Military What was done is being undone...Iraq

Let em burn. We have drones to monitor if they get big weapons. Not like 15 years ago.

 

Can't come as a surprise to anyone really, the shia have been waiting for this for a very long time.

 

Maybe not but then let's pull ALL of our personnel out of Baghdad before it falls. It may have been a "neocon" mistake but Obama was singing his own praises at one point.....
"Iraq was largely at peace when Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Reporters who had known Baghdad during the worst days of the insurgency in 2006 marveled at how peaceful the city had become thanks to the U.S. military surge and counterinsurgency. In 2012 Anthony Blinken, then Mr. Biden's top security adviser, boasted that, "What's beyond debate" is that "Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. And the United States is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history."

Mr. Obama employed the same breezy confidence in a speech last year at the National Defense University, saying that "the core of al Qaeda" was on a "path to defeat," and that the "future of terrorism" came from "less capable" terrorist groups that mainly threatened "diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad." Mr. Obama concluded his remarks by calling on Congress to repeal its 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al Qaeda.

If the war on terror was over, ISIS didn't get the message. The group, known as Tawhid al-Jihad when it was led a decade ago by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was all but defeated by 2009 but revived as U.S. troops withdrew and especially after the uprising in Syria spiraled into chaos. It now controls territory from the outskirts of Aleppo in northwestern Syria to Fallujah in central Iraq.

The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. "Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria," we noted last May. "They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power."

We don't quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. Contrary to what Mr. Blinken claimed in 2012, the "diplomatic surge" the Administration promised for Iraq never arrived, nor did U.S. weapons. "The Americans have really deeply disappointed us by not supplying the Iraqi army with the weapons and support it needs to fight terrorism," the Journal quoted one Iraqi general based in Kirkuk.

That might strike some readers as rich coming from the commander of a collapsing army, but it's a reminder of the price Iraqis and Americans are now paying for Mr. Obama's failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad that would have maintained a meaningful U.S. military presence. A squadron of Apache attack helicopters, Predator drones and A-10 attack planes based in Iraq might be able to turn back ISIS's march on Baghdad."

I agree with you that western style democracy will never work over there. But we have gone there and screwed around for some purpose that benefits the US. Likely money and/or oil. Bashar is the modern day version of the Shah. We propped him up despite the atrocities he committed because he was our "ally" allowing us access, air space, and freedom to operate. Now Syria is in turmoil and we are letting him swing in the wind.

 

I think the U.S. gets less oil than many believe from iraq.

 

It's more supporting the conflict between Shia and Sunni Wahabbists.

 

Obama has to take the blame for not getting us out of their quick enough when he campaigned on getting us out of there. I completely agree with that. There NEVER was a victory in Iraq and everyone with half a brain cell knew as soon as we got out those savages would start killing each other all over again. You can't help a people who don't want to help themselves.

 

I don't think so. I don't think we, as a nation should be eternally tied to Iraq because one irrational cowboy president thought it was a good idea to spread freedom to a people with no concept of what freedom is. Yeah we fucked up a stable Iraq, but it was only a matter of time before that happened anyway.

 

This Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his ISIS are fucking hard core. So hard core that even in Al Qaeda circles he is outcast.

"Eventually, the Islamic State's presence in Syria proved so destabilizing that it fell out with its sister group, the Nusra Front. Their mutual patron at the time, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, formally disavowed the Islamic State in February.

At the same time, other Syrian rebel factions were waging an offensive against the extremist group. Activists say that fighting, which is still going on, has killed more than 6,000 people."

 

Only if they allow it to

No, we had a job and we did it. The iraqi people voted (in numbers that the U.S. never has) in the face of threats on their lives. Democracy is fragile, they allowed it to fall apart with their apathy and corruption.

The biggest fear was that Iran would steam roll Iraq after we left and allow them to double in size and wealth. That hasn't happened...yet.

I would imagine that if things got too out of hand we may need to do something.

But it did. Talk to anyone that was on the ground there and get their perspective.

The people, the real people there were very happy that we changed things. The problem is the corrupt are like rats and cock roaches. They are behind every rock and the people are just too, fuck I don't know, incompetent or lazy to fight or maybe they are just too willing to be told what to do. Easier that way for some.