probably a greater threat to the stability of the Kurdish region than ISIS. Turkey is less likely to be an opponent to Kurdish independence. They are happy as long as they have a stable trading partner. Also, they do not fear the Kurdish movement inside Turkey that much anymore.

ISIS, on the other hand, though at the moment trying to not engage with the peshmerga, do have an absolutist ideology. Should they get a foothold in the region, the Kurdish will have to fortify their borders even more than they already do.

[Dfit00]

It's a US interest to keep exploiting Iraq to take advantage of its oil so the politicians can stay rich.

[the iron horse]

I never agreed with Bush's plan to "democratize" Irag. He failed to
understand the religious differences among the people. It was doomed
from the start.

Joe Biden was right in 2006 for proposing a “soft partition” of Iraq, in which Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would have their own autonomous regions, overseen by a “viable central government in Baghdad.”

That was a much better idea and I think it would have worked.

[deep]

Rand Paul: Blame Dick Cheney for Iraq violence, not Obama - CBS News

got to give Rand Paul some props here,

[The_Pac_Mule]

The Kurd's have been really taking it to ISIS. If anything, at least they'll finally get their own state out of all this, which I would see as a silver lining. There's no way this is going to end without Iraq breaking up. It's failed as a state, and there's no fixing 1000 years of bad blood.

[mikal]

I wish I could be granted one free punch in the face of Dick Cheney.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using U2 Interference mobile app

[digitize]

Dick Cheney: FYM's Most Hated Person In the World?

[Galeongirl]

Can someone elaborate why exactly this guy's the most hated man here?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Can someone elaborate why exactly this guy's the most hated man here?

He manipulated intelligence and an unintelligent president as well as a shell-shocked, scared public into backing a disterous invasion designed to secure oil and contracts to Halliburton and wrapped up in bullshit about "freedom" while hiring lawyers to alter the rules of warfare so that torture became legalized for a small period of time.

[Buk]

I wouldn't call the invasion of a Iraq a disaster. It did achieve its objectives of removing the Saddam regime at relatively low cost and installed a new semi-democratic government which is struggling at the moment, but still there. A good example of a disaster would be the invasion of the Gallipoli peninsula in World War I. The Allies suffered 56,707 killed in action, and 123,598 wounded in action during the 8 months the invasion lasted. Not a single objective was achieved. Very very high cost with nothing to show for it at all.

[BEAL]

Let's say the powers that be decide to split Iraq into three separate countries, a Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia region.

The oil is in the south, so that country would seem to be financially stable right off. And wouldn't the other new states just continue to fight each other in effort to gain more land?

I guess I don't know what ISIS end game is. I know they want a Islamic state, ruled by sharia law. So they get it and then what? Won't they just continue to terrorize other parts of the region to get more $$$ or aid?

Throw in these new countries would be unstable and another Afghanistan type of country. Ruthless warlords allowing other terrorist organizations safe haven.

Really no clue what to do. I guess is it possible to extract the women and children and let the men just kill each other till no one is left

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Buk

I wouldn't call the invasion of a Iraq a disaster. It did achieve its objectives of removing the Saddam regime at relatively low cost and installed a new semi-democratic government which is struggling at the moment, but still there. A good example of a disaster would be the invasion of the Gallipoli peninsula in World War I. The Allies suffered 56,707 killed in action, and 123,598 wounded in action during the 8 months the invasion lasted. Not a single objective was achieved. Very very high cost with nothing to show for it at all.

you realize that you're comparing a single (legendarily disastrous) battle to a war and 8 years of occupation?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Let's say the powers that be decide to split Iraq into three separate countries, a Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia region.

The oil is in the south, so that country would seem to be financially stable right off. And wouldn't the other new states just continue to fight each other in effort to gain more land?

I guess I don't know what ISIS end game is. I know they want a Islamic state, ruled by sharia law. So they get it and then what? Won't they just continue to terrorize other parts of the region to get more $$$ or aid?

Throw in these new countries would be unstable and another Afghanistan type of country. Ruthless warlords allowing other terrorist organizations safe haven.

Really no clue what to do. I guess is it possible to extract the women and children and let the men just kill each other till no one is left

The North also has oil. Kurdistan is developing their fields. Kirkuk especially is sitting on oil, that's what made it so hard thought over.

ISIS' ideology is absolute. They have a ultra-conservative interpretation of islam. It got so bad that shortly after their appearance in Syria the Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's arm in Syria, engaged in battle with them and al-Zawahiri had to publically disassociate from them.
They are now worth an estimated $1.5 bn with about 500 million stolen in Mossul, and they control a large gas exploration field in Deir-e-Zor, Syria, among other money-generating activities. They are not going to stop their expansion, and where they rule it's hell for the population.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you realize that you're comparing a single (legendarily disastrous) battle to a war and 8 years of occupation?

He may be a troll, but he raises a rather valid point. While I in no way supported the war in Iraq, it's funny to see Dick Chaney labeled the most hated man in FYM when there are legitimately evil people in the world (he's just kinda psuedo-evil...comically evil, almost) that he doesn't even end up in the same conversation as. The war in Iraq was disastrous, but was it a disaster?

Based on what we're seeing now, the fall-out may prove that to be the case, but those isolated 8 years are not what I would likely find myself referring to as a "disaster".

[deep]

the most hated man in FYM?

what 10 posters in here think is not that relevant to me.

Cheney is a despicable scumbag,
immoral, amoral seems an understatement. He is lower than Osama bin Laden.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by bono_212

it's funny to see Dick Chaney labeled the most hated man in FYM when there are legitimately evil people in the world (he's just kinda psuedo-evil...comically evil, almost)

No, seriously?

By any objective measure, the man is evil and at a minimum entirely amoral.