originally posted by: seagull
So far as the Iranians are concerned, this is a tactic that works.
Take an embassy and/or hostages, and watch the US cave.
It worked once, why wouldn't it again??
I suspect a higher number of people foresaw current events. More people likely predicted Iranian militias attempting to overrun the U.S. embassy in
Iraq, then those who accurately forecast the Iranian revolution.
Well, they've misread it a tad bit. Trump isn't Carter. ...and this country isn't just coming out of Watergate, and Vietnam. The atmosphere
is a bit different.
A fair point. But did Trump abandoning the Kurds further embolden Iranian militias? Have Trump deterred Iraqis from evicting Iranian forces from Iraq?
Note: my last point will make sense in a moment.
This calls for a bit of bloody ruthlessness on the part of the US...
If Iraq's value their country over sectarian differences, they will ruthlessly rid Iraq of their unwelcome guests. There is a role for U.S. and
coalition forces to provide air support, training and logistical support for Iraqi forces.
Undoubtedly, many of you are going to call me names, say I'm many bad things, when I write the following.
The bad and arguably unreported aspect of unfolding events is the failure of local security forces/Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Army and security forces
failed to prevent Iranian militia threatening the U.S. embassy in Iraq.
These militias, so called, are a clear and present danger. Find 'em. Kill 'em. Send their heads to the Iranian High Council, or whatever
grandious name they call themselves, with a short, but to the point, note--something like so:
Let's assume for moment security in Iraq will fall back on local militias: If they believe U.S. support will vanish prematurely, why or how would they
liberate their country? Trump's MacArthur sized ego falsely declaring victory and pulling out rug out from them is hardly an inviting prospect.
"This could, and will be, you if this happens again. Control your dogs, or they'll have new masters very shortly."
Signed: Donald J. Trump. President of the United States.
Yes, it's gruesome. Yes, it's nasty. It's even barbaric. So is this world we live in, in case some haven't noticed.
Civil wars, sectarian conflicts and regional wars are often the bloodiest. Consider two (admittedly) instances that demonstrate my point. The
[American] Civil War has the highest causality rates of the military (either in real terms or possible proportionally) personnel in U.S. history.
In short, one suspects, the conduct of South Korean forces in the Vietnam War would shock the sensibilities would grossly offend the snowflake
politically correct crowd.
We get the F out, and let 'em kill each other off without our getting caught in the middle of it.
The advent of ISIS after the withdrawal of the U.S.'s withdrawal from Iraq and a "hands-off" approach to the Syrian Civil War precludes this option
from strategic consideration. However, Trump's cabinet of yes men is not inclined to contradict their presidents worst instincts.