Iraq Options? It's looking grim regarding our options to save Iraq from bloody chaos, ending with Iranian hegemony over the eastern part of Iraq. Richard Fernandez hits the key point...

davefales Loc: Virginia

It's looking grim regarding our options to save Iraq from bloody chaos, ending with Iranian hegemony over the eastern part of Iraq.

Richard Fernandez hits the key point regarding our "leader":

"If youre not going to win in some definable sense, why bother to play? President Obