I don't post new threads very often yet I think that this could prove to be a good discussion topic. I do have a few musings that have came to me over the last couple of days. And as we are observing an ongoing event the way that we see what is and what may be will likely change over time. Nevertheless, I will start out this with a few generalizations as to where I think the theory fits into this and see where it goes.

1. This isn't an existential crises for the US. Granted it may be seen that negatively later but 1858 is not 1861. So let's just hope that the parallels end in time.
In terms of blaming Bush or Obama, It's likely that domestic turmoil will have to play itself out in time.
2. It doesn't appear to me as if at least some of the elements in Iraq security forces DON'T really identify themselves as Iraqis. Considering that Iraq is an artificial state created out of the British sphere of influence that existed at the end of World War I, that isn't too surprising. The Sunni minority within current Iraq is more interested in a Sunni state than in continuing to be a part of a 1919 era agreement between France and Britain.
3. There is a lot of spin by Tony Blair and the Bush administration officials as to why their decision to take out the former secular Iraqi strongman/dictator Saddam Hussien did not at least indirectly lead to this new middle eastern FUBAR.
4. Restating the above, the situation on the ground is subject to rapid change.

So, we are looking at a situation where there will likely be, and to a limited extent have already been, calls for new western involvement in the region. Such involvement would impact our 4T. It may be a critical part of the 4T, especially if the policy making elite draws the conclusion that a renewal of war is a way to bring about a pro western outcome. As one may guess by the 4 points that I posted above, I suspect that trying to prevent the rise of this pro Sunni movement to create a Sunni majority state out of parts of Syria and Iraq, plus maybe some other areas before it's done, could lead to another debacle similar to the second Iraqi war. We may yet replay the period from 2005 to 2008 where quagmire is the most apt term for the situation. Or maybe not.

So, bearing in mind that this situation is very fluid what direction do you see the current Iraq-Syria troubles influencing our 4T?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I don't post new threads very often yet I think that this could prove to be a good discussion topic. I do have a few musings that have came to me over the last couple of days. And as we are observing an ongoing event the way that we see what is and what may be will likely change over time. Nevertheless, I will start out this with a few generalizations as to where I think the theory fits into this and see where it goes.

1. This isn't an existential crises for the US. Granted it may be seen that negatively later but 1858 is not 1861. So let's just hope that the parallels end in time.
In terms of blaming Bush or Obama, It's likely that domestic turmoil will have to play itself out in time.
2. It doesn't appear to me as if at least some of the elements in Iraq security forces DON'T really identify themselves as Iraqis. Considering that Iraq is an artificial state created out of the British sphere of influence that existed at the end of World War I, that isn't too surprising. The Sunni minority within current Iraq is more interested in a Sunni state than in continuing to be a part of a 1919 era agreement between France and Britain.
3. There is a lot of spin by Tony Blair and the Bush administration officials as to why their decision to take out the former secular Iraqi strongman/dictator Saddam Hussien did not at least indirectly lead to this new middle eastern FUBAR.
4. Restating the above, the situation on the ground is subject to rapid change.

So, we are looking at a situation where there will likely be, and to a limited extent have already been, calls for new western involvement in the region. Such involvement would impact our 4T. It may be a critical part of the 4T, especially if the policy making elite draws the conclusion that a renewal of war is a way to bring about a pro western outcome. As one may guess by the 4 points that I posted above, I suspect that trying to prevent the rise of this pro Sunni movement to create a Sunni majority state out of parts of Syria and Iraq, plus maybe some other areas before it's done, could lead to another debacle similar to the second Iraqi war. We may yet replay the period from 2005 to 2008 where quagmire is the most apt term for the situation. Or maybe not.

So, bearing in mind that this situation is very fluid what direction do you see the current Iraq-Syria troubles influencing our 4T?

In the short run it is bringing rising gas prices back into focus. And yet, even if it hits the $5 gallon mark it probably won't change too many people's habits that much. Or will that be the tipping point? Of course there are way too many of us still who have no choice but to drive to get to their jobs and for shopping and other things. Fewer vacations taken, maybe.

I posted my thoughts on this topic on the "surge isn't working thread." Basically, I always add my awareness of the cosmic landscape and cycles to my other information of what's going on and other cycles. It is clear that the USA and its president have no appetite for a ground war at this point, and to support the current Iraq government is awkward in the extreme. The US may do something, but I don't see much power being put into it, just like it wasn't in Syria.

