John Kerry on Military Support for Iraq : "this is their fight."

reply to post by daaskapital


The old argument of "You broke it, You bought it." doesn't apply here. The Iraqi Gov't didn't want foriegn troops on their soil anymore and refused to negotiate a SOFA agreement and so we left. They are probably rethinking their position now.

But to be truthful, I see a Libya type conflict starting again soon. They provide the ground power and we provide the air power.

TDawgRex
reply to post by daaskapital

 

The old argument of "You broke it, You bought it." doesn't apply here. The Iraqi Gov't didn't want foriegn troops on their soil anymore and refused to negotiate a SOFA agreement and so we left. They are probably rethinking their position now.

But to be truthful, I see a Libya type conflict starting again soon. They provide the ground power and we provide the air power.

Yeah, but it isn't stopping the USA from guiding Iraq along the right path into the future. I know that they are using alternative measures to aid Iraq in this current situation, but i don't see anything working unless the allies become actively involved again, which i'm not sure will happen anytime soon.

I agree on your assertion about seeing a Libya type conflict in Iraq soon. I don't think they will be able to hold off by themselves. They will definitely need some help.

In saying that, i don't even know if the public would accept the allies getting involved, even to establish air superiority. People may be more accepting if the UN were to send in Peacekeepers, but i don't have much confidence in them (they seem to be having a proper go in CAR though).

reply to post by TDawgRex


Oh, you're absolutely right about this ultimately being about tribal and religious warfare. Sunni Vs. Shia is big part of it, but then it breaks down right into regions for tribes, as you say. The levels of conflict are really complex.

3 things happened here to make it our baby to own though.

#1. The war in 1991 all but ended modernization of the Iraqi security establishment for facing what they're facing right now.

#2. 1991-2003 of U.S. led, U.S. enforced sanctions that all but broke the nation (while leaving Saddam fairly comfy, as it happened)

#3. 2003-2010 war, started 100% by the United States as leader of the coalition which even France openly and very publicly went beyond just condemning but WORKED against us on, in terms of HOW totally the US and Britain own the war as direct legacy.

So...Thats over 20 years the U.S. has been in control of Iraq or in control of their ability to supply and make a nation for themselves. That's fine and dandy, if we had ever meant to help CORRECT what we created here ...but as it's obvious now? That's nowhere on the list of things we figure we have responsibility for. I could be sick ..... It means 100% of our guys AND their guys who have died since 1991, died for absolutely nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

* in terms of the Government we built? We built one alright...while in 100% absolute control of Iraq for the process. During that process, WE ALLOWED an insurgency to build and thrive which we left the Iraqis to deal with....in far too weak a position to have much hope at all.

It's a matter of time, if we've forsaken meaningful assistance now. Like South Vietnam and Saigon...it's a question of time. Maybe a month..maybe a year. Eventually though, Al Qaeda will win, IMO. (Unless Iran drops the pretenses and just falls 100% in behind the southern Shia to end the matter forever.)

reply to post by daaskapital


As much as I dislike Kerry and ANY of his ideas, this one is Iraq's Governments own mess. They were butting heads against the Sunni Tribal elders in that region, even threatening to attack them. The Sunni's in Anbar were the one's who made the Surge a success on the Iraqi side. When the Iraqi central Govt (Mainly Shia) pulled it's troops out of Ramadi and Fallujah, it opened up power void for AQ to basically just walk in to those towns. The Sunni tribes are trying to expel AQ but will need more help, which needs to come from the U.S. quite probably.

Sunni's don't trust Shia, for good historical reasons, and vice versa. If they both can't work together, it will be bad for Iraq. Blood feuds are very hard to settle peacefully.

Unless we are willing to reoccupy, it's up to the Iraqi's to take care of AQ.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I think that Eisenhower had hit the nail on the head when he addressed the MIC. Though the MIC has pretty much expanded way beyond anything imagined at the time.

The Middle East has become such a profitable enterprise/experiment for those that supply everything from arms to medicines to fuel and food that it is ridiculous. It’s become their playground.

My generic overall take on the Iraq situation is that the populace is easily swayed with short term solutions. They rarely look at a long term plan. There are those who do look long term on all sides though. And they are usually the leaders of the clans and tribes. I worked for a decade and a half in PSYOP, much of it spent there. Even without warfare, Iraq can be quite the unforgiving place.

Everyone over there is jockeying for positions and influence.

This also could be used to provoke Iran into getting involved in the conflict.

Some people say that politics is a game of chess…I think it’s more akin to Poker. Who’s bluffing and who holds the cards?

reply to post by TDawgRex


Well, politics aside then, what would your solution be, if King for a Day and ultimate power? You sound like you've seen far more of this from a side few ever do for context and understanding.

Is there nothing we can do anymore to set right what we put into motion? You know history as well or better than I do on military matters, so I don't need to quote anything for what came after the fall of Saigon or the Khmer Rouge over the other border and around that same time.

I guess that's the outcome I really am sick to consider. So many trusted us and did work with us...naively thinking we'd never Vietnam them in the end.

* I agree on the poker analogy for regional and local .. I still think of it as chess on the World Power level ..but Iraq falls far far short of that level.

reply to post by buster2010


Replacing Sadaam's Regime with a Goverment that is Millitarly Impotent was Doomed to Failure . The Only way Iraq can now Defend itself against Insurgents is with Foreign Aid . Look what happened to South Viet Nam in 1974 , they did not Last Long either . The U.S. went " Halfway " as Usual in Liberating Iraq , and their present Goverments days are Numbered . Uncle Sam Effed Up Again......

