- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What are your thoughts? Obama sending 300 "advisors" to Iraq
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:16 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:16 am
In case you haven't heard, although I'm sure most here have....
I'm interested in the poliboard's view on this move. Partisan hats off.
Is this (at best) prolonging the inevitable? That is, violence/civil war between the Sunni, Shia and maybe Kurds? Does anybody think sending more troops (even tens of thousands) could prevent violence?
IMO Iraq has never really been a functioning country (except by force under a brutal dictator). It is a collection of tribes that don't really care about "Iraq". This move by Obama seems like a continuing attempt to force western ideas (even on something as simple as the concept of a "nation") upon those that simply don't want it. I just don't see a way it can work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
quote:
President Barack Obama announced Thursday that he’s sending up to 300 American military advisers to Iraq in response to Islamic militants threatening the government in Baghdad.
I'm interested in the poliboard's view on this move. Partisan hats off.
Is this (at best) prolonging the inevitable? That is, violence/civil war between the Sunni, Shia and maybe Kurds? Does anybody think sending more troops (even tens of thousands) could prevent violence?
IMO Iraq has never really been a functioning country (except by force under a brutal dictator). It is a collection of tribes that don't really care about "Iraq". This move by Obama seems like a continuing attempt to force western ideas (even on something as simple as the concept of a "nation") upon those that simply don't want it. I just don't see a way it can work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
32
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:17 am to a want
Can you say "blowback"?
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:19 am to a want
quote:
IMO Iraq has never really been a functioning country (except by force under a brutal dictator). It is a collection of tribes that don't really care about "Iraq". This move by Obama seems like a continuing attempt to force western ideas (even on something as simple as the concept of a "nation") upon those that simply don't want it. I just don't see a way it can work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I agree with ya Want - let's just get out of there and focus on our own shite. We got plenty of things we can be working on here back home with jobs, infrastructure, immigration... I know Obama is one man, but let's work on something we can atleast try and fix.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:21 am to a want
quote:
Partisan hats off.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:21 am to a want
My view is we need to stay the frick out of this and let nature take its course.
Iraqis may want freedom and liberty but we can't give it to them, they have to rightfully earn it through legitimate means and we are getting in the way of that.
Iraqis may want freedom and liberty but we can't give it to them, they have to rightfully earn it through legitimate means and we are getting in the way of that.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:23 am to a want
quote:
Obama said Thursday that the United States would not take sides to support one religious sect over another in the widening conflict, and urged Iraqi leaders to seek a political solution to the crisis.
quote:if we are not taking sides then are they splitting up the green berets into 3 teams?
"There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that's led by the United States," he said.
If there is no military solution why are we sending military advisors?
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:23 am to a want
I think they are really a rear guard to assist in the evacuation.
Sadly, at this point - I agree with that.
Sadly, at this point - I agree with that.
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 8:25 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:27 am to a want
Sending advisors can't hurt. They can better assess the situation. And maybe help strateguze.
But at the end of the day, we can't keeping defending Iraq every time a revolutionary group takes to arms. Such a cluster f*** over there.
But at the end of the day, we can't keeping defending Iraq every time a revolutionary group takes to arms. Such a cluster f*** over there.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:27 am to a want
quote:
IMO Iraq has never really been a functioning country (except by force under a brutal dictator). It is a collection of tribes that don't really care about "Iraq"
Agreed - my first thought, even before Biden, was to simply eliminate Iraq as a nation - partition it between Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi.
edit - I'll admit, I quickly abandoned that view in favor of making Iraq a shining example of an Islamic democracy in the region.
I yield to all you who knew that would never work. I am convinced now that it will not. Those people need to be contained to their own version of hell over there and let the slit each other's throats forever.
What we need is energy independence.
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 8:31 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:28 am to a want
A couple of jets and the "300"?
I don't know what he is doing.
I would imagine the advice he is getting is all over the place.
My suggestion to him would be decisive in either helping or getting out.
Seems thats his problem though.
I don't know what he is doing.
I would imagine the advice he is getting is all over the place.
My suggestion to him would be decisive in either helping or getting out.
Seems thats his problem though.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:29 am to a want
quote:
IMO Iraq has never really been a functioning country (except by force under a brutal dictator).
More or less, true.
quote:
is a collection of tribes that don't really care about "Iraq".
That's what happens when arbitrary lines are drawn on a map to satisfy an outside interest's idea of how to manage an area. Would never have mattered a hill of beans if they never found oil there - it is what it is, I suppose.
quote:
I just don't see a way it can work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
It's not often that I agree with a want, but when I do, it is usually emphatic agreement.
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 8:30 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:31 am to goatmilker
Say the best happens and we stem ISIS advance and they migrate back to Syria. All stories told, Maliki's government is a Shiite circle jerk so Sunnis still have a big grievance. Also the Kurds have captured a lot of new territory and I'm sure will be pushing for a break from Iraq.
There is no win to be had here
There is no win to be had here
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:31 am to a want
Sending in "advisers" during a full-blown rout like the Iraqi army is undergoing is a mistake.
