home

Mission Creep to Mission Leap

The U.S. continued air strikes against ISIS today in its effort to help the Kurds retake the Mosul Dam. According to CENTCOM, on August 15th the U.S. was just using "remotely piloted aircraft." Yesterday, when the strikes began near Irbil and the Mosul dam, CENTCOM said the strikes consisted of "a mix of fighter and remotely piloted aircraft."

Today, according to CENTCOM, the U.S. has now added bombers and attack aircraft:

U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Iraq Sunday, using a mix of fighter, bomber, attack and remotely piloted aircraft to successfully conduct airstrikes near the Mosul Dam.

Obama today sent a new letter to Congress authorizing the enhanced attacks. [More...]

On August 14, 2014, I authorized the U.S. Armed Forces to conduct targeted air strikes to support operations by Iraqi forces to recapture the Mosul Dam. These military operations will be limited in their scope and duration as necessary to support the Iraqi forces in their efforts to retake and establish control of this critical infrastructure site, as part of their ongoing campaign against the terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The failure of the Mosul Dam could threaten the lives of large numbers of civilians, endanger U.S. personnel and facilities, including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and prevent the Iraqi government from providing critical services to the Iraqi populace.

Pursuant to this authorization, on the evening of August 15, 2014, U.S. military forces commenced targeted airstrike operations in Iraq. I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. These actions are being undertaken in coordination with the Iraqi government

CENTCOM describes today's attacks on ISIS:

U.S. Central Command conducted these strikes under authority to support humanitarian efforts in Iraq, as well as to protect critical infrastructure, U.S. personnel and facilities, and support Iraqi security forces and Kurdish defense forces, who are working together to combat ISIL.

The 14 strikes conducted on Sunday in Iraq damaged or destroyed ten ISIL armed vehicles, seven ISIL Humvees, two ISIL armored personnel carriers, and one ISIL checkpoint. These strikes followed the nine U.S. airstrikes announced Aug. 16 by U.S. Central Command.

Here is President Obama's August 8 letter to Congress authorizing airstrikes. They were limited to:

These military operations will be limited in their scope and duration as necessary to protect American personnel in Iraq by stopping the current advance on Erbil by the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there.

...In addition, I have authorized U.S. Armed Forces to provide humanitarian assistance in Iraq in an operation that commenced on August 7, 2014. These operations will also be limited to supporting the civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar.

Mission creep to Mission Leap.

Not to mention, much of the equipment we are now destroying was given by the U.S. to the Iraqis. So first we paid for it, and now we're destroying what we paid for. To make matters worse, the Kurds are complaining they don't have enough equipment, and want us to buy them more.

Here's a compendium with photos identifying the equipment ISIS has taken that was supplied by the U.S. and others.

Here is what the Kurds have.

Here are the Kurds today, en route to fight ISIS:

On a related note, ISIS was pounded today in Raqqa, Syria, where ASSAD forces launched its biggest airstrikes. But ISIS also fought back and caused damage. Here's a 4 minute video, take a look at their equipment. (Added: video has been deleted by You Tube. It's now up on Vimeo here.)

Even Democrats are now calling for ground troops and stepped up attacks on ISIS. It's the wrong response and will cause untold U.S. and civilian deaths in Iraq. It also will put us at risk at home of attacks by ISIS sympathizers. A war is unlikely to contain ISIS.

In the Guardian today, an explanation of ISIS that is receiving a lot of praise among analysts and journalists on Twitter.

Isis is not a disease. It is a symptom – of a political vacuum, a sense of rejection among Sunnis, and an ideological shakeup within Salafism. It is important to emphasise, however, that there are grounds for optimism. While the strength and appeal of Isis should not be underestimated, its rise has triggered a unique debate in the region.

Since Isis took over large swaths of Iraq, in particular, Arabic media outlets of all types have produced reports about the nature of the group and the source of its ideology. There is a collective soul-searching in the region, coming from everyone from ordinary people to clerics and intellectuals. After the 9/11 attacks, such questions came from outside the region and were shunned as "imperialist" or "orientalist". Today the voices are coming from within and are more powerful. Supporters of the group seek to ground its behaviour in Islamic traditions and object to the notion that its atrocities are anomalies.

I wrote about the disaffection and marginalization aspect here.

I still believe the Middle East needs to solve its ISIS problem. We will only make things worse.

Update: The video removed by You Tube is now available on Vimeo here.

Update: You Tube removed the video link for violence. I didn't think it was violent or I wouldn't have posted the link. It was about the guys in the photo at the top of this post driving down the highway in the tank, and some other shots of blowing stuff up. Here's a big screengrab of the tank from the video.

Charles Lister of Brookings said that ISIS honcho/enforcer Abu Waheeb (aka Wahib) was running the operation in the video, which would put him in Aleppo rather than in Mosul where some Kurds are claiming he was killed today. He's a big deal -- the scariest looking guy in ISIS, also known as the Desert Lion. He was imprisoned by the U.S. at Camp Bucca and then sentenced to death and moved to Tikrit, where he escaped with about 110 others in 2012. Supposedly, he got his training in prison.

If Waheeb is in Aleppo it could be significant because it likely means ISIS thinks northern Syria is important. Analysts say it would leave the Syrian rebels at a disadvantage, fighting Assad on one side and ISIS on the other.

I didn't see Abu Waheeb full on in the video but I was able to grab this screenshot -- I think he could be the person leaning against the truck. He dresses in black a lot and wears a beret-type hat. He must like being photographed, because he doesn't cover his face, even when killing. Here's another photo of him. And another.

< Colombian Victims Meet With FARC in Havana | Another Night of Curfew in Ferguson >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    YouTube took that link down (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:55:29 PM EST
    Bah! But great posting on this topic, J, as always. Thanks.

    I just updated the post (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:12:57 PM EST
    about the video removal and added some screenshots from it I had saved (I didn't save the video.)

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    Amazing and infuriating. Sigh...

    Parent
    i think we already did that. (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 06:39:35 PM EST
    "We will only make things worse."

    I'm not sure how much worse things can get, that they haven't already gotten, thanks to the bush administration's idiocy. I hope the next president is a democrat, and doesn't decide that only looking forward is the way to go.

    I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure crimes against humanity/war crimes don't have a statute of limitations. it would be nice to see that whole cabal sitting in the dock at the hague, made to answer for their actions.

    And Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    didn't leave some troops in Iraq when he should have (and his military advisors and some other advisors were telling him to leave some troops), and then been able to keep better control of Maliki;' And Obama didn't react quickly enough in Iraq (and some say Syria)
    to counter ISIS. And he didn't react quickly enough to bomb the seized weapons when they were being transported over the border to Syria (would have been an easy targets then to destroy, compared to trying to destroy then one by one now).

    No matter what the prior president, or presidents do, the next president has to deal with what's going on when he becomes and is the president. It is not acceptable to say, like some of you do, that Bush caused it so it's not my responsibility. Obama has been in office 5.5 years.  The world is a tough place. Bush caused some problems, but not most of what's going on in the world. It's time for Obama to step up and deal with various problems more proactively, in my view. It's time for him to show some leadership, and not just react and tiptoe into action.

    Parent

    Do tell (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    And Obama didn't leave some troops in Iraq when he should have (and his military advisors and some other advisors were telling him to leave some troops).

    Under what legal authority would Obama have kept troops in Iraq when we were required by the 2008 SOFA to have all troops out of Iraq?

    Be as specific as you can ...

    Parent

    Heh...and like there (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:59:04 PM EST
    Aren't any troops in Kuwait :)

    Parent
    Only 13K (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:23:12 PM EST
    2 Combat brigades (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    Along with 1 aviation brigade...or at least was two years ago.  Pretty sure the aviation brigade is still there, but I know the combat brigades are.