Obama should have given strong supports in weapons and other aid to the original Syrian Arab Spring rebels so that the jihadis from Al Qaeda-type groups had no chance to get a strong foothold there. Assad was on the verge of falling even without US aid. But Iran is aiding the Alowite Assad regime, which is Shi'a aligned, against Sunni rebels both democratic and terrorist; and Iran is also aiding the Iraqi Shi'a government against the Sunni jihadis. So we would be allies and enemies of Iran at the same time.

I doubt the USA will do much to support Iraq unless they get a new non-sectarian government. Even then, a 3-way split of Iraq isn't such a bad idea, if only the new Sunni state were less of a terrorist threat. If the USA allows this Sunni ISIL state to come into being, then diplomatic and surveillance efforts and possible drone strikes and special forces could be deployed there.

I could see definite charges of appeasement from McCain and Graham if Obama says that we will allow ISIL to exist, IF they have no further ambitions.

So this situation seems likely to simmer through the rest of the 4T, although I see some good outcomes possible at least to some of it in 2017. But more war is likely to break out again in Dec. 2020 or Jan. 2021, and the former Soviet areas could be involved too. This would likely simmer for 5 years before the USA got involved. Whoever is elected in 2024 will have to decide what to do. It is possible the Democrats may be ousted that year. However, this is the beginning year of the climax in the 4T. Revolution or Civil War could be sparked in the USA if it tries to take the country to war again. It could be a progressive 3rd Party that wins in 2024 too, or some other independent. In any case, I predict that all these matters and more will come to a head at that time.

Energy prices are going to go up. That may break the economic stalemate. Everything is dependent on energy prices. We may finally get our depression, a world wide one.

As for US involvement in the region, apart from Israel, there will be little support for military intervention. See: Syria.

The EU may be faced with it's true test as a union. Large ethnic minorities, dependency on external energy sources, and proximity to some of the violent actors. A UK/EU split might be possible.

The US will probably completely leave Afghanistan. The huge US embassy in Baghdad will need to be abandoned, finishing the Bush legacy in Iraq.

India will get sucked in, with Pakistan and Afghanistan doing the sucking.

Japan will militarize. A much larger navy, and air force are near-certainties. Japan can spin up nukes within two years.

All bets are off, with China. Too many possibilities.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...There is a lot of spin by Tony Blair and the Bush administration officials as to why their decision to take out the former secular Iraqi strongman/dictator Saddam Hussien did not at least indirectly lead to this new middle eastern FUBAR...

-Well...

Even the Teleprompter-in-Chief admitted that the US military under the Bush Administration had handled things pretty well by the time they left office (27 FEB 2009):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...he-War-in-Iraq

...Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.

To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process...

In short, today there is a renewed cause for hope in Iraq, but that hope rests upon an emerging foundation...

Huh. Looks like somethin' happened over the next 5 years.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...It doesn't appear to me as if at least some of the elements in Iraq security forces DON'T really identify themselves as Iraqis.

-Some do, some don't.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...Restating the above, the situation on the ground is subject to rapid change..

-Professionally speaking, it will be interesting to see:

1) How well ISIS does outside of Sunni majority areas;

2) How long it will take the Sunnis to get fed up with Sharia Law;

3) Whether the government can make an effective counter-attack.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...

So, we are looking at a situation where there will likely be, and to a limited extent have already been, calls for new western involvement in the region...

-Probably not. See above.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

...Such involvement would impact our 4T. It may be a critical part of the 4T, especially if the policy making elite draws the conclusion that a renewal of war is a way to bring about a pro western outcome...

-Renewal? The war didn't exactly "end" in 2011, although it had sputtered down.

BTW:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...he-War-in-Iraq

...Declining oil revenues will put an added strain on a government that has had difficulty delivering basic services...

Guess BHO solved THAT problem for them.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Well...

Even the Teleprompter-in-Chief admitted that the US military under the Bush Administration had handled things pretty well by the time they left office (27 FEB 2009)

Let's pretend that you don't actually know that military and political results are entirely different animals. Yes, we could force a faux peace by just being there (having aptly demonstrated just how lethal we are by destroying anything that got in our way). What we couldn't do then and can't do now, is create a nation from an ash heap. That entire region is nothing but an ash heap left over from WW-I. By "the entire region" I mean Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and parts of Turkey as well. If you want to really get technical, you could add Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The entire area is unstable for being unsettled within itself. The various factions, most of them both tribal and religious based, need to carve this place up to meet their needs. We can't do that. If we stay for fifty years, it will be no different when we leave.

