- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Please Educate Me On The Situation In Iraq
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:57 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:57 am to Darth_Vader
a decrease in violence does not equal becoming a stabilized democracy.
That nation is tribal, even Saddam was loyal to his tribe.
They can at best have some sort of confederacy, but they need a strong hand. They will forever be a house divided among itself, and cannot stand.
They are not going to be a stable Western democracy in our lifetime.
Our (American leadership) biggest problem with the middle East is that we approach it wearing blinders. Our leaders think that if it works for us, it will work for them.
Democracy is very young (modern I know about Greece), and these cultures and tribes are very old. Their ways don't mesh with Democracy. The best course would to be to split Iraq up and let it be a confederacy.
That nation is tribal, even Saddam was loyal to his tribe.
They can at best have some sort of confederacy, but they need a strong hand. They will forever be a house divided among itself, and cannot stand.
They are not going to be a stable Western democracy in our lifetime.
Our (American leadership) biggest problem with the middle East is that we approach it wearing blinders. Our leaders think that if it works for us, it will work for them.
Democracy is very young (modern I know about Greece), and these cultures and tribes are very old. Their ways don't mesh with Democracy. The best course would to be to split Iraq up and let it be a confederacy.
2
Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:59 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The country was on the verge of becoming a stabilized democracy when two things happened....
1. Obama pulled out the troops
2. Obama totally disengaged from Iraq diplomatically at the highest levels.
3. (Most importantly) the Syrian civil war kicked off
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:02 am to DrTyger
quote:
1. Everything our military worked so hard for since 1959 is now going to shite.
FIFY - OH Wait we are talking Iraq, sorry thought we were talking Vietnam
:beatdeadhorse:
I guess there is a learning curve even for America
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:04 am to Napoleon
quote:
You have uneducated, extremist people who fit far better in the middle ages than they do in this century. We should learn from their dictators in the past, you have to rule them with an iron fist. If you let off repression, you have Iran in the late 70's. And if you get involved, you're seen as the Satan like Iran in the late 70's. --VegasBengal on Poliboard
I think this is 100% accurate.
In an elitist way.
"They are not civilized enough for democracy"
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:05 am to Napoleon
quote:
a decrease in violence does not equal becoming a stabilized democracy.
It was more than a "decrease". The country was on the verge of becoming integrated and stabilized. The held elections and saw participation on levels we've not ever been able to achieve in our own country.
quote:
That nation is tribal, even Saddam was loyal to his tribe.
They can at best have some sort of confederacy, but they need a strong hand. They will forever be a house divided among itself, and cannot stand.
They are not going to be a stable Western democracy in our lifetime.
Our (American leadership) biggest problem with the middle East is that we approach it wearing blinders. Our leaders think that if it works for us, it will work for them.
Democracy is very young (modern I know about Greece), and these cultures and tribes are very old. Their ways don't mesh with Democracy. The best course would to be to split Iraq up and let it be a confederacy.
If that happens, there will be another Taliban type situation in that extreme Islamist will have control of a country. Except this time instead of them controlling a 12th century backwater, they will sit astride the heart of the Arab world. Furthermore, if Iraqi splits like many are saying, there will very likely be a regional war that could pull in Iran, turkey, and Saudi Arabia as well.
I agree that ideally there should be a "strong man" to keep the masses in check. They are not ready for full blown democracy. But in 2009-2011 they were moving in that direction. During that time frame there was very little violence in Iraq. But we pulled our troops out and we had a president who for all intents and purposes turned his back on Iraqi. He was warned back then that this would happen and now it has.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:06 am to TigersSEC2010
There is reason for the Sunni / Ai-Qaeda / ISIS assisted stand up in North Iraq.
The government we helped emplace was headed up by a good man who happened to be Shia. The problem with the prime minister is that he is a dependent of Muktar Al Sadr, leader of the Jayish Al Mahadi (JAM) was in control over his constituents and was the biggest threat to ANY Sunni politician, Sunni Mosque and also a threat to the US Army.