    Parent
    Obama made only a half-hearted attempt (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:27:02 PM EST
    to keep some troops in Iraq and negotiate a new SOFA. He didn't  listen to his miiltary and other advisors who advised keeping some troops, and was ultimately happy to almost completely walk away from Iraq. Agreements can be changed, and often are. The Bush administration, including Secretary Gates, always intended to keep some troops in Iraq at the time of the pullout. After the pullout agreement was signed, there was a quote by Gates in a NY Times article saying that he intended to keep some troops in Iraq, I think he said about 10,000. I don't have time to find it now but I quoted and linked it previously.

    From McCain's website: "as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made clear, the plan all along was to renegotiate the agreement to allow for a continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. `Everybody believed,' she said in 2011, `it would be better if there was some kind of residual force."

    ""Just days after the Senator from South Carolina and I left Baghdad, Prime Minister Maliki signaled his willingness to agree to a residual presence of U.S. troops if 70 percent of Iraqis agreed. Well, the Kurds agreed. The Sunnis agreed. And Maliki himself had signaled his support."

    information from a NY Times article recently.

    "Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander on the ground, developed proposals for keeping as many as 24,000 troops in Iraq after 2011, only to run into instant resistance."

    "Pentagon officers and General Austin's team refined the plans, developing options of 19,000 troops, 16,000 troops and 10,000 troops. The general preferred the highest number and deemed the lowest unwise. Mr. Biden aggressively pushed for a smaller force. Tom Donilon, the president's national security adviser, asked Mr. Gates if he could live with 10,000. Mr. Gates said he could."

    "At a May 19 meeting, Mr. Obama decided to keep up to 10,000 troops and on June 2 talked with Mr. Maliki by secure video to open the discussions."

    The discussions to develop a new agreement to keep some troops in Iraq went on from then until October.

    Here are some quotes from a good NY Yorker article in April 2014.

    "The consequences became clear when negotiations began over the crucial question of withdrawing American troops after 2011. The leaders of all the major Iraqi parties had privately told American commanders that they wanted several thousand military personnel to remain, to train Iraqi forces and to help track down insurgents. The commanders told me that Maliki, too, said that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq."

    "President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis--like how many troops they wanted to leave behind--because the Administration had not decided. "We got no guidance from the White House," Jeffrey told me. "We didn't know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, `I don't know what I have to sell.' " At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn't have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. "The American attitude was: Let's get out of here as quickly as possible," Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said."

    "Less than twenty-four hours after the last convoy of American fighters left, Maliki's government ordered the arrest of Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi, the highest-ranking Sunni Arab. Prosecutors accused Hashemi of having run a death squad that assassinated police officers and government officials."

    There were undoubtedly various issues and obstacles to keeping troops in Iraq, including US politics, Obama's waffling, and political issues in Iraq at the time. No says it would have been easy. Many are saying the US and Obama didn't not make much of an effort.

    And please stop saying Obama's hands were tied by the Bush-negotiated agreement. They weren't.

    Parent

    I do not care what McCain says (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:58:37 PM EST
    or Graham.  No reason to continue to cite to them.

    Parent
    Okay, do you believe Biden? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    This is what Biden thought. Source article linked in below post.'

    "Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. "Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise," Mr. Biden said. "I'll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA," he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate."

    Parent

    Well the prediction turned out (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    to be wrong.

    You still on McCain for saying the agreement fell apart because Obama didn't try hard enough.  The failure to reach a SOFA has nothing to do with Iraqi sentiment in your view....

    Show me where Biden has said the SOFA failed because of Obama.

    The Biden quote adds nothing to support your view.
     

    Parent

    So, do you admit that (none / 0) (#37)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    a SOFA could have been negotiated (if the parties agreed), Obama okayed keeping some troops in Iraq and trying to negotiate a SOFA, Obama called Maliki about keeping troops and doing an acceptable SOFA, and some discussions in furtherance of that occurred from about May to October in 2011?

