Netanyahu, Bolton, team neo-con were absolute failures on Iraq. It empowered Iran, and created ISIS

[Contra-dictator]

Thanks Obama.

The JayVee Team!

 

[lfd0311]

Bush admin put in place the withdrawl timeline ; it's called the Status of Forces agreement. Obama just followed through with the plan that Bush signed off on.

So the fact that it was clearly not feasible and needed to be done away with is to be ignored?

 

[lfd0311]

You know it is honestly kind of nuts when you think about the series of events that had to unfold for Iran to end up with a land corridor from Iran to Lebanon.

10 years ago I would have said someone is insane if they thought Iran could defeat Israel in a war.

With Shiite Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, being reunited as the middle East's imperial boarders decay, and 7 years of battle in Syria hardening and battle testing Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard, combined with PMU forces in Iraq, it is almost hard to envision how Israel would win that war.

With Western Troops and that massive arms deal that we just did with the Saudis.

 

[MicroBrew]

So the fact that it was clearly not feasible and needed to be done away with is to be ignored?

Most Americans were sick of the war. Obama campaigned on pulling the troops out. No one expected ISIS to emerge.
If Obama had kept the troops there, he would be criticized for not only revering his campaign promise but going back on the Bush admin's withdrawl plans.

And how long was he supposed to keep troops there; before ISIS emerged it would have seemed like an open ended occupation with no end in sight if he said he was keeping the troops.

 

[lfd0311]

Most Americans were sick of the war. Obama campaigned on pulling the troops out. No one expected ISIS to emerge.

That's patently false. Literally everyone who had a modicum of experience in the region, from a simple ground pounder like me all the way up to the highest ranking generals and members of the intelligence community knew without reservation that what happened was the only possible outcome if we pulled US troops out of Iraq.

If Obama had kept the troops there, he would be criticized for not only revering his campaign promise but going back on the Bush admin's withdrawl plans.

By who? So the only sensible thing to do was pull out and watch in a detached manner as all we had worked for for a decade collapsed in violence and jihadists rampaged across the country decapitating children?

And how long was he supposed to keep troops there; before ISIS emerged it would have seemed like an open ended occupation with no end in sight if he said he was keeping the troops.

No it didn't. I'd really like to know what you were reading that was giving you the impression that Iraq was a country that was able to stand on it's own, or that that opinion was somehow a consensus outside of the Obama Campaign. It was plainly obvious to everyone that that government could not stand on it's own, and that it's military was not going to be able to support itself in any capacity for any amount of time past our withdrawl.

EDIT: and we should have stayed indeffinently. That was what was required, and it's what should have been done.

 

[VivaRevolution]

With Western Troops and that massive arms deal that we just did with the Saudis.

It is hard for me to imagine what event would have to occur, for the majority of the American people to support troops on the ground in Iran.

 

[VivaRevolution]

So the fact that it was clearly not feasible and needed to be done away with is to be ignored?

It is what he ran on, and he never actually fully withdrew. We still have thousands of troops in iraq, and afganistan.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That's patently false. Literally everyone who had a modicum of experience in the region, from a simple ground pounder like me all the way up to the highest ranking generals and members of the intelligence community knew without reservation that what happened was the only possible outcome if we pulled US troops out of Iraq.



By who? So the only sensible thing to do was pull out and watch in a detached manner as all we had worked for for a decade collapsed in violence and jihadists rampaged across the country decapitating children?




No it didn't. I'd really like to know what you were reading that was giving you the impression that Iraq was a country that was able to stand on it's own, or that that opinion was somehow a consensus outside of the Obama Campaign. It was plainly obvious to everyone that that government could not stand on it's own, and that it's military was not going to be able to support itself in any capacity for any amount of time past our withdrawl.

EDIT: and we should have stayed indeffinently. That was what was required, and it's what should have been done.

But withdrawal is proving what was necessary for Iraq to move forward. The PMU forces, and Kurdish forces, have proven themselves effective. Surprise, Surprise, but the Sunni Iraqi military surrendered to the Sunni ISIS, and they controlled that area. Seems to me though, that ISIS has been state supported from the get go. Perhaps we should start asking who was arming al-nusra and ISIS, instead of worrying about the Shiites who are propping up Syria and shiite Iraq, contributing to stability in the region, unlike many others.

 

[lfd0311]

But withdrawal is proving what was necessary for Iraq to move forward. The PMU forces, and Kurdish forces, have proven themselves effective. Surprise, Surprise, but the Sunni Iraqi military surrendered to the Sunni ISIS, and they controlled that area. Seems to me though, that ISIS has been state supported from the get go. Perhaps we should start asking who was arming al-nusra and ISIS, instead of worrying about the Shiites who are propping up Syria and shiite Iraq, contributing to stability in the region, unlike many others.

I wouldn't say the Sunni Military "surrendered" to ISIS per se. What the Iraqi military in essence was was a conglomeration of tribal and regional militias that never really worked together or saw each other as parts of the same whole all stood up under the umbrella of being part of this entity we called the "Iraqi Army". It wasn't. It was never anything like a cohesive western military that had a structured heirarchy. So when ISIS came into the country, in large part with the help of the very same tribal elders who were in charge of the local Sunni Militias, those militias offered no resistence. They were simply not going to fight other Sunnis on behalf of a Shia Government that didn't support or care about them in any way and was openly attempting to cut them out of the diplomatic process. When you finally started to see the Iraqi Army forces stiffen and fight back was when ISIS got into the Shia territories and the fighting was Shia Iraqis fighting Sunni ISIS members.


ISIS is State Sponsored. It's sponsored by the Saudis. They're pretty open about that. They've trained funded and harbored them. The Sunni majority in Syria gave them a safe haven during the surge and allowed them to heal and regroup, eventually taking over the country.

