Sounds a little like our old Somoza brand of foreign policy “he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch” …all over again.
If they wish to keep having their medieval ways of life then so be it.
then let’s pound them back to the stone age.
So your solution to the Iraqis “having medieval ways of life” is to “pound” them even further back?
I don’t think you would know what a “world leader” looks like.
3 Likes
The people of the mid east need to take control of their own futures. War mongers and MSM have given these people “boogeyman” status in trying to get us to war. If we are so friggin powerful why are we suppose to be terrified of these people ? This article is another attempt to rile up support for more war, more killing and more $$ in the pockets of war mongers. Not happening.
And once again trying to threadjack. What a Fool he is!
2 Likes
Hmm…perhaps we could call it, “Operation Iraqi Liberation”…?
Oh, wait, Darth Cheney holds the copyrights–damn!
1 Like
Great! I hope he has a relaxing weekend and breaks 80 at PGA West!
Then back to work on Monday to make more wise and sound decisions like his latest on Iraq!!
2 Likes
Anyone who thinks ISIL/S isn’t an existential threat to civilization hasn’t been paying attention to reality. There’s nothing sillier than the sort of liberals who believe nobody is really evil - even after facing the depths of evil in our own right-wing religious fundamentalist political faction at home. This group is evil to a pure degree which neither the Viet Cong nor the Taliban ever approached. It would be better for Turkey, Iran and Kurdistan to divide the region than to let ISIL/S ever establish its own persistent territory. Hell, it would be better for the world to come in to support Assad in Syria - although not by much.
Yes, as I said above, the problem for “moderates” in the Middle East is a lack of domestic support, rather than a lack of Western support. Whenever there have been free elections in most of the region, the “moderates” tend to do poorly. People vote for ethnic/sectarian-based parties as they did in Iraq, where Maliki, a Shiite sectarian leader in a Shiite-majority country got the most votes (whether we approve of him or not) or they vote for Islamist parties. I frankly don’t understand how getting rid of Assad helps US interests. Is he a dirty bastard? Certainly. But his father and he kept Syria reasonably peaceful for decades. Christians have been protected. While they never signed a peace treaty, they haven’t fought Israel in 40 years. It seems that his big sin was being aligned with Iran. But now Iran has a new leader and we find ourselves on the same side, more or less in Iraq. In fact, Iran is one of the few real countries in the area-they occupy the same territory as the Persia of Cyrus the Great and speak a language he would understand with a bit of help. They may be the one country where there is some hope of an evolution away from extremism. So maybe we ought to see how fae we can take the opening with them.
First, thank you for your service.
However, I respectfully disagree. The thing I find most troubling is the following statement made at the end of a whole paragraph stating the many problems you perceived Iraq:
My fears for the Iraqi people have been dark indeed, but none were dark enough to anticipate what has befallen many of them this week.
If it was not possible to anticipate what is happening now, how can we waste more lives and resources thinking we can anticipate, let alone change Iraq’s future?
That’s a great applause line, but if Obama does nothing and let’s the country be overrun by Al Qaeda, his ability to govern will be further compromised greatly and it’s a terrible legacy issue. And it’ll be a bit ironic, because as a result of 9/11 we would have taken a country that was brutal but stable and had nothing to do with 9/11 and turned it into an Al Qaeda haven. Of course, I mean stabilize using drones and such, not putting lots guys in harm’s way. And BTW Obama has to think about handing Syrian terrorists just across an open border a new victory; he can just pronounce the whole thing an irksome pack of cards
I suspect you would criticize President Obama for taking bathroom breaks.
Why don’t you do us all a favor and go hit some balls yourself…
3 Likes
Obama spoke against authorizing the war in Iraq so it will not be his legacy. And if Obama attempts to “stabilize things” and it fails (extremely likely), what does that legacy look like?
You start from the premise that stabilizing Iraq is possible. Isn’t that what Bush and company did?
We should learn from history.
Edited: As Weldon-Berger pointed out, he only stated his position while in the state senate. He also re-iterated it throughout his campaign.
> What Price Are We Willing To Pay For Iraq’s Future?
On which moon of Jupiter do the life forms there believe the USA can effect the destiny of Mesopotamia?
Breen comes across as knowing next to nothing about the game that is being played in the Mid-East. He substitutes platitudes for analysis. Why is this particular collection of fantasies more interesting that some other? I’m stumped.
Obama voted against authorizing the war in Iraq so it will not be his legacy.
He’ll be judged on what he did as President, not his Senate votes.
And if Obama attempts to “stabilize things” and it fails (extremely likely), what does that legacy look like?
A man who tried to help out on pre-existing U.S. policy, even though he disagreed, and not one who just shat on it and went off to pout, I think the near-term stabilization outside Sunni Triangle is quite likely.
You start from the premise that stabilizing Iraq is possible. Isn’t that what Bush and company did?
You can check that I alluded to us having a long-term strategy which has been absent.
We should learn from history.
Another applause line.
On which moon of Jupiter do the life forms there believe the USA can effect the destiny of Mesopotamia?
U.S. has done, and can. Unfortunately it was utter nincompoops like Condee who mostly affected.
Hyperbole much? We have lived with medieval-minded extremists in charge of the world’s biggest oil reserves for over 100 years, and civilization hasn’t collapsed. If ISIL manages to expand to the full area they can reach without hitting a bigger and better-equipped adversary, the triangle from Mosul to Baghdad and eastern Syria, they will rule a span of desert with almost no oil or other resources. They would also have 100,000 itchy former Baathists in the area, many of them already armed.
1 Like
I agree with the majority of the points Captain Breen has made, and I appreciate the knowledge about how some units of the Iraqi army stood and fought.
Most importantly, I think leadership from America needs to not only be focused on preventing extremists from acquiring more powerful weapons and bases, but in educating it’s own citizens about the history of the region, and the reality that this region may need to be reorganized with an Independent Kurdistan, and other micro-states that will better reflect the will of those tribal and religious sects whose desire for independence is clear.
Such leadership can be inspiring and may open new possibilities for the future, one where violence is not the default reaction.
“Obama voted against authorizing the war in Iraq so it will not be his legacy.”
Obama was an Illinois state senator in 2002. Unless he sneaked onto the US Senate floor and cast somebody else’s vote, he didn’t vote against the AUMF-Iraq. And given his flip-flop on issues such as the immunization of telecoms against prosecution for violating US law – he vowed to filibuster the measure and folded like a pro instead – one should be hard-pressed to speculate that he would have voted against it had he been in the position to do so…
All of Iraq won’t be overrun by ISIS. The Shiites are now mobilizing and will defend Baghdad and the South. Iran will certainly not allow any Shiite areas to fall under ISIS control. The Kurds can hold their areas just fine; everyone agrees their pesh merga are the best fighters in the country. So we are left with the Sunni areas. The Shiites are probably not motivated to fight for those. Air attacks are of limited use against insurgents. So who exactly do you propose to re-take those areas and, more importantly, hold them?
I have no problem calling ISIS evil. Their acts are. So is the Kim family, but no one seriously proposes invading North Korea or even sending drones. We will just have to manage and contain these guys until the Sunni Iraqis decide to act against them. Right now, they tolerate them because Maliki ignored their interests. I am not so sure that the Sunnis will accept any central Iraqi government which will inevitably be Shiite-dominated, because they are 60% of the population. So really, we are looking at the Biden tripartite autonomous regions solution and we have to hope that the Sunnis, who experienced reasonably modern life under Saddam, will gravitate towards a Saddam-light rather than Islamist loons once they are assured of being able to run their own affairs,
1 Like