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    That is quite a hypothetical, you got there dude.

    Yes, there could have been an agreement if the parties had reached an agreement.  That was your first question in all its circular glory.

    There was no agreement because Maliki would not agree to immunity.  Your assertions are based on all kinds of speculation.....

    This is the re-hash of the McCain whining about this issue.  

    Parent

    And, I though you rejected (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:59:40 PM EST
    history as "blaming Bush."  But you really want to play the blame game yourself, using McCain as a source of all things....

    Parent
    Two things (none / 0) (#20)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:30:24 AM EST
    Obama is still the president; Bush isn't.

    I was responding to a post that blamed Bush, by pointing out why Obama could or should have done.

    Parent

    Yes, they were (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:46:44 AM EST
    And please stop saying Obama's hands were tied by the Bush-negotiated agreement. They weren't.

    In the absence of a new SOFA, we were required by law to leave Iraq, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

    There were undoubtedly various issues and obstacles to keeping troops in Iraq, including US politics, Obama's waffling, and political issues in Iraq at the time. No says it would have been easy. Many are saying the US and Obama didn't not make much of an effort.

    Really?  "Many"?!?  You mean apart from McCain and Graham - the two you keep citing there are other conservatives/political opponents making this claim?

    wow.

    BTW - That's great that Maliki (heh - there's a reliable source) claims he was willing to sign an executive agreement in lieu of a SOFA if he didn't have to argue to the parliament for immunity for US troops, but Bush had already included parliamentary approval in his 2008 SOFA with Iraq, setting the terms for future SOFA's renegotiations.  Not to mention the fact that no one - including Maliki - could get a SOFA approved because it was extremely unpopular with the Iraqi people and politicians.

    Try again?

     

    Parent

    Please don't encourage him, Yman... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    It isn't going to matter how many facts you provide, he's not letting go of his insistence that this is all Obama's fault for not trying hard enough.  In spite of the American people being overwhelming opposed to us staying in Iraq - McCain and Graham don't actually speak for the majority of Americans, much as they'd like to think they do.  In spite of the fact that Iraq wouldn't budge on the immunity element, and we weren't going to concede on that point.

    Am I saying that Obama gets a pass because he didn't start this debacle?  No, he certainly has to be accountable for the actions and decisions he made and is making as president, but Green26 conveniently avoids the fact that by the time Obama took the oath of office, the American people were done.  D.O.N.E.  We wanted out, we wanted an end to American lives being lost, and the terrible toll it was taking on those serving and their families.

    Parent

    The whole point, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    which you refuse to acknowledge, is that agreements can be and have been changed or extended, and that is done not infrequently. Why have various people in the Bush and Obama said (both at the time and later), that they and the US always intended to keep some troops in Iraq, even at the signing of the pull-out agreement? If Obama's hands were tied by the Bush agreement, why did the military and others provide suggestions for the amount of troops that should be left in Iraq? Why did Obama eventually, in May of the last year, authorize the US to try to reach a new agreement to keep troops? Why did Obama call Maliki to discuss a new agreement? Where were there negotiations with Maliki and Iraq to do a new agreement to keep troops in Iraq from that May until late October that fall?

    It is some of you who are ignoring reality, and hiding behind an agreement that, with more effort, could have been changed. You are welcome to argue that the US shouldn't have changed the agreement, or were better off not to extend the agreement, but I am not going to let you get away, unchallenged, with arguing that Obama had his hands tied by the Bush agreement.

    Parent

    Some more specifics (none / 0) (#25)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    From a 2012 NY Times article:

    "Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. "Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise," Mr. Biden said. "I'll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA," he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate."

    "As the process of forming a new Iraqi government dragged on, the Obama administration began in January 2011 to turn its attention to negotiating an agreement that would enable American forces to stay beyond 2011."