Roll forward to 2014: Al Sadr has been in Iran gaining Cleric status, so upon his return he can add the ability to write religous sects and directives to his already amassed money, guns and fighters, who are labeled the "freedom Brigade" for now, only because they've been dormant during the US withdrawal and awaiting the return of their leader.
ISIS / Sunnis are being proactive now to avoid being reactive later basically. NOT ALL Sunnis support the movement, but none want to be a target, and none want a Shia Prime Minister either.
Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police was created in 2005 by the US. We placed Shia Soldiers / Cops in Sunni areas and vice-versa. Probably wasn't a good idea for an early troop withdrawal, but it did eliminate green on blue violence and created more trust between Iraqi security forces and the US.
If you don't believe or care in what you are protecting you won't protect it basically. THat is what happened. You can't instill that in a foreign country where religious boundaries mean more than government boundaries.
The government we helped emplace was headed up by a good man who happened to be Shia. The problem with the prime minister is that he is a dependent of Muktar Al Sadr, leader of the Jayish Al Mahadi (JAM) was in control over his constituents and was the biggest threat to ANY Sunni politician, Sunni Mosque and also a threat to the US Army.
Roll forward to 2014: Al Sadr has been in Iran gaining Cleric status, so upon his return he can add the ability to write religous sects and directives to his already amassed money, guns and fighters, who are labeled the "freedom Brigade" for now, only because they've been dormant during the US withdrawal and awaiting the return of their leader.
ISIS / Sunnis are being proactive now to avoid being reactive later basically. NOT ALL Sunnis support the movement, but none want to be a target, and none want a Shia Prime Minister either.
Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police was created in 2005 by the US. We placed Shia Soldiers / Cops in Sunni areas and vice-versa. Probably wasn't a good idea for an early troop withdrawal, but it did eliminate green on blue violence and created more trust between Iraqi security forces and the US.
If you don't believe or care in what you are protecting you won't protect it basically. THat is what happened. You can't instill that in a foreign country where religious boundaries mean more than government boundaries.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:07 am to Darth_Vader
look at the big brain on you
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:11 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
He was warned back then that this would happen and now it has.
Because he is supposed to appeal to the ideas and wishes of his constituents. Not the ones who have opposed him since before he took office.
He in 2007 was saying he would end both wars and get us home and he is moving on that.
Yeah it's sad as hell to see all of what we did in Iraq go to shite, even sadder that the previous administration put us in the boondoggle to begin with.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:12 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
But in 2009-2011 they were moving in that direction. During that time frame there was very little violence in Iraq. But we pulled our troops out and we had a president who for all intents and purposes turned his back on Iraqi. He was warned back then that this would happen and now it has.
They wern't moving towards democracy, violence just went dormant because they were aware of the coming US withdrawal.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:17 am to Napoleon
quote:
Because he is supposed to appeal to the ideas and wishes of his constituents. Not the ones who have opposed him since before he took office.
He in 2007 was saying he would end both wars and get us home and he is moving on that.
so now presidents are supposed to govern based on polls? Imagine had Lincoln done that in 1862. You and I would be Confederate citizens.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:17 am to Hardy_Har
quote:
They wern't moving towards democracy, violence just went dormant because they were aware of the coming US withdrawal.
That's incorrect and gross oversimplification of the situation.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:31 am to Darth_Vader
Care to elaborate?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:38 am to Napoleon
I hate to admit it, but Obama has been dead right on Iraq thus far. Get out, stay out. I'm sure there will be time for him to mess that up to, but I'm not going to sit here and bash him for not immediately sending troops back to that shite hole.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:39 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
so now presidents are supposed to govern based on polls? Imagine had Lincoln done that in 1862. You and I would be Confederate citizens.
Poll =/= party ideals.
Imagine if you elected a Republican and he was a tax and spend type. Oh wait...
Or we elected a Liberal and he came out to be a big business pandering warhawk.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:40 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The held elections and saw participation on levels we've not ever been able to achieve in our own country.
while we held their hands
we couldn't do that forever. the fact that these militants have basically run through the country in a week shows you how prepared and stable they were. might as well just let it burn.