It is the kind of halfassed move that JFK and LBJ made in Vietnam to fight the war on the cheap instead of getting the job done.
Obama needs to decide if he wants to leave Iraq to the wolves or if he wants to at least take ISIS out of the equation.
Leaving Iraq to the wolves requires just enough troops to get US citizens out of harm's way and then bug out.
Taking ISIS out of the equation requires AT LEAST extensive air strikes and likely requires sending more boots on the ground for an extended period of time to help root them out since the Iraqi army is useless.
It is a half-measure that won't fix anything and puts off a bigger decision about Iraq's future and our part in it.
It is the kind of halfassed move that JFK and LBJ made in Vietnam to fight the war on the cheap instead of getting the job done.
Obama needs to decide if he wants to leave Iraq to the wolves or if he wants to at least take ISIS out of the equation.
Leaving Iraq to the wolves requires just enough troops to get US citizens out of harm's way and then bug out.
Taking ISIS out of the equation requires AT LEAST extensive air strikes and likely requires sending more boots on the ground for an extended period of time to help root them out since the Iraqi army is useless.
It is a half-measure that won't fix anything and puts off a bigger decision about Iraq's future and our part in it.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:32 am to a want
It's folly. Either go in and stomp the shite out full-bore now (I'm not in favor of this, fyi) or do nothing but light air support if Iran asks for it. Trickling in "advisors" is one of the ways Vietnam turned into such a shite storm.
This post was edited on 6/20/14 at 8:34 am
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:34 am to goatmilker
quote:
"300"
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:35 am to a want
My opinion is that this is another complete disaster for this administration. The 300 Green Berets aren't going to be able to do anything at all without sufficient support. The Iraqis don't want us there and we don't want to be there.
However, this entire ordeal is an American made clusterfrick. Yes, there is blame with the Bush administration, and yes there is just as much blame with the Obama administration in the way they handled the situation. Obama knew damn good and well he wanted to get out of Iraq and even campaigned on it, but the exit strategy has been a disaster as we all knew it would be. We created this ordeal and need to fix it before the entire Middle East is complete chaos, IMO. Once the Americans feel the pain at the gas pump, the outcry will be much louder. We can't afford to let the last 10 years go to complete waste and end up in another World War that we created. Bin Laden's plan from 9-11 is still working to this day, if we let that occur.
I don't know what the answer is, but saying "frick em and let God sort them out" is not the answer, IMO.
However, this entire ordeal is an American made clusterfrick. Yes, there is blame with the Bush administration, and yes there is just as much blame with the Obama administration in the way they handled the situation. Obama knew damn good and well he wanted to get out of Iraq and even campaigned on it, but the exit strategy has been a disaster as we all knew it would be. We created this ordeal and need to fix it before the entire Middle East is complete chaos, IMO. Once the Americans feel the pain at the gas pump, the outcry will be much louder. We can't afford to let the last 10 years go to complete waste and end up in another World War that we created. Bin Laden's plan from 9-11 is still working to this day, if we let that occur.
I don't know what the answer is, but saying "frick em and let God sort them out" is not the answer, IMO.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:37 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I think they are really a rear guard to assist in the evacuation.
That makes sense.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:38 am to Sentrius
From articles that I have been reading, what we want for Iraq is not what Iraq wants for Iraq, the people that is. More and more it appears this is true. If this is about oil and not democracy then that lies on Obama's shoulders. He can fix that real quickly with that pen he carries in his pocket. Major decision time for him - continue to waste lives and money in the ME or piss off his enviro friends by opening up more drilling in the U.S.
With all the crap going on in Africa and us not being too concerned about it makes me wonder how come? Africa doesn't have anything we need? I would think that over 200 young girls being kidnapped would warrant more concern over humanitarian need than a civil war in Iraq - unless there is something more important than democracy in Iraq that fits our agenda for being there.
With all the crap going on in Africa and us not being too concerned about it makes me wonder how come? Africa doesn't have anything we need? I would think that over 200 young girls being kidnapped would warrant more concern over humanitarian need than a civil war in Iraq - unless there is something more important than democracy in Iraq that fits our agenda for being there.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:42 am to BayouBlitz
Not a fan. We "advised" them for 10 years. Nothing we teach them in a few weeks will do much good at this point.
What they need is to grow a pair of nads and fight for themselves.
What they need is to grow a pair of nads and fight for themselves.
Posted on 6/20/14 at 8:43 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
With all the crap going on in Africa and us not being too concerned about it makes me wonder how come? Africa doesn't have anything we need? I would think that over 200 young girls being kidnapped would warrant more concern over humanitarian need than a civil war in Iraq - unless there is something more important than democracy in Iraq that fits our agenda for being there.
As much as things suck over in Nigeria with Boko Haram going buck-wild, Nigeria isn't of huge geopolitical importance.
Same reason we didn't get too involved in Darfur / Sudan. They're oil producers but the problems there stay somewhat limited to the local area and do NOT rise to regional or global levels.
The problems in Iraq, OTOH, are definitely huge on a regional level and potentially rise to the global level depending on what happens with Iran.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News