    "Mrs. Clinton and Leon E. Panetta, who succeeded Mr. Gates as the defense secretary, argued that talks should continue and that the goal, as before, should be to keep a force of up to 10,000."

    "Without American forces to train and assist Iraqi commandos, the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in Iraq and is increasingly involved in Syria. With no American aircraft to patrol Iraqi airspace, Iraq has become a corridor for Iranian flights of military supplies to Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria, American officials say."

    "Ryan C. Crocker, the former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, offered his own perspective on the last tortured negotiations in the country where American troops fought for more than eight years. "I don't think either government handled it as well as it could have been handled," he said. "The U.S. side came to it late. You have got to leave a lot of latitude for difficulties, foreseen and unforeseen."

    Parent

    Could of, Would of, Should of (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:17:01 AM EST
    The thing is Malaki said no troops, in the end, which was the clear popular sentiment among Iraqi's, who he was representing.

    He was not representing you or Obama. And the popular sentiment in the US was the same.

    You can make believe that had Obama rejected Malaki's decision, and pressed for troops with or without Iraq's consent, we would not be where we are today.

    that is true....  but to argue that we would be in a better place is your fantasy, and opinion which you have been relentlessly hammering in these threads.

    We get it.

    Parent

    No, if Obama has pressed harder (none / 0) (#34)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    for an acceptable agreement, including being more specific sooner on troop levels and ultimately proposing enough troops to make it worthwhile for Maliki to fight for the agreement with Iraqis, and entered in the agreement, then the US would be in a better position than it is today. Many agree with my belief. Even in 2012, some held this belief. From the NY Times I linked previously; note the last sentence of the quote in particular.

    "The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized. Neither did an agreement that would have kept a small American force in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and patrol the country's skies. A plan to use American civilians to train the Iraqi police has been severely cut back. The result is an Iraq that is less stable domestically and less reliable internationally than the United States had envisioned."

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    That is what you keep saying. Got it.

    It did not happen, and IMO Obama made the correct decision.

    Parent

    Anne and Yman, care to comment? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    It's clear that agreements like this can be changed, Gates and others always intended to keep some troops, various US advisors proposed keeping some troops, Obama eventually okayed keeping some troops (altho less than most proposals), Obama authorized negotiations to keep some troops, Obama called Maliki to discuss keeping some troops, Maliki and other Iraqis indicated they wanted to keep some troops and would probably sign some agreement to permit it. the US made some efforts from May thorough October to negotiate an agreement, and the agreement didn't get done. The reasons for the last point can be debated, and there is not agreement over the reasons. And, as I've said, no one has said it was or would have been easy to get a new agreement. Obviously, Biden thought it could be done at one point. Recall that Biden, not Obama, was the main senior White House contact with Maliki during the Obama years.

    Parent
    Biden (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    Wonder why he did not resign?

    He lost the bet.

    Oh well, he obviously can't be trusted.

    Parent

    All speculation (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    No one knows for sure.  What we know for sure is that Iraq refused to agree to immunity for our forces.  That is a fact.  Without immunity, we can't have troops in Iraq.  No dispute there.

    The rest is all McCain armchairing.....

    And that Biden once said it does not mean it was true for all time or even then.....

    Biden also said Iraq should be partitioned into three separate zones and we should pull out....

    Parent

    Happy to (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    The whole point, which you refuse to acknowledge, is that agreements can be and have been changed or extended, and that is done not infrequently. Why have various people in the Bush and Obama said (both at the time and later), that they and the US always intended to keep some troops in Iraq, even at the signing of the pull-out agreement?

    No one is refusing to acknowledge that agreements can be modified.  To claim otherwise is, frankly, ridiculous.  My point is that - barring a renegotiated agreement - we were obligated to leave Iraq because of the SOFA signed by Bush.


    The reasons for the last point can be debated, and there is not agreement over the reasons. And, as I've said, no one has said it was or would have been easy to get a new agreement. Obviously, Biden thought it could be done at one point. Recall that Biden, not Obama, was the main senior White House contact with Maliki during the Obama years.