Wrabbit2000
I guess that's the outcome I really am sick to consider. So many trusted us and did work with us...naively thinking we'd never Vietnam them in the end.

I didn't want to mention genocide as that goes against my grain. But in this region, it may actually help bring conflict to an end. But I really doubt it. In Islam, both Sunni and Shia, the goal is to keep pushing for the Caliphate.

I really do feel for the people of Iraq as I have formed friendships with many of them over the years. The majority are just normal people like you and I. I've also served time in Bosnia and the Muslims there for the most part would not even recognize the practice of Islam in Iraq.

The people of the region respect strength and power. Nothing more. It's going to have get much worse before it gets any better. Western Gov't type power is pretty much thought of as weak in that region.

reply to post by daaskapital


Peacekeepers have done how much good ever since the UN was formed? They do seem to get shot alot, but I've never seen them do anything worthwhile in a long time, as in ever.

Don't bring up the Sinai PeaceKeeping force as the US is the major player there and is also a tentative ally to both sides that they are standing in between.

But I haven't seen much considering East Timor, so I guess the AUS/NZ PeaceKeepers did a good job there.

There seems to be a presumption as to what our 'goals' were in Iraq. People seem to think that the stated goals are, in fact, the real motivations for the war. Isn't it possible that Bush was right when he said 'Mission Accomplished'? Maybe the real mission WAS accomplished. Perhaps the whole remove a bad dictator / fight terrorism propaganda they used to rationalize the war was just a smokescreen. We may very well have gone in, taken what we wanted, and got out. Everything is a business model and pretty much anything the government tells us is BS.

buster2010

After all, it is pretty arrogant of the USA to completely destroy a nation and leave it in ruin, only to tell them later that the occupation of key cities in their country is their own fight.

Why are you just talking about America? America wasn't alone in destroying that nation it had help. The United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, Poland and the Ukraine was with America when this happened so cry about them as well. The new government in Iraq needs to learn how to run their nation. So you need to change your whine about America thread to a whine about the coalition thread.

Take all of the countries you mentioned and add Governments on to them. The people of these countries do not want this mayhem. We are all in this together. It's time to stop the madness.

jtma508
We may very well have gone in, taken what we wanted, and got out. Everything is a business model and pretty much anything the government tells us is BS.

Oh, I'd say 'they' sure did. "We" got hosed on a false story and false premise ...but 'They' surely got what they wanted out of it. How many timeless artifacts are still missing? What happened to bunkers of gold and hard currencies located and not mentioned again? Saddam seemed like that lottery winner back east that I'd last seen reported to have lost $500,000 in cash to a car burglary (rolls eyes). Some people really do carry and stash stuff like complete idiots ...but where did it all go? We were told we had to support them all with OUR money.

We sure didn't go for Oil. Seen the pump price lately? I honestly see more BP and Chevron related leases in the Caspian Sea than I do in Iraq. We got hosed on that one too. WMD? Well, the troops weren't carrying MOPP gear for P.R. points ...but apparently the people at the top got a laugh out of it, since it was for weapons no longer present.

I think Bush settled a Family grudge that dated back to 1991 and Bush Sr's failure to finish it. I think it would have been a mistake and wisdom agreed back then ..but I think Bush Sr also came to be known for that failure as Saddam stayed on...year after year.

The Bush's beat the Husseins. 3:0..and two nations lost everything in the process.

As an Iraqi war veteran I agree with Kerry. No boots on ground. Anyone who disagrees is more then free to sign up and ship their butts over there. Iraq is a no win situation no matter what you do, so it's just best to sit back and not do anything. I'm sure we'll send financial support anyways. It's the U.S.'s motto these days...

starfoxxx
Look at what Bin Laden was able to do with a rag tag group.

With a little help from his friends at the CIA....
Same with al Qaeda in Africa.

And...some say Barry works at the behest of the CIA also.

as someone thats been to iraq, twice, it is their fight.

yes, we broke it. no excuse, no denial. we then did everything in our power to fix it.

true story. we fixed a base for them. made it better than the stuff we were bunking in. brand new buildings, plumbing, lights, you name it. within a week of turning it over to them, it was stripped bare. wiring, windows, toilets, if they could move it they did.

we rebuilt their military. they deserted and sold their gear to insurgents.

we did everything we could to fix that place, and they just wouldnt go for it.

same with afganistan.

so yes, after years of trying, you have to wash your hands and say "its your fight now".

I can't stand Kerry; in fact I have less time for him than I do Obama. So Kerry voted for Gulf War 2, than wanted nothing to do with it and now he is ready to abandon Iraq in a heartbeat. Obama foreign policy of appeasement is continuing at a fast pace. Obama is happy to sit on his laurels as the powder keg for the next world war is being set. I am also ashamed of how the current Australian government is equally standing by and doing nothing. Considering how the Australian Prime Minster Tony Abbott was a part of the Howard government who championed Gulf War 2. History is repeating the United States and Australian governments will watch the government of Iraq fall, just like they did the fall of Saigon.

Iraq’s Prime Minster Maliki is a failure in his own right. His three main failures were cutting off support to the militias that were a key part of the success of the surge. Next up is the failure to exchange a greater level of regional authority for greater cooperation in fighting anti government forces. Lastly in what amounts to a minority government, Maliki has not build any bridges with other political parties, paralysing the government.

Unless the unlikely event of the Iraqi people electing a effective government takes place in the time space of around three years the Iranian/Syrian axis will gobble up Iraq. The goal of the Iranian backed tide of Islamic extremism is to try and destroy secular Turkey and they will look to bring down the Saudi Regime. All the while Iran Nuclear Program is continuing unchecked.

Show thread with listening information