This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 11:41 am
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:42 am to TigersSEC2010
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:44 am to Napoleon
Got a question:
Are these the same terrorist group that was fighting to overthrow the Syrian regime? If so, why would we want to back/arm them when fighting in Syria - but now that they got asswhipped and turned their sights on Iraq - they're the bad guys.
I don't understand this new Obama math?
Are these the same terrorist group that was fighting to overthrow the Syrian regime? If so, why would we want to back/arm them when fighting in Syria - but now that they got asswhipped and turned their sights on Iraq - they're the bad guys.
I don't understand this new Obama math?
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:46 am to NIH
quote:
we couldn't do that forever. the fact that these militants have basically run through the country in a week shows you how prepared and stable they were. might as well just let it burn.
This.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:46 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
regardless if we shoud be there or not, I have a hard time dealing with the loss of American lives to liberate and stabalize that country to watch it fall apart again. it needs to be split of like Yugoslavia.
I am not saying we need to go back but we lost a lot there.
I am also amazed at the pussification level of the Iraqi defense forces.
I am not saying we need to go back but we lost a lot there.
I am also amazed at the pussification level of the Iraqi defense forces.
Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:49 am to Hardy_Har
quote:
Care to elaborate?
I think Marc A. Thiessen of the Washington Post does a good job of laying out the situation.....
LINK
quote:
In 2011, the situation in Iraq was so good that the Obama administration was actually trying to take credit for it, with Vice President Joe Biden declaring that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”
Now in 2014, as Iraq descends into chaos, Democrats are trying to blame the fiasco on — you guessed it — George W. Bush. “I don’t think this is our responsibility,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, declaring that the unfolding disaster in Iraq “represents the failed policies that took us down this path 10 years ago.”
Sorry, but this is a mess of President Obama’s making.
When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically.
Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces.
Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.
Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:
First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves.
Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq.
The result: When Obama took office, the terrorists had been driven from their safe havens; now they are on threatening to take control of a nation. Iraq is on the cusp of turning into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s — a safe haven from which to plan attacks on America and its allies.
It did not have to be this way. In 2011, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, recommended keeping between 14,000 and 18,000 troops in Iraq (down from 45,000). The White House rejected Austin’s recommendation, worried about “the cost and the political optics.” So our commanders reduced their request to 10,000 — a number commanders said might be able to work “in extremis.” But the White House rejected this as well, insisting the number be cut to between 3,000 to 4,000 troops — a level insufficient to provide force protection and train Iraqis, much less to counterbalance Iran.
Iraqi leaders saw that the United States has headed for the exits — and decided that the tiny U.S. force Obama was willing to leave behind was not worth the political costs of giving Americans immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi judicial system. So Iraq rejected Obama’s offer, and the United States withdrew all its forces. And now ISIS is taking back cities that were liberated with American blood. It has taken control of Mosul, Tikrit and Tal Afar and is nearing the outskirts of Baghdad.
ISIS is not the only U.S. enemy taking advantage of power vacuum Obama left in the region. So is Iran. A month ago, Iraqi leaders asked the United States to carry out air strikes against ISIS positions but were rebuffed by Obama. So the Iraqis have turned to Iran for help. This weekend, the brutal commander of Iran’s notorious Quds Force, Gen. Quasim Suleiman, flew to Baghdad to advise the Iraqis on the defense of Baghdad. This is the man who organized and funded the Shia militias in Iraq, and armed them with EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) — sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that killed hundreds of U.S. troops. And, if you thought matters could not get any worse, the Wall Street Journal reports that Obama “is preparing to open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents.” Yes, you read that right. Obama is planning to work with Iran to counter ISIS in Iraq. In other words, our troops may soon be providing air cover for the very Iranians who were killing them.
If Obama had listened to the advice of his commanders on the ground, ISIS would probably not be marching on Baghdad today, and Iran would not be stepping in to fill the void left by the U.S. withdrawal. Thanks to Obama, we may soon have a situation where we are helping our Shia extremist enemies (Iran) fight our Sunni extremist enemies (ISIS) for control of Iraq.
That’s quite an “achievement.”
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News