Situation in Iraq Deteriorates

[alexava 6,974]

It is very difficult to fight terrorists with conventional military tactics. They use a lot of guerilla warfare and are much more patient than we are As we now see in Iraq, we want to have a war, win it, and leave. The terrorists jus sit back train, wait for us to leave and come back. If we ever get involved in another war in the middle east, we should be prepared to stay long after the war is "over."

or just make sure the war is actually worth fighting.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I agree but that means we have to have much better intelligence than we had in starting the Iraq war.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I agree but that means we have to have much better intelligence than we had in starting the Iraq war.

By most accounts, the intel concerning Iraq was pretty good. Until, the VPOTUS decided he knew more than anyone else. You realize, the case for the war was built on lies, not intel, correct?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I guess you are calling Colin Powell a liar too>? But any Obama defender should be an expert on recognizing a liar so I defer to your opinion.

But I would be interested in a link proving your claim.

[homersapien 12,172]

It is very difficult to fight terrorists with conventional military tactics. They use a lot of guerilla warfare and are much more patient than we are As we now see in Iraq, we want to have a war, win it, and leave. The terrorists jus sit back train, wait for us to leave and come back. If we ever get involved in another war in the middle east, we should be prepared to stay long after the war is "over."

Exactly.

But the problem is contained within the phrase "long after the war is over". First the war - or more accurately wars - is never really over. We could stay for decades without seeing an end to it. Certainly long enough for everyone to forget why we went in the first place.

[gravejd 3,304]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

[homersapien 12,172]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

Good summary.

[channonc 466]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

Agreed. In fact, splitting the country was exactly what Biden proposed several years ago. I agreed with it then, I agree with it now.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

Personally, I would be in favor of Shia if we had to pick a side. When Shia goes the extremist route, Hezbollah for example, they tend to not behead or kill people they kidnap or capture. They abduct people for a purpose, and they usually remain alive. Their attacks are generally targeted at something, instead of just unleashing indiscriminate collateral damage. Sunni extremists (Wahhabi or Salafists, whichever you call them), on the other hand, are the group that actually bother us. They are what we know of as Jihadists. Iran is the primary source of support behind Shia (and Hezbollah), and Saudi Arabia is the primary source of support behind Sunni (and groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS). I like the idea of better relations with Iran, as I have never been a fan of our ultimately hypocritical position regarding nuclear programs or their weaponization. I am not a fan of casting aside Saudi Arabia, but at some point this region is going to have to learn that the rest of the world is not interested in their petty religious squabbles. Unfortunately, it is against the rules in the region to be close with countries on both sides without having to apparently endorse one over the other. As you said, therein lies the problem with action that we take.

To me, the best Middle East policy is the one with a long-term goal of getting us off the extremists' radars. We will not be defeating extremists militarily or ideologically. We lack the commitment for the blood that would be required militarily, and the only people that can get away with fighting them ideologically are their fellow Muslims.

[homersapien 12,172]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

Personally, I would be in favor of Shia if we had to pick a side. When Shia goes the extremist route, Hezbollah for example, they tend to not behead or kill people they kidnap or capture. They abduct people for a purpose, and they usually remain alive. Their attacks are generally targeted at something, instead of just unleashing indiscriminate collateral damage. Sunni extremists (Wahhabi or Salafists, whichever you call them), on the other hand, are the group that actually bother us. They are what we know of as Jihadists. Iran is the primary source of support behind Shia (and Hezbollah), and Saudi Arabia is the primary source of support behind Sunni (and groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS). I like the idea of better relations with Iran, as I have never been a fan of our ultimately hypocritical position regarding nuclear programs or their weaponization. I am not a fan of casting aside Saudi Arabia, but at some point this region is going to have to learn that the rest of the world is not interested in their petty religious squabbles. Unfortunately, it is against the rules in the region to be close with countries on both sides without having to apparently endorse one over the other. As you said, therein lies the problem with action that we take.

To me, the best Middle East policy is the one with a long-term goal of getting us off the extremists' radars. We will not be defeating extremists militarily or ideologically. We lack the commitment for the blood that would be required militarily, and the only people that can get away with fighting them ideologically are their fellow Muslims.

Iran also has the advantage of being a non-Arab culture.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I guess you are calling Colin Powell a liar too>? But any Obama defender should be an expert on recognizing a liar so I defer to your opinion.

But I would be interested in a link proving your claim.

Yes, Gen. Powell made his choice. I would guess, even he would admit that he made a mistake (or was lied to).

I don't think your really need a link. All you need to do, is a modest amount of research and, employ some critical thought. Google Dick Armie, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Rand Paul, just to name a few right leaning people who are extremely critical of Cheney. Go to Youtube and view Cheney's own words about "going into Baghdad" following the first Gulf War. What Changed? Keep in mind that Cheney had few allies in the White House after Rumsfeld departed. Read Cheney's book. He is critical of everyone but himself. Why? Remember Valerie Plame?

