Discussion for article #223920
None. We’ve paid enough already. If Vietnam is any indication, Iraq will thank us for getting out and 45 years latter want to be our trading partners.
2 Likes
I think the good Captain, while no-doubt well-intentioned is kidding himself, along with Nicholas Kristoff and others about the prospects of the “moderate” Syrian opposition, had we only aided them sooner or more forcefully. Name a country in the region in which moderates have succeeded in gaining and, more importantly, holding power. The moderates in Tahrir Square were overwhelmingly outvoted by the supporters of the Moslem Brotherhood and the even more extreme Salafists, followed of course by the inevitable next Mubarak. The moderates in Tunisia hang by a thread. Even in the most Westernized country in the region, the originally truly moderate Islamist Erdogan, looks increasingly like a regular Middle Eastern autocrat.
The problem for moderates in the region is not a lack of Western support, it is lack of domestic support. They simply lack appeal to their countrymen beyond the educated middle class that rarely makes up more than 10% in any of those countries. I think the one lesson we should learn from Syria, Iraq and Egypt is that the strongman may well be preferable to the chaos that follows their fall or the revolt against them. Sad, but most likely true for the present.
5 Likes
The vast majority of Americans are fed up with the Iraqis and most Arab countries. This is their fight, this is their time to show the rest of the world their willingness to participate into a more civilized world, where women can and must vote, study and be active members of society. Where sectarian differences are set in court and not by the tip of the knife or at gunpoint.
If they wish to keep having their medieval ways of life then so be it. But if they try to export those beliefs with violence on our countries and cities, then let’s pound them back to the stone age. America and it’s allies won WWII and established themselves as world leaders by carpet bombing Europe, half of the world and nuking Japan, not by trying to be friend with Hitler, Mussolini or Hirohito.
We have already paid enough for Iraq and the rest of the Arab countries!
It’s a hard-line screed, but the captain makes some good points. I would say we’ve got to stabilize things long enough to formulate a prudent, hard-nosed, and intelligent policy (thus far absent) for the future. That could include abandoning Condee’s favorite Iran-loving Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, dunno.
This line is careless and dumb: “Most borders in the Middle East are modern inventions that mean virtually nothing to the people living there.” I lived in Iraq for 5 years and sure there are tensions, but Iraqis generally consider themselves Iraqis.
What does it take to finally get people like this author to understand that “leadership” does not consist of killing more people than anyone else, and dominating a region with masses of military equipment? Leadership first and foremost means persuading the people you want to lead to follow you. That has never happened in the Middle East. And, due to huge differences in religious and cultural backgrounds, it isn’t going to happen in our lifetime. The Iraq situation will be resolved by the Iraq people. Whether or not we appreciate how they resolve it, it is their situation to resolve.
5 Likes
Eleven years of waging Bush & Cheney’s ill-advised wars have left America more divided and our economy just now climbing back from the morass. We will soon have spent two trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to about 6800 American soldiers killed and more than 30,000 wounded for whom we will proudly continue to provide care along with the many invisible wounds caused by PTSD.
And for what? Saddam’s death?
I agree that the United States has vital interests in the region as well do China, Japan, India and much of Europe. Saudi Arabia has much at stake along with other Arab states especially since we can be certain that there is money flowing from Saudi Arabia to ISIL at the same time the Saudis will be pressuring the United States to help stabilize the region.
So the question is “What price are We Willing to Pay For Iraq’s Future.”
My answer is that I, for one, am unwilling to pay with the life of even a single more US Soldier. I’d be willing to supply military equipment and advisers in proportion to whatever aid is supplied by the Saudis and other Arab States along with India, Japan, China and Europe and all others who depend on Iraqi oil.
And I stand with our President in demanding a political plan that share governance with the Kurds and Sunnis and rapid implementation of such a plan. If Malaki is not trustworthy then he goes.
I and many others wound up fighting for a lost cause in Vietnam because we supported two despots, Diem and Thieu. I’m strongly opposed to continuing further down a similar path with Malaki.
11 Likes
“pound them back to the stone age age.” Quoting geniuses like Curtis LeMay is real inspiring. How about pounding a few of them right now, as the article suggests? The idea that “they wish to keep having their medieval ways of life” is so simplistic and stupid. Afghans hated the Taliban, Iraqis hated Saddam, and nobody likes ISIL. They are barbarians and religious fanatics who seized power by violence, not by popular support.
2 Likes
You’re not asking the right question, Captain. If we choose to pay a further price, it won’t be for “Iraq’s future.” It will be for “a bet about Iraq’s future,” and a very uncertain one.
If there was a plausible reason to think that the price in blood and treasure would reliably lead to a better future for Iraq, the debate would be very different, but what has happened in the past 12 years that would make you think that?
2 Likes
Naive! Until the Sunni and Shia sectors of Islam can live together in peace, nothing we do can accomplish anything beyond more killing. Let them do their own killing without our assistance.
3 Likes
This isn’t about “leadership,” it’s about providing security, which the US could easily have done after overthrowing Saddam, but refused to do. Iraqis have already shown that they want to participate in what you term “a civilized world.” They are having that taken away by a cabal of religious fanatics.
I think a strong leader could have emerged and led both major factions. What we got was Condee’s dream: an Iranian toady who would tell Bush how smart he was and what an incredible job his SecState was doing.
This is a well-intentioned but wholly schizophrenic screed which is hopelessly wrong.
“Unlike most terrorist organizations, there is good reason to believe that ISIL has the capability and intention to strike American targets.”
What a crock. There is zero reason to believe that ISIL is in any way a threat to the United States. This is but one of the numerous flaws at the entire premise of this screed.
“Most borders in the Middle East are modern inventions that mean virtually nothing to the people living there.”
Exactly. Yet you turn around and argue we have some sort of obligation to defend and enforce these very same fictions and “lead”. The “Iraqi people” don’t want an “Iraq” because they are not “a” people.
“The United States has repeatedly declined to meaningfully promote a moderate alternative in Syria”
What nonsense. We have supported “moderates” opposing the Assad regime to the extent that the United States can or should support them. A civil war in Syria will always attract extremists into the fight. Even a non-shooting war which is basically what occurred in Egypt introduced extremist elements. But please, do tell use what “more” entails, be specific. Because the empty language that riddles this piece over and over isn’t going to cut it.
Define “do more”.
“Now, the Iraqi people are reaping the consequences our inaction in Syria has helped to sow.”
Oh good grief. You are seriously trying to hold the United States accountable for the existence of ISIL because we didn’t drop troops into the Syrian civil war?
You are insane.
“The administration is right to insist on meaningful and deep political reform in exchange for assistance.”
Let us know when Godot arrives.
The Balkanization of “Iraq” is inevitable. It was and is a fiction of a nation-state.
10 Likes
And it is up to the “Afghans” the “Iraqis” and Syrians to deal with and replace the respective extremists in their “countries”. If these extremists are indeed a minority then the majority can and must figure out for themselves how to get rid of the violent extremists. It is not up to us to impose a military or political solution from the outside. If a “country” of 36 million people can’t take care of a couple of thousand violent extremist foreign fighters, then it simply isn’t a country or a nation.
5 Likes
Now, the Iraqi people are reaping the consequences our inaction in Syria has helped to sow.
OMG what an absolute crock. Kind of forgets the Pottery Barn Rule.
Hardly surprising to see such a hawkish piece at TPM, though.
I say “we” don’t have to do this at all. If a “country” of 36 million can’t take care of a couple of thousand violent extremist foreign fighters, then it simply isn’t a country or a nation.
6 Likes
More flaming stupidity from the whiney-titty-baby brigade.
(scroll)
4 Likes
War monger much? You’re an anachronism, girl. Your time as a spit-shine girl for Dick Cheney has only made you the boot-lackey you are today.
2 Likes
I think the vast majority of Americans will agree we should stay out and let them settle their own problems. Let the mid-east “dark ages” dwellers figure this out for themselves.
1 Like
Hear, hear. Well said.