[smoothy]

Exactly... a certain group of people didn't learn THAT lesson after Vietnam either...

[talaniman]

There was no victory to be had in Iraq, just a regional destabilization, that cost trillions and many lives. Even more trillions, and lives to maintain. The lesson of Vietnam was stay the freak out of foreign countries. This western notion of dominance through military might has been disproved yet again in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and there is no winning in either unless we stop half stepping and send in a realforce and NOT just a small band of volunteers.

Surges are but a feel good, temporary quick fix, that is unsustainable over the long haul, in both reusing worn out troops and money. I say let these countries clean up their own mess because whatever side we take is the wrong one. That's how you got Saddam in the first place, and the Shah of Iran. Have you guys forgotten that too?

[tomder55]

You may be satisfied with radical jihadistan AQ army taking over large sections of Iraq but I think it is a national security issue. Victory was had . All that we needed to do to finish the work was to renew the Status of Forces Agreement .(SOFA) But the emperor had already decided to bug out ;and his poodle Evita set up a convenient excuse to not renewing it .
Had we stayed ,the US would've had the assets in place to not only stop this AQ offensive ;but to prevent them from taking over the anti-Assad rebellion.

[talaniman]

Malachi wanted full control of US forces we would have there and that's UNACCEPTABLE Tom. He has done nothing but purge the sunnis, and ISIS is NOT AQ! The sunnis are not ISIS.

Now the fool Malachi is begging for US troops. And you hawks want to get back involved with this tribal BS all over again? Backing shia's against sunni's is NOT victory, or a win for us no matter how scared you are of the boogey man ISIS faction. Iran is a shia state, just so you know since the ignorance of history and setting up western friendly states in the middle east seems to be lost on McCain and the rest of you warhawks.

Without a power sharing government by both sunni's and shia's you waste your time in Iraq, and better start getting foreign contractors the hell out. Malachi and his tactics have to go!!

[tomder55]

and ISIS is NOT AQ!

you're right . They broke off from AQ because AQ wasn't radical enough for them . But think about it . AQ's goal is the creation a califate in the Ummah. The modest goal of ISIS is to create a califate in the Levant.
You don't see any national interest there ? Well since you insist on putting every road block you can think of for the goal of national energy independence then you should consider it a major national security concern.

Funny how Malki was able to live with a SOFA arrangement in 2007 /2008? What changed ? Oh yeah ;we have a different POTUS ;one who made it quite clear to Malki that he was bugging the US out .
Given that change ,Malki had NO OTHER OPTION than to turn to Iran for security . Did you think that would come without a quid pro quo ?
The quid pro quo was the Shiafication of Iraq governance and the renaging of the revenue sharing deals that we brokered .
Yeah the Sunnis have a reason to be pissed . They helped us defeat the radical jihadists in Northern Iraq and now they are sold down the river. So it shouldn't be a suprise to you that they again align with jihadistan . Nor should it be a suprise to you that the emperor ;painted into a corner AGAIN , will make common cause with Iran to defeat ISIS .

Think about how stupid the emperor has been . When Sunni Jihadists are fighting in Syria against Iran backed Assad ;the emperor wants to arm them. Now that they are taking on Iran backed Maliki ,he will align with Iran to defeat the same Sunni Jihadists .

[tomder55]

of course the emperor could drop a hashtag or 2 on them .

[paraclete]

of course the emperor could drop a hashtag or 2 on them .

\
I see that once again Tom you think that because the US established some sort of benchmark it should stand for all time, this is of couse in line with your eighteenth century thinking, but reality says things change. The ISIS crisis could not have been forseen, if you had established a government which wasn't such a missmash it might have had a chance to succeed, but once again the armed forces of Iraq have shown their heart is not in it and if people will not fight for themselves why should you tarnish your superman image by fighting for them?

[tomder55]

I see that once again Tom you think that because the US established some sort of benchmark it should stand for all time

No not for all time .Just long enough. The French and Germans did not sign a peace treaty until 1963 . Almost 2 decades after the war ended . Imagine if Truman was the emperor and decided it was time to clock out of Europe in 1945-46. How different the continent would look today .