    What can't be debated are the facts.  The fact is that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis did not support a new SOFA.

    Iraq's Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

    But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki's ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration's plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

    The fact is that the Iraqi government would not budge on the issue of immunity for US troops, which is what killed the SOFA talks - even your buddy Maliki recognizes this.

    Iraq Troop Withdrawal: Immunity Issue Scuttled Deal, Says Iraq PM


    "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible," al-Maliki told a news conference Saturday. "The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

    The fact is that neither Biden nor Maliki controlled whether the Iraqi parliament would agree to a new SOFA.  The fact that Biden thought he would be able to renegotiate a new SOFA is irrelevant.

    Parent

    Green26, can you try to deal with (none / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    what is?  With the fact that the Iraqis refusing to give US troops immunity killed the possibility of a new SOFA?  Were we supposed to force them to accept our terms, or were we supposed to sign a new agreement, without the immunity, and then...what?  What then?

    While we may have dumped enough blood and treasure into Iraq to feel like we owned it, we didn't, and we still don't.  

    The American people do not want to go back; they know it's a losing proposition.  They're already nervous about the limited actions being taken now, fearing it's just moving us closer to something on a greater scale.

    My grandmother had a saying: if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

    Stop wishing that history had taken a different turn; it didn't.  And stop assuming that had Obama done what you wanted him to, it would have turned out the way you wanted it to.

    Parent

    You Don't Get It (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    Were we supposed to force them to accept our terms, or were we supposed to sign a new agreement, without the immunity,

    Yes, but it could have been done without any force, between Biden and Hillary and McCain and Graham and all the other statesmen who had killer skills. We could certainly have gotten Malaki to agree to keep a few hundred thousand troops in Iraq.

    Also we could have stopped WWII from happening had we stopped Hilter in 1936. That would also have been easy.

    Also we could have prevented the recession, depression and deaths of dinosaurs, yes that too if we had not wasted all that time and effort on war and focused on building a reliable time machine.

     

    Parent

    So what? (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    The assumption underlying this argument is that if we had left 10,000 troops in Iraq they would have prevented the rise of ISIS.

    That is quite a speculative assumption.   It took 150k troops before we pacified the entire country.  Why would 10k control the entire country?   I don't think there was any plan that all 10k would be on the border with Syria.

    Would it be just the mere presence of U.S. troops would have scared off ISIS?  It would have been largely a sybolic presence a la Beirut under Reagan?  Great result there.

    I suppose the ISIS fighters would have been deterred because they feared death, and feared death in fighting against U.S. forces, and would never wage an asymetric war that would mean defeat after defeat but continued existence?  No, they would never do that.  They would never engage in suicide attacks, true?

    I think the likely result had we left 10,000 or so troops in Iraq would have been U.S. ground troops engaged in ground combat with ISIS, winning every battle but losing troops every day.  That would be a tremendous recruting tool and propaganda coup for ISIS--to be actively fighting against U.S. forces in Iraq and still exisiting as an organization.

    Parent

    Of COURSE agreements ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    ... be renegotiated - it's done all the time, but only when both sides are willing to do it.  The Iraqis were unwilling to grant immunity to US troops, a decision that killed any new SOFA agreement - as it should have.  Because of this, we were legally obligated to leave Iraq under the terms of Bush's SOFA, a fact which you are finally acknowledging.

    You don't enter an agreement if you aren't willing to abide by its terms under an assumption that you'll renegotiate a better deal later.  If you go to the car dealer to buy a car and sign a contract for that car, you can't complain later when the dealer refuses to renegotiate a new deal just because you thought they would.  It's ridiculous.

    Parent

    No, this is not "TalkMiddle" (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 08:01:14 PM EST
    And, you have made this comment umpteen times now.