It is a diversion facilitated by Russia.

Only fifty years? Try more like five thousand-or more.

Stay at least 2500 klicks away from Babylon. It's a basic rule.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Only fifty years? Try more like five thousand-or more.

Stay at least 2500 klicks away from Babylon. It's a basic rule.

I can't disagree with this. JDG wants what John McCain wants: a simple imposed solution that creates exactly the Middle East we want to have ... one built in our image and one not hostile to Israel. Both seem convinced that this can not only happen, but it can happen fast. Why expect that? This place has been in the civilization business longer than any other place on earth. As a species, we started being civilized right here. Humanity may have made greater progress elsewhere, but that doesn't impress the locals. Axes still need grinding and grudges still need settling. It's best to let them have at it. We can't change it and just get bloody trying.

Right. I am opposed to Obama and the United States just going in there with bombs and defending Maliki just from habit. Maybe his Shia folk are not worth defending; maybe they need to sort things out or fight things out as they have been doing for millennia. Why should we get involved?

Maybe the Sunni side in Iraq is not just a bunch of terrorists. Maybe someone can negotiate with them to see if they would be satisfied with a Sunni state in parts of Iraq and Syria, two failed states, and not a bigger caliphate. Why should the USA be on the side of Iran in one place and against them in another place next door?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's pretend that you don't actually know that military and political results are entirely different animals. Yes, we could force a faux peace by just being there (having aptly demonstrated just how lethal we are by destroying anything that got in our way)...

-"Faux peace"? That's not what Obama said:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...he-War-in-Iraq

...Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end...

...today there is a renewed cause for hope in Iraq, but that hope rests upon an emerging foundation...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...What we couldn't do then and can't do now, is create a nation from an ash heap...

-I never thought that was necessary. You just have to keep the hostiles from getting their heads above water. Historically, it's a lot easier the keep insurgents down at Stage I that to knock them back down to Stage I once they get to Stage III. That obviously didn't happen between the time the Teleprompter-in-Chief gave his little speech and now.

Que Sera Sera.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...JDG wants what John McCain wants: a simple imposed solution that creates exactly the Middle East we want to have ... one built in our image and one not hostile to Israel...

-No.

We just need an Iraq which isn't hostile to the US. They don't have to particularly love us, just not try to kill us. That is actually not that hard to accomplish.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Right. I am opposed to Obama and the United States just going in there with bombs and defending Maliki just from habit...

...IIRC, you want us to bomb the Ba'athists in Syria to defend a bunch of rebels, many of whom are hostile to us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe his Shia folk are not worth defending...

-There's a lot more evidence that the Syrian rebels aren't worth defending, yet you support them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Maybe the Sunni side in Iraq is not just a bunch of terrorists...

-No, they're the side that created a regime that oppressed the other 80%.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I never thought that was necessary. You just have to keep the hostiles from getting their heads above water. Historically, it's a lot easier the keep insurgents down at Stage I that to knock them back down to Stage I once they get to Stage III. That obviously didn't happen between the time the Teleprompter-in-Chief gave his little speech and now.

Que Sera Sera.

-No.

We just need an Iraq which isn't hostile to the US. They don't have to particularly love us, just not try to kill us. That is actually not that hard to accomplish.

Actually what happened, is the USA went to Iraq that was not hostile to it, and created an ash heap.

...IIRC, you want us to bomb the Ba'athists in Syria to defend a bunch of rebels, many of whom are hostile to us.

I am not in favor of bombing anyone, and have never said so.

-There's a lot more evidence that the Syrian rebels aren't worth defending, yet you support them.

The democratic rebels are the ones who rose up in the Arab Spring, and were shot down just for speaking out and marching. Yes, they are worth supporting.

-No, they're the side that created a regime that oppressed the other 80%.

Maybe and maybe not. It's unclear; it's a diverse group.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Actually what happened, is the USA went to Iraq that was not hostile to it, and created an ash heap...

1) The ash heap whose GDP multiplied 8 times over since 2004?

2) Iraq was not hostile to the US. Really? I guess you forgot that Saddam tried to assassinate GHW Bush (for some reason, Progressives still find this amusing, when they bother to remember it), and they were still shooting at aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. As for long term plans, Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to lift.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I am not in favor of bombing anyone, and have never said so...

-I keep forgetting. You intended to defeat the Syrian Ba'athist with pixie dust...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... The democratic rebels are the ones who rose up in the Arab Spring, and were shot down just for speaking out and marching. Yes, they are worth supporting..

