Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When I think of ALL the money our country poured into Iraq the 10 years we were there as well as the soldiers who gave their lives,
I don’t think we should have completely left.
I think we should have left at least one base there with an airstrip to prevent what is happening now. Didn’t we build a huge new embassy in Baghdad? I don’t understand why we invested so much money and soldier’s lives to have it all undone. What a wasted 10 years!
 
7_Sorrows said:
When I think of ALL the money our country poured into Iraq the 10 years we were there as well as the soldiers who gave their lives,
I don’t think we should have completely left.
I think we should have left at least one base there with an airstrip to prevent what is happening now. Didn’t we build a huge new embassy in Baghdad? I don’t understand why we invested so much money and soldier’s lives to have it all undone. What a wasted 10 years!
Click to expand...
Maliki insisted that any US troops that were allowed to stay, would be under Iraqi control and would be subject to Iraqi laws.

Would you have left our troops there under those conditions ?

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Who ever is helping ISIL with support is to blame most of all and should be identified by the UN and condemned.
Click to expand...
That and $2.50 will buy you a cup of Starbucks coffee

In the mean time Iraq turns into a terrorist state with 10% of the world’s oil reserves. … great foreign policy there… :cool:
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Maliki insisted that any US troops that were allowed to stay, would be under Iraqi control and would be subject to Iraqi laws.

Would you have left our troops there under those conditions ?

Jim
Click to expand...
They were already under Iraqi laws but how could maliki control our base?
 
gilliam said:
I’m not saying who to blame here… and neither should Obama. That isn’t how you make foreign policy decisions.
Click to expand...
The only one’s Obama is blaming is the Iraqi’s. After all, the type of nation they want is theirs to determine, not ours.

Jim
 
7_Sorrows said:
They were already under Iraqi laws but how could maliki control our base?
Click to expand...
No, they were under US Military command before the departure date established with Geoge Bush.

After that date, any troops allowed to stay, would be under Iraqi control.

Also, the number of troops that would be allowed to stay, would not be large enough to stop the insurgency by ISIS.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Maliki has not provided security or other services to the Sunni areas, which has been the problem from the beginning.

It’s why ISIS forces were virtually unopposed taking those areas. The Iraqi troops who took off their uniforms and deserted, were Sunni’s who most likely, joined the ISIS side.

But, the bottom line on what Obama should do is what ?

Should our troops have stayed there under Iraqi control ?

We can not solve their problems with military force. That has been proven to be a failure and was predicted to be a failure, before we invaded.

Also, this isn’t the first surge of violence by the Sunni militias in Iraq. It took place while our troops were there. The only difference now is, our troops are no longer the targets.

Jim
Click to expand...
The very same Sunni tribal leaders that produced the “Sons of Iraq” (some 90,000 strong) to help the U.S. rout Al Quaeda from Sunni areas, are now supporting ISIS.

And, yes, a good part of it has to do with Maliki’s preference for the Shia. He purged the army brass of a good number of the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds as well. He has preferred the Shiite regions for distribution of money.

But it wasn’t that way before we left. Iranian pressure got serious when Al Sadr returned from Iran, and Maliki had no natural counterforce to that source of sectarian pressure. Iranian military are in Iraq, and have been for some years now. We had kept them out.

Iraq wasn’t “hopelessly” sectarian. It was “dangerously” sectarian. But when two well-armed foreign groups bring the pressure to bear in the sectarian divide, a smallish country can’t bear up under it. That’s why Iraq needed American protection. But Obama walked away from them, and now the Islamist Sunni groups and Iran are vying for Iraq. He converted a small-area peace into a regional no-holds-barred war.

Did he see that coming? Lots and lots of people did. On the assumption he makes foreign policy decisions at all, instead of say, Valerie Jarrett, it was easy enough to see.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Which was predicted to happen if Bush invaded.

Jim
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t. The predictions were thousands of servicemen deaths, inability to beat Saddam, uprisings all over the Arab world. But those were minority views, not those of most of the Democrats in Congress, let alone the Repubs.

Those who opposed the continuation of the war weren’t predicting an ISIS/Iranian war as a result of it. At least none that ever made any kind of headlines in the mainstream left wing press.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
No, they were under US Military command before the departure date established with Geoge Bush.

After that date, any troops allowed to stay, would be under Iraqi control.

Also, the number of troops that would be allowed to stay, would not be large enough to stop the insurgency by ISIS.

Jim
Click to expand...
No.

The status of forces agreement had run out. Maliki tried to negotiate a new one, but Obama refused to negotiate and walked away from it. Pointless of Maliki in retrospect to have even tried. He should have realized Obama was going to walk away no matter what.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No it wasn’t. The predictions were thousands of servicemen deaths, inability to beat Saddam, uprisings all over the Arab world. But those were minority views, not those of most of the Democrats in Congress, let alone the Repubs.

Those who opposed the continuation of the war weren’t predicting an ISIS/Iranian war as a result of it. At least none that ever made any kind of headlines in the mainstream left wing press.
Click to expand...
The prediction by experts on the Middle East is what we are seeing.