    Twice I have posted a link to article regarding Iranina troops in Iraq.  After you challenged me.  You response was to say you were no longer on vacation and missed my post and you did not "challenge" me.

    And then I posted the link to Iranian troops again.  And again crickets.

    To engage debagte in good faith, you need to do better than re-post the same ol', same ol'.  

    You conservatives have quite a racket.  Support oil, just write off science.   Want to avoid any criticism of Bush, just write of history by saying is "blaming Bush."

    History matters.  History can teach us.  But Fox News has taught conservatives to ignore history by saying reviewing history is just "blaming Bush."

    I dare say Jeralyn's generosity and graciousness in supporting your posting here is not reciprocated on conservative cites.   At least, you could post in good faith.

    Parent

    Go back to where you posted the Iran link (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:21:16 PM EST
    the last time, and read my response. You either missed it or have a bad memory. Again, I never "challenged" you. Twice, I said something like this: I have never seen anything indicating that Iran would take care of the ISIS problem. In your linked article, it said only that Iran had troops in Iran, which I already knew. It said nothing about Iran taking care of the ISIS problem. ISIS is in Iraq, Syria and has been over the Lebanon border. ISIS is a growing problem. Sorry, but Iran is not going to stop ISIS, except perhaps in very limited places.

    You are the one who is saying the same, unsupported, thing. Show us all your support for why Iran is going to take care of the ISIS problem, so that the US doesn't have to.

    I am not a conservative. Never have been; never will be.

    Parent

    So you did read the article? (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 10:35:51 PM EST
    The Former head of NATO talked about our troops fighting along side Iranian troops and how to pull that off.

    You do not know about Iran not stopping ISIS.  I go by history and no so long ago where Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies....and by this NATO general and by Netanyahu...

    Parent

    Your linked article (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:29:07 PM EST
    doesn't even remotely support your point. I said that in my post that followed your second linking of the article.

    Parent
    "followed" (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    Try actually replying to the comment that you are well replying to.....

    Parent
    you may have different settings (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    Users get to choose among several options for how they want comments displayed. The two of you may not be using the same display settings.

    Parent
    You did not "Reply" (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:08:45 AM EST
    to either of my comments that had the link.  You tossed in a rather perfunctory comment and attached that "reply" to another comment in the thread.  Lazy indeed.  Or sloppy.  Take your pick.

    Parent
    The below post of mine (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    is immediately below, i.e. the next post, your link in which you said "voila". Look again.

    "By the way, I never challenged you (none / 0) (#52)
    by Green26 on Fri Aug 15, 2014 at 12:07:46 AM EST
    on Iranian troops in Iraq. I know Iran has been helping all along, and have said that previously. I said I had never seen anyone say that Iran was going to take care of ISIS generally, so the US didn't have to check ISIS. ISIS is in more places than Iraq, and is looking like it wants to be in multiple countries. Big difference between being countering ISIS generally and assisting in Iraq."

    Parent

    The "last time" (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 11:10:41 PM EST
    I posted the link was the comment with "Voila!" in the subject line.  No answer to that comment.  Could you just post a link to your answer, so I can read it without re-plowing that ground here?

    But the point remains that any effort to weaken the Sunnis in Iraq serves to strengthen Shia Iran.

    That is why there is that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s....Bush I for all his faults understood this fundamental strategic balance in the land of Babylon and Persia.   He could have taken out Saddam but did not....There is more than one reason for that.

    Parent

    Kurds (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jack203 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    Are the only ones over there I would be willing to help.  They are our true ally and friends.

    But I would prefer to help them if they are invaded, not if they are the ones on the offensive. Then again, sometimes the best defense is a good offense.  This damn seems to be pivotal.  There is also something to be said to taking the initiative away from ISIS.  A sound defeat could be just what the dr ordered for ISIS to slip back under the rock they came from.

    Unlike our last president, I've trusted Obama and his foreign policy so far.  I'll continue until I have reason not too.