-The bad guys were there, too. It's sort of hard to separate the two, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Maybe and maybe not. It's unclear; it's a diverse group.

-Well, are 100% of Sunni Iraqis evil? No. But that 20% of the population were overwhelmingly the oppressors of in Iraq until we overthrew the Ba'athists. After that (excluding foreign terrorists), I'd estimate that about 80% of the trouble in Iraq between 2003 and 2008 came from Sunni Ba'athists. There was relatively little trouble in the solidly Shi'a areas, and the three northern (Kurdish) provinces were pretty peaceful.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) The ash heap whose GDP multiplied 8 times over since 2004?

2) Iraq was not hostile to the US. Really? I guess you forgot that Saddam tried to assassinate GHW Bush (for some reason, Progressives still find this amusing, when they bother to remember it), and they were still shooting at aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. As for long term plans, Saddam was waiting for the sanctions to lift.

We could have just left him alone, as their foreign minister said. Shooting at aircraft invading their own airspace? So what? Yeah, I know, we went to war because "he tried to kill ma daddy!" Yeah, it's amusing. And "Daddy" didn't massacre thousands in Saddam's country? And put on crippling sanctions?

-I keep forgetting. You intended to defeat the Syrian Ba'athist with pixie dust...

Assad is a tyrant. The people rose up against him. Russia and Iran supplied the monster with weapons. The USA stood by and allowed a massacre to happen. What about that do you not understand?

-The bad guys were there, too. It's sort of hard to separate the two, isn't it?

Not according to the folks who know, like Ambassador Ford.

-Well, are 100% of Sunni Iraqis evil? No. But that 20% of the population were overwhelmingly the oppressors in Iraq until we overthrew the Ba'athists. After that (excluding foreign terrorists), I'd estimate that about 80% of the trouble in Iraq between 2003 and 2008 came from Sunni Ba'athists. There was relatively little trouble in the solidly Shi'a areas, and the three northern (Kurdish) provinces were pretty peaceful.

Saddam was a tyrant, but it was up to the people to rise against him and his supporters. If they had done that, like the Syrians did (and probably at the same time, the Arab Spring), then I would have favored helping them with weapons. Invading their country was just illegal and accomplished nothing. We became the enemy, and even our puppets wanted us out.

The Kurds were allowed increasing autonomy after the 1991 Gulf War. But there were both Shia and Sunni terrorists, and Iran helped the Shia ones, and they shot at Americans. It was a civil war = violence on both sides. The Sunnis were mostly excluded from power, and increasingly so. "Relatively little trouble" depends on your point of view. American and Iraqi troops were plenty of trouble for the insurgents. But yes, the "insurgents" against the US colonial government were mainly the Ba'athists, and soon Al Qaeda.

MUST-SEE VIRAL VIDEO: Jon Stewart goes after Iraq War cheerleaders

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/a6...ong-about-iraq

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-"Faux peace"?

-I never thought that was necessary. You just have to keep the hostiles from getting their heads above water. Historically, it's a lot easier the keep insurgents down at Stage I that to knock them back down to Stage I once they get to Stage III...

Your method requires the US to meddle everywhere continuously. My method is simpler: stay out of anything not affecting us directly ... where "directly" does not include intevening to protect corporate property. At that, we should only worry about the big things, since we are the elephant destined to handle big things, and we should stand by those who stand by us.

Simple rules, really.

http://azelin.files.wordpress.com/20...magazine-1.pdf
410 pages? Wow.

.Hey, GM why can't y'all have your act together like this?

http://www.freep.com/article/2014061...General-Motors

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

MUST-SEE VIRAL VIDEO: Jon Stewart goes after Iraq War cheerleaders

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/a6...ong-about-iraq

Yup.


The bomber man.



* dodo award for McCain.

Former Asst. CIA Director Michael Morell is a smart guy, and he laid out 3 possible outcomes for the Iraq mess on Charlie Rose. The first was 3-way partition. That he said would create a terrorist state that would attack America and Europe. The second was for Iraq to depend on Iran to restore itself into one country, and Iraq thereby becomes an Iranian puppet Shia dictatorship. That's a big victory for Iran; not that desirable, and makes our Sunni Gulf State allies angry and belligerent. Option 3 is to diplomatically arrange a new unity government through negotiation with Sunni Gulf State allies, Iran, and the Iraqis; then help it with supplies, training, intelligence and air strikes to drive out ISIS. The most likely option is also the least desirable option, and vice-versa. But we ought to go all out for #3.