The case for the war was built on lies. There is more than anecdotal evidence suggesting those lies were the product of Cheney's office and Cheney's own agenda.

Evidence to the contrary, typically centers around an October 2002 CIA report. However, Tenet and the top CIA field operatives seem to dispute their own report when they refer to the most current intel on which the White House was briefed just prior to the war.

Look at the absolute certainty of statements made prior to the war and, the shift in those positions post war.

This one from Donald Rumsfeld is particularly interesting:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." DR at the CFR, May 2003

Do some research and make up your own mind. However, as someone who enjoys the rhetoric more the the facts, remember this. Any Obama basher should be an expert on recognizing a liar so, don't believe me, don't believe what is documented, just keep believing the narrative that entertains you.

[ertrader 214]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

I think how you forgetting how Syria unfolded. Obama very much supported attacking Syria, but when it became clear that the American people were against it he then asked Congress to approve the strike. After it became clear Congress (mostly Democrats) would not approve, he started looking for a diplomatic solution.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ICHY .....talk about rhetoric.....you throw it out there and say do the research. You just did a cop out. what you did is express your opinion sans facts. That's OK but don't be hypocritical when others do the same.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

gravesjd.....I have to disagree in part. Most Republicans DID NOT want to go into Syria. Obama did his "redline" thing and then backed off because he knew Congress, both Republicans and Dems, wouldn't support it.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Thank you Obama for trying to keep America out of these middle eastern wars instead of throwing our military in there without considering why they are fighting and what we could hope to achieve. Had we gone into the war with Syria like most republicans wanted then we would have been arming and on the side of the people who are now trying to take over Iraq. That sure wouldn't have looked good. The problems with Iraq exist because the Shiite govrn is not respecting the rights of the Sunni's. The country is split about 60-40 in favor of the Shiite sect. This is also the sect that is in charge of Iran. The major power that backs the Sunnis is Saudi Arabia. So tell me which extremist should America side with because both sides have extremist? I think the only answer for Irag is to divide it up into 3 zones. Sunni area, Shiite area, and Kurd area. These people don't like each other so they are never going to live together in peace. Heck the Iraq govern is already blaming the Kurds for their current problems. If you want a parallel for the relationship of the Kurds with the current government think Jews in WW2.

I can't understand why people want America to go into this sectarian war on the side that Iran and Assad of Syria is on. It is a lose-lose situation. Until the different sects that make up Iraq decide to get along there will always be war there. America jumping in to help kill people will not help.

At one time, I had a neighbor who is a USAF, AC-130 pilot. He told me that while stationed in Turkey, he flew relief and protection missions over the Kurds. He swore that after he and his guys flew their missions from a Turkish air base in the morning, the Turks would takeoff in fighters and bomb and strafe the very same Kurds in the the afternoon. He said EVERYONE in that part of the world hates the Kurds.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

ICHY .....talk about rhetoric.....you throw it out there and say do the research. You just did a cop out. what you did is express your opinion sans facts. That's OK but don't be hypocritical when others do the same.

Not at all PT. I encouraged you to do a modest amount of research and decide for yourself, think for yourself.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

gravesjd.....I have to disagree in part. Most Republicans DID NOT want to go into Syria. Obama did his "redline" thing and then backed off because he knew Congress, both Republicans and Dems, wouldn't support it.

Is there any issue on which Congressional Republicans have/would supported the President?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thank goodness not many.

But as is typical lately, you only read what you want to. I said Obama knew BOTH Republicans and Dems wouldn't support him and he didn't want to be embarrassed by the Dem controlled Senate.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Thank goodness not many.

But as is typical lately, you only read what you want to. I said Obama knew BOTH Republicans and Dems wouldn't support him and he didn't want to be embarrassed by the Dem controlled Senate.

Sorry PT. Merely pointing out that including the word Republicans was unnecessary unless, you wanted to point out the irony of congressional Republicans pretending that they were for intervention in Syria after the fact.

[TheBlueVue 177]

gravesjd.....I have to disagree in part. Most Republicans DID NOT want to go into Syria. Obama did his "redline" thing and then backed off because he knew Congress, both Republicans and Dems, wouldn't support it.

Is there any issue on which Congressional Republicans have/would supported the President?

Thank goodness not many.

But as is typical lately, you only read what you want to. I said Obama knew BOTH Republicans and Dems wouldn't support him and he didn't want to be embarrassed by the Dem controlled Senate.

Sorry PT. Merely pointing out that including the word Republicans was unnecessary unless, you wanted to point out the irony of congressional Republicans pretending that they were for intervention in Syria after the fact.

I certainly hope not. Just because the guy is the president doesn't mean he's right and frankly, I don't think he's gotten anything right.