Military What was done is being undone...Iraq

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by mancha, Jun 12, 2014.

Page 31 of 31
  1. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Amazing is the correct term Red! You twist my words with little care for accuracy. I have never advocated us sending troops or flying over Syria to fight Assad. I have advocated giving better support to the moderates fighting Assad who were predominate in 2012. I believe failure to do so has led to the strengthening of ISIS. A position held by many in the Obama administration.
    Actually Assad has been fighting the moderates and leaving ISIS alone for now. BTW the moderates are fighting ISIS distracting from their fight with Assad who is benefitting from the situation.
    Why do you seem to celebrate a fight that has taken hundreds of thousands lives?
     
    Winston1, Aug 24, 2014
    #301
  2. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Interesting read from The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/23/obama-drafted-to-fight-bush-s-war.html.
    The pertinent quote from the article IMO
    "Yes, others deserve blame too—Obama (which I’ve written before) because of his Syria policy; the Iraqis themselves, chiefly Nouri al-Maliki, for freezing the Sunnis out of the government; and Bashar al-Assad, who’s been busy killing innocents and until recently winking at ISIS. But the group sprang to life because our invasion uncorked these sectarian forces in precisely the way Scowcroft (and others) predicted—only, in all likelihood, with more violence and vehemence than even he could have foreseen."
    Yes Obama inherited the situation from W but as noted below by a prominent liberal writer Obama's poor choices (lack of leadership if you will) have exacerbated the problem. It is also a shame W didn't listen to his father.
     
    Winston1, Aug 24, 2014
    #302
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    You have criticized Obama from the beginning for not taking more "action" against Assad. Post after post. You ignore the fact that we have been arming the "moderate" rebels for a year now. You ignore the fact that they have never had enough manpower to defeat Assad. They have been unable to quit squabbling among themselves and remain fragmented. They are regional militias, each with its own agenda. This is why it has been so difficult to vet them as worthy of supporting. Such forces change sides frequently in the middle east.

    Assad and ISIS are ideological enemies, but they have strategic common interests – they're both busy attacking rebel forces. ISIS has backed off Assad earlier for strategic reasons, which is that it's been busy attacking weaker forces. But the showdown is coming, and non-ISIS forces will choose to back Assad. ISIS doesn't have friends there.

    What more support do you want to give them? Jets that they cannot operate? Tanks that they cannot maintain? Shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that they are highly likely to let ISIS capture. Or even rejoin Assad? ISIS has been the reason all along why we can't just lavish weapons on untrained, undisciplined "moderates" that, by the way, are not pro-American. Did you not see what happened with the equipment we gave the Iraqi army?

    You have this backwards. Assad has cared most deeply about Damascus and Aleppo area where the non-ISIS rebels are the main enemy. Assad has now been forced by ISIS to shift attention to the most credible threat--itself. The Syrian "moderates" are not taking more territory from him and are trying to hold what they have. ISIS is actively threatening the regime, staking territory, and Assad has had to take more action.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/advantage-syria-moves-isis/story?id=25087209&page=2

    Likewise the fight in Syria is distracting ISIS from the fight in Kurdistan and Baghdad, the theatre in which we are involved. This is the key.

    Because both sides are our enemy! Implacably anti-American. What does it take to get this to sink in? We need to fight for the Kurds, which we are doing. They have been friendly and more democratic that the Iraqi government and certainly more so than Assad or ISIS. Strategically it is in our interests to let them fight each other. It makes no sense at all to get distracted from the fight we have to protect Kurdistan.

    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/14/why-u-s-is-wary-about-intervening-in-syria/
     
    red55, Aug 24, 2014
    #303
Page 31 of 31

Share This Page