I don't agree with air strikes. They just make people hate us. And making the soldiers hate us is not much better than making civilians hate us. People who hate us, are more likely to come after us. But Morell correctly stated that Maliki has to go, and something better has to replace him, before we can help Iraq at all. The Sunnis have zero trust in Maliki.

Just not get involved? Morell says no. Here's where he goes the most off base. He says the US must be involved because Israel is our ally and is in the region. Politically, 80% of Americans support Israel. And secondly, because oil prices would rise. Those are two completely bogus reasons. Israel has to defend itself solely because it too is an oppressor state. We should not defend it as long as it continues to be such. And certainly not use it as an excuse for getting involved in Middle East wars. And we need to get off oil now; not tomorrow. Getting out of the Middle East would be a great incentive for a crash program. There would still be enough Gulf states at peace with us, probably, as well as our own supplies, to tide us over while we shift-- and we ought to shift a lot faster than we are shifting now.

No, if we get involved, it's just to protect ourselves and our allies from terrorism. And we do that best by not being terrorists ourselves.

Eric, they lied to us 12 years ago. They said that invading Iraq would be quick, would be easy, and would be inexpensive. And that we would be “greeted as liberators.”

And now they are all over the media, saying we should have never left Iraq and blaming the Obama administration for the horrifying mess they created.

Sign the petition from CREDO and Daily Kos: Tell Iraq war cheerleaders to shut up.
http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.j...VMIPczajTxULDE
(I don't know if that url works).

Keep fighting,
Chris Bowers, Daily Kos

I agree; I signed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

..Shooting at aircraft invading their own airspace? So what? ...

-Shooting at American aircraft (i.e., YOUR aircraft) who were enforcing a cease fire agreement that the Ba'athists agreed to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...we went to war because "he tried to kill ma daddy!" Yeah, it's amusing...

-An ex-American President (i.e, YOUR President).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And "Daddy" didn't massacre thousands in Saddam's country?...

-No. He didn't. Although he did abandon them to Saddam. The Poles and Hungarians have been more forgiving.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... And put on crippling sanctions?.

-Which the UN wanted. Of course, there were plenty in the UN who benefitted from Food For Oil. One of the many reasons that the French, the Russians, and UN bureaucrats tried to keep Saddam in power.

And if the sanctions were such a big deal for you, then you should be happy that our toppling of the Ba'athist regime resulted in the ENDING of those sanctions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Saddam was a tyrant, but it was up to the people to rise against him and his supporters. If they had done that, like the Syrians did (and probably at the same time, the Arab Spring), then I would have favored helping them with weapons...

-I hope your astrological analysis is better than your memory.

The Iraqi people did rise up. Do you remember now?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Assad is a tyrant. The people rose up against him. Russia and Iran supplied the monster with weapons. The USA stood by and allowed a massacre to happen. What about that do you not understand...

-I understand that with the exception of Iran supplying weapons (substitute the French), almost the exact same circumstances pertained to Saddam in Kuwait, Desert Storm, and then the aftermath. The difference was that, unlike Syria, we were already at war with Saddam in 1991, and although there was a ceasefire in March, that the war never really ended (that's what "ceasefire" means, Eric).

I also understand that Asad hadn't spent his time shooting at US aircraft enforcing a ceasefire to which he agreed, nor did Asad attempt to assassinate an American.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not according to the folks who know, like Ambassador Ford...

Oh, Eric:

http://mideastshuffle.com/2014/06/04...-syrian-rebel/

Suffice it to say, I have remained painfully frustrated for over a year now in my continuing quest to get US officials to name these moderate Syrian rebels. I wait in hope that one US journalist in the State Department press pool decides to join this quest.

In the meantime, please, Ambassador Ford. Be a gentleman and name them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Kurds were allowed increasing autonomy after the 1991 Gulf War...

...Because we intervened as part of the ceasefire agreement, Eric. The Shi'a got screwed, and some Americans wonder why they don't entirely trust us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...But there were both Shia and Sunni terrorists, and Iran helped the Shia ones, and they shot at Americans. It was a civil war = violence on both sides... "Relatively little trouble" depends on your point of view. American and Iraqi troops were plenty of trouble for the insurgents. But yes, the "insurgents" against the US colonial government were mainly the Ba'athists, and soon Al Qaeda..