EDIT: And I don't see withdrawl as a neccessary in any way. US troops continuously in Iraq probably prevents the Syrian Civil War and the collapse of the Ghadaffi Government.

 

[lfd0311]

It is what he ran on, and he never actually fully withdrew. We still have thousands of troops in iraq, and afganistan.

He never got the chance because of ISIS. Whether he promised that or not, he knew what would happen if he left, and he chose to do it anyway. You can't simply dismiss that with "well, he campaigned on it, so....."

 

[lfd0311]

It is hard for me to imagine what event would have to occur, for the majority of the American people to support troops on the ground in Iran.

I agree, but the majority of Americans disagree with our continued involvement in Syria, and I bet we get slowly sucked in there the way we did in Vietnam.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I wouldn't say the Sunni Military "surrendered" to ISIS per se. What the Iraqi military in essence was was a conglomeration of tribal and regional militias that never really worked together or saw each other as parts of the same whole all stood up under the umbrella of being part of this entity we called the "Iraqi Army". It wasn't. It was never anything like a cohesive western military that had a structured heirarchy. So when ISIS came into the country, in large part with the help of the very same tribal elders who were in charge of the local Sunni Militias, those militias offered no resistence. They were simply not going to fight other Sunnis on behalf of a Shia Government that didn't support or care about them in any way and was openly attempting to cut them out of the diplomatic process. When you finally started to see the Iraqi Army forces stiffen and fight back was when ISIS got into the Shia territories and the fighting was Shia Iraqis fighting Sunni ISIS members.


ISIS is State Sponsored. It's sponsored by the Saudis. They're pretty open about that. They've trained funded and harbored them. The Sunni majority in Syria gave them a safe haven during the surge and allowed them to heal and regroup, eventually taking over the country.

EDIT: And I don't see withdrawl as a neccessary in any way. US troops continuously in Iraq probably prevents the Syrian Civil War and the collapse of the Ghadaffi Government.

You kill me. Your 3 sentence posts make me want to strangle you through the internet. When pushed, you show you understand things quite well.

Not sure how you are pro-Israel with your pragmatic view of things. They don't bring anything to the table.

 

[lfd0311]

You kill me. Your 3 sentence posts make me want to strangle you through the internet. When pushed, you show you understand things quite well.

Not sure how you are pro-Israel with your pragmatic view of things. They don't bring anything to the table.

I see what many people see as complex issues as pretty uncomplicated. Israel takes tons of flack for really being the only reasonable and pragmatic entity in the region from my point of view.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I see what many people see as complex issues as pretty uncomplicated. Israel takes tons of flack for really being the only reasonable and pragmatic entity in the region from my point of view.

But what does having a reasonable and pragmatic ally in the region gain you, when they are the cause of a intifada?

 

[lfd0311]

But what does having a reasonable and pragmatic ally in the region gain you, when they are the cause of a intifada?

Here is the problem. To blame it solely on Israel is an incredibley biased and narrow view of the situation. Islam and the Palestinians are just as much to blame, and are a major contributor to not only it's continuation, but to Israel's growing as powerful as they are in the region.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Here is the problem. To blame it solely on Israel is an incredibley biased and narrow view of the situation. Islam and the Palestinians are just as much to blame, and are a major contributor to not only it's continuation, but to Israel's growing as powerful as they are in the region.

I'm not talking from a blame perspective. I mean from a strategic one.

They have a net negative value as a strategic ally. It isn't in American interests to continue this level of support for israel.

 

[lfd0311]

I'm not talking from a blame perspective. I mean from a strategic one.

They have a net negative value as a strategic ally. It isn't in American interests to continue this level of support for israel.

What other country in the region is a real, true potential ally that can be controlled? Secondly, it's a Western style government in a region that had previously never seen Western Democracy before. It's in our interests to see that survive and thrive.

 

[Ruprecht]

The idea that Muqtada Al Sadr is pro Saudi is frankly absurd. He may differ with Iran on what Iraq's relationship with the Saudi's should be, and he might disagree with Iran on several things, but he is far from anti Iranian. Al Sadr is still in the position he's in because of no one other than Iran.

Iran undercut al-Sadr in the end though. His power had extended beyond his own tribal group with the Mahdi army, but when the Khazali group left the Mahdi Army and Iran began to exert direct influence through the "special groups" his influenced severely waned.
He's running a populist movement at the moment which harkens back to his fathers, and which is similarly nationalist and arabist (which is inherently against "persian" influence) in nature. He's been calling out all of the Iran backed individuals/groups as "foreigners". Relying on his position as a political outsider to criticise the establishment and call for anti-corruption reforms.
It's a familiar story in global politics at the moment...

 

[Happy Man]

Lol at the Shiite Al-Sadr being anti-Iranian, and pro-Saudi.

Never said he was pro Saudi. Said he talked to them.

And he is anti Iranian. So much so that Solemani has been talking with Abadi and Maliki on how to form a governing coalition that sidelines Sadr.

That'd piss him off lol.

 

[lfd0311]

Iran undercut al-Sadr in the end though. His power had extended beyond his own tribal group with the Mahdi army, but when the Khazali group left the Mahdi Army and Iran began to exert direct influence through the "special groups" his influenced severely waned.
He's running a populist movement at the moment which harkens back to his fathers, and which is similarly nationalist and arabist (which is inherently against "persian" influence) in nature. He's been calling out all of the Iran backed individuals/groups as "foreigners". Relying on his position as a political outsider to criticise the establishment and call for anti-corruption reforms.
It's a familiar story in global politics at the moment...

I'm not denying that. Claiming he's doing that to snuggle up to the must radical Sunni extremist nation on the planet is a bit of a stretch.