Also, we lost 4000 troops in Iraq, so the prediction of thousands of servicemen deaths is also true, but what’s worse is that it was known that in the end, they would have died in vain.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Maliki insisted that any US troops that were allowed to stay, would be under Iraqi control and would be subject to Iraqi laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is really what it came down to. The US insisted that its troops not be subject to the courts of Iraq for any crimes they may commit there. Maliki insisted that such immunity be taken away. This was an impasse that neither Bush nor Obama were able to overcome.

Maliki was responding to strong public pressure, after several high profile incidents in which an American servicemen was sent back to the US to stand trial. Apparently Maliki didn’t think he could buck public opinion on that issue.
 
Maliki no doubt is working with Iran, the tribal leaders who have worked with Isis were not looking for a extreme Islamic state. Had this been the case they wouldn’t have allowed the Iraq military captured to go free, which they did. Almost all of the non-Shia officials have publically spoken about their powerlessness. They claim they do not want a radical Islamic state nor has it ever been a reality. They have sided with Isis to force Maliki into a fair state policy. The Iran intervention changes the scope.

Its really up to Maliki which I have to believe is why Obama put this on hold for a couple days.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Maliki has not provided security or other services to the Sunni areas, which has been the problem from the beginning.
Click to expand...
The decision to completely dismantle the Iraqi military and infrastructure, and build it up again from scratch was a foolish decision on the part of the West.

Completely dismantling a strong Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) and replacing it with a weak, puppet regime, which was reliant on direct military support from the West has led to a power vacuum when the West pulled out. Power vacuums will always be filled.

This problem has its roots in the decision of the USA (with its ally the UK) to go in to remove a strong regime (that wasn’t actually threatening the West) under spurious justification (WMDs that didn’t exist) remove that regime and then go about completely dismantling the military infrastructure afterwards.

Perhaps it’s time to do some serious thinking about who our actual allies in that regime ought to be. Did we choose the wrong side in the Syrian conflict? Has our backing of the anti-Assad led to the emergence of ISIS as a powerful and dangerous force?

There’s a good article in The Telegraph on this.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10892615/A-powerful-and-merciless-force-has-emerged-on-the-world-stage.html?fb

We certainly have a track record of backing rebel forces in conflicts in that region that turn out to present a serious threat to our security. Should we really be viewing the likes of Assad as an enemy or as a force for stability in the region?
 
Brendan_64 said:
The decision to completely dismantle the Iraqi military and infrastructure, and build it up again from scratch was a foolish decision on the part of the West.

Completely dismantling a strong Iraqi regime (Saddam Hussein) and replacing it with a weak, puppet regime, which was reliant on direct military support from the West has led to a power vacuum when the West pulled out. Power vacuums will always be filled.

This problem has its roots in the decision of the USA (with its ally the UK) to go in to remove a strong regime (that wasn’t actually threatening the West) under spurious justification (WMDs that didn’t exist) remove that regime and then go about completely dismantling the military infrastructure afterwards.

Perhaps it’s time to do some serious thinking about who our actual allies in that regime ought to be. Did we choose the wrong side in the Syrian conflict? Has our backing of the anti-Assad led to the emergence of ISIS as a powerful and dangerous force?

There’s a good article in The Telegraph on this.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10892615/A-powerful-and-merciless-force-has-emerged-on-the-world-stage.html?fb

We certainly have a track record of backing rebel forces in conflicts in that region that turn out to present a serious threat to our security. Should we really be viewing the likes of Assad as an enemy or as a force for stability in the region?
Click to expand...
Agreed ! 👍

Jim
 
Iran Deploys Quds Forces To Support Iraqi Troops, Helps Retake Most Of Tikrit
Click to expand...
In a stunning development that threatens to further destabilize the Middle East, Iran has deployed an elite unit of its Revolutionary Guard to help the Iraqi government take on ISIS, the Sunni militant group that has seized several areas in the northern part of the country.
Click to expand...
Two battalions of the Quds Forces are already making progress in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the Wall Street Journal reported. The militant group took control of Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit on Wednesday, but Revolutionary Guard and Iraqi troops overtook 85 percent of the city on Thursday, Iraqi and Iranian security forces told the paper.
Click to expand...
Iran, which is dominated by Shiites, has close ties to Iraq’s Shiite-led government. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called ISIS “an extremist, terrorist group that is acting savagely” during an appearance on state television, Al Jazeera reported. “For our part, as the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran … we will combat violence, extremism and terrorism in the region and the world.”
Click to expand...
ibtimes.com/iran-deploys-quds-forces-support-iraqi-troops-helps-retake-most-tikrit-1599766
Click to expand...
Will the events lead the world into WWIII?

Jim
 
You do have to question our intelligence (both in terms of our intelligence services and the grey matter of our political leaders and their advisers). We might have superior military muscle, but are the long-term consequences of our actions actually considered? Or are our politicians simply interested in sending in troops and winning a war during their term of office with little regard for what the future ramifications are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top