- This topic has 5 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
The collapse of Iraqi forces in the face of ISIS insurgents in the current offensive in Iraq is an object example of the truth of Napoleons maxim that “in war, the moral is to the material as three is to one.” All the modern weapons and training in the world will not help the Iraqis if their soldiers are not willing to stand and fight.From the Washington Post – Insurgents in northern Iraq seize key cities, advance toward Baghdad
Not that we have to turn this political (even though it has obvious political ramifications), but I'm curious to see how this will be portrayed. Bush did not give a definite timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and this was a major reason for the political shift to Democratic power in 2008. Whether people agreed or disagreed with him, we can say for sure that Bush was committed to the fight in Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have crafted his own image as one of “withdrawer”. IMO, this could be a huge issue. If Iraqi cities start falling one by one, what will Obama do? It's such a thorny issue since he is unlikely to commit more troops, yet at the same time could preside over the negation of prior U.S. gains (and perhaps even a strengthened Iran). Will this be a case of Republicans saying “I told you so” to Democrats, and especially to Obama? Or will Democrats take the predictable road of blaming Bush to deflect criticism?
Apparently the Iraqi PM has requested US air support and was denied it by the Obama Admin. I would guess Obama will either ignore the collapse of Iraq or try to blame it on the Iraqi government (not there is not some blame there). The major part of the blame lies in us leaving before Iraq was truly stabilized.
I heard James Carville talk on Fox News yesterday, and while I normally wouldn't be overly persuaded by what he has to say, he did raise some valid points that got me thinking. We knew that sooner or later, Iraq was going to have to stand on its own feet. No amount of U.S. dollars would keep it afloat in any real sense. I don't know how many people expected Iraq's collapse to come this soon, if that is indeed what will happen, but it may be the result of a nation's lack of preparation or willingness to get its act together. Further, this isn't just a U.S. problem, but a world problem. This is Europe's problem as well. I believe the U.S. has spend over $1 trillion on Iraq, and there needs to be a limit on U.S. involvement. Other countries need to step up.With that said, I still think that if Iraq is overrun, this will be one of the biggest blunders of an already blunder-filled term for Obama.
What is surprising is that Iraq resisted during the Iran-Iraq war (or atleast get a stalemate) but not anymore today.I wonder why
What is surprising is that Iraq resisted during the Iran-Iraq war (or atleast get a stalemate) but not anymore today.I wonder why
Would it have to do with the fact that Iran-Iraq was not primarily a Muslim vs. Non-Muslim struggle, whereas with the current situation it is? Or simply the fact that the present Iraqi government may not have been very organic or internally-inspired, but instead reflected the ideals of the West?
How is the current fight a muslim vs non-muslim fight? The ISIS forces are Sunni while the government forces are mainly Shiite.
On a very real level, the success of Iraq means the success of the United States and of western ideals which oppose radical Islam. I imagine this concept is familiar to all Iraqis and to Al-Qaeda/ISIS; perhaps the Iraqi government is even seen as a pawn in the plan of the United States. Because of the close link between Iraq and the U.S., I'm guessing that ISIS is portraying it as a battle between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What is happening is no surprise. We went in and tried to nation build when we should have just went in and toppled Saddam and then pulled out. Who cares whether Iraq is stable or what government rules so long as they no longer have a military as powerful as Saddam's and a means to threaten our oil interests or Israel.
I would not characterize an ISIS victory as a defeat for American ideals. Anybody who has paid attention to what has gone on in Iraq understands that there was always very little of true democracy in Iraq. Maliki was always the lesser of two evils and was never truly democratic, he was someone who we hoped would not be as oppressive. A hope that was misplaced. We replaced the Sunni Hussein with the SHiite Maliki, so essentially one repressor for another. I have never understood why we thought there was someone who could bridge the ethnic tensions in Iraq, that is definitely a bridge too far.What I find especially interesting about the current battles in notice that ISIS is avoiding the Kurdish controlled areas. I also predict that Baghdad is as far as ISIS will get and they will not take it. ISIS wil be limited to control of ethnically Sunni areas. What they will achieve is the effective triple partition of Iraq.
I would not characterize an ISIS victory as a defeat for American ideals. Anybody who has paid attention to what has gone on in Iraq understands that there was always very little of true democracy in Iraq. Maliki was always the lesser of two evils and was never truly democratic, he was someone who we hoped would not be as oppressive.
Call it what you will, but it is definitely becoming a defeat of American foreign policy, and I consider this policy to be embedded with American ideals on some level. I'm not claiming that we set up America Lite in the Middle East, but that American interests are generally served with the present Iraqi government in control.
What is happening is no surprise. We went in and tried to nation build when we should have just went in and toppled Saddam and then pulled out. Who cares whether Iraq is stable or what government rules so long as they no longer have a military as powerful as Saddam's and a means to threaten our oil interests or Israel.
Do you honestly think it would have benefited the U.S. to topple Saddam and then leave? Not only could that put Iraq in turmoil and given it into the political hands of a Taliban-like regime, but it would have put the U.S. in a morally thorny situation. I think the real question is still whether we should have invaded in the first place. Not only did that choice lead to the potential collapse we are seeing now, but it also effectively handed America over to the power of leftists by shifting political power. Hindsight is 20/20, though.
A foriegn policy defeat, oh yes. Not a defeat of American ideals. The two things are mutually exclusive.I think Donnie has a point to an extent. Except I think if we were going to stay then we by God should have fight to won and imposed a true democracy while at the same time actually defeating the insurgent/terrorists instead of driving them underground until we left. Of course, that would have required us to do terror better than they did, which we could have easily done. We had the intelligence and firepower to do so, but not the ruthlessness or will.