[paraclete]

seriously Tom I doubt WWIII would have been fought in Europe. You stayed in Europe because the Soviets were expansionary and a definite threat, it had little to do with the war that had been won. What is happening in Iraq is different. You set up a government but the process has been highjacked by the Shiites, a predictable outcome since they are the majority population. But your idealistic approach lacked the wisdom of understanding the mind of the people, with no history of democracy they just drifted back to their old ways of suppressing and oppressing the opposition. An insurrection like ISIS can only gain strength when a population is oppressed, Bush's democratic utopia was not found or founded in Iraq. If Syria had not happened this would not have happened. Blame shiia Islam not Obama

[tomder55]

You stayed in Europe because the Soviets were expansionary and a definite threat, it had little to do with the war that had been won

Yes the Soviet threat was there .Still ,the Elysée Treaty between 2 mortal enemies ( ending a century long enmity between Germany and France ) was a necessary post war reconciliation and it would not have happened if we did not nuture it .

[paraclete]

Hmmm! force it more likely and the aftermath, the EU, like we really needed that.

What I see is that your meddling accounts for a lot of what is wrong in the world, I'm glad you stayed out of Syria and if Iraq falls as a consequence it will be because the people want it that way.

You have to get this in perspective, the Middle East will be fought over for centuries as it has in centuries past, why eludes us except to say the arabs are revolting, a many faceted truth

[tomder55]

I already addressed the reason .Since our idiot leaders refuse to make a major push to energy independence ,then securing the world's energy supply is a national security concern. We cannot allow jihadistan to have a steady source of oil wealth to pay for their war against the non-Islamic world .

[paraclete]

really, you have alturistic motives and all this time I thought it was about profit

[tomder55]

I make no money from the oil industry . But every industry in American depends on a steady source of energy.

[paraclete]

why use your own resources when yuo can profit from someoneelse

[tomder55]

because you then become dependent on them .

[tomder55]

as an example .... June 3 ,just days before the ISIS launched it's offensive in northern Iraq , Putin invited Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal to see him and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Sochi .The Saudi Press Agency then reported June 10 that Lavrov and al-Faisal had a follow-up phone conversation to discuss a" Syrian settlement".
I don't think it is a coincidence that the offensive launched shortly after the meeting . Because of the threat imposed by the attack ,the price of the Breton crude shot up to $113 /bbl. which is in both Russia and the Saudi's interest . Having the US attention diverted from Ukraine also is in the Russian interests ....And, it's in the Saudi's interest to weaken Iraq and by extension Iran.
Why do we want to do any business with any of these skunks ? Because of energy dependence.

[Catsmine]

It's another mistake by a former President resurrected again! 275 (Military Advisers) troops are being sent to aid the embassy in (Saigon) Baghdad.
Obama Sends Troops to Assist Iraq Embassy, Weighs Strikes - Bloomberg

Carter's Economy
Nixon's coverups
FDR's CCC

What's next? Grant's Reconstruction?

[tomder55]

it's all part of our rapprochement with the 12'ers in Tehran . The quid pro quo for their assistance in putting down the ISIS threat will be recognition of the legitimacy of the Persian nuke. ( I still predict that the emperor will do a Nixonian visit to Tehran before leaving office. ) .

[tomder55]

American intelligence on Iraq has eroded dramatically since Obama withdrew the last U.S. troops from the country at the end of 2011, according to the U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to discuss intelligence matters or internal policy discussions publicly.
Since then, they said, U.S. military and intelligence agencies increasingly have relied on the Iraqi military and government and on public sources for reporting on Sunni insurgent groups such as ISIL and Shiite militias, most of them backed by Iran. Many of the reports on Sunni groups, said two officials, have proved to be exaggerated, while those on Shiite forces and the role of Iran’s Quds Force and intelligence services in supporting them have been sketchy at best.

that was a predictable outcome of our cut and run .