-As you get to admitting in your final sentence, they were a lot fewer Shi'a terrorists than Sunni; the Jaysh al-Mahdi and the Badr Corps weren't representative of your average Shi'a in the way that Ba'athist, Al-Qaeda, and Ansar al-Islam/Sunna represented Sunni Arabs.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...The Sunnis were mostly excluded from power, and increasingly so...

-They were making most of the trouble. Considering that the Sunni Arabs had overwhelmingly been the oppressors before we overthrew the Ba'athists, would you have put them right back in power? We didn't do that Nazi Germany, did we? We didn't do that immediately in the South after the ACW, did we? When we finally did let the ex-rebels back in power, how did that turn out?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Your method requires the US to meddle everywhere continuously...

-Not really. Iraq only required a light commitment 2008-2011, and we've largely been out since the end of 2011. Probably should have kept some special ops guys, some aviation, and a J-1 through J-7 staff there, maybe 2,000 men.

The only meddling going on now is the Obamanation screaming to get rid of Maliki, who was, like him or not, elected by Iraqis.

I was going to respond in full, but looking above, I think the one you really need to bitch about is Eric.

I'll leave it at this for now: Way back when, you argued that we should be putting more effort into killing bad guys in Afghanistan, not Iraq. When we (mostly) got out of Iraq, you suddenly decided that we should get out of Afghanistan, too. Well, ISIS is currently having a shoot-out with their former umbrella organization, Al-Qaeda, over management issues, but I doubt that will last; their goals for an Atlantic to Pacific caliphate are the same. The Obamanation has a $10 million reward on Al-Baghdadi's head. So, now that ISIS has made themselves big, fat targets in a place that we've mapped out fairly nicely, why not kill them there? If you want for the supposed "moderates" in Syria to get a boost, this would give them a leg up against ISIS.

Do you think not doing so will make ISIS your friend?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... I don't agree with air strikes. They just make people hate us...

-Oh. I guess so. Guess what. ISIS already hates infidels. Nothing we can do about that except die, convert, or pay the tax.

Article in the Economist, June 14th-20th '14th. States that ISIS is setting up a proto-state across northern Syria and northern Iraq. (Except where opposed by Kurds). And, yes, ISIS is interested in terrorist attacks against the West.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Not really. Iraq only required a light commitment 2008-2011, and we've largely been out since the end of 2011. Probably should have kept some special ops guys, some aviation, and a J-1 through J-7 staff there, maybe 2,000 men.

The only meddling going on now is the Obamanation screaming to get rid of Maliki, who was, like him or not, elected by Iraqis.

I was going to respond in full, but looking above, I think the one you really need to bitch about is Eric.

I'll leave it at this for now: Way back when, you argued that we should be putting more effort into killing bad guys in Afghanistan, not Iraq. When we (mostly) got out of Iraq, you suddenly decided that we should get out of Afghanistan, too. Well, ISIS is currently having a shoot-out with their former umbrella organization, Al-Qaeda, over management issues, but I doubt that will last; their goals for an Atlantic to Pacific caliphate are the same. The Obamanation has a $10 million reward on Al-Baghdadi's head. So, now that ISIS has made themselves big, fat targets in a place that we've mapped out fairly nicely, why not kill them there? If you want for the supposed "moderates" in Syria to get a boost, this would give them a leg up against ISIS.

Do you think not doing so will make ISIS your friend?

Look, this is an endless loop, and one we should never have started in the first place. They have irreconcilable hatreds that predate the Enlightenment. We can't fix them, and, other than the possiblity of another oil stopage, they really don't have much to do with us. ISIS is not showing a lot of interest in bombing us, we should do the same. If we are serious about eliminating them, we should overthrow the Saudi monarchy, where the money came from to fund these guys.

If Hillary were President now instead of Barack Obama, she could probably console herself with how much she hates the Islamists for their misogyny and homophobia, and lead us into war, Gray Champion style; Obama, on the other hand, is trapped in the same dilemma as Robert E. Lee was when Lincoln offered him the command of the Union army: As Lee couldn't bring himself to raise his sword against his native state of Virginia, neither can Obama bring himself to raising his sword against the religious faith of his father.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

If Hillary were President now instead of Barack Obama, she could probably console herself with how much she hates the Islamists for their misogyny and homophobia, and lead us into war, Gray Champion style; Obama, on the other hand, is trapped in the same dilemma as Robert E. Lee was when Lincoln offered him the command of the Union army: As Lee couldn't bring himself to raise his sword against his native state of Virginia, neither can Obama bring himself to raising his sword against the religious faith of his father.

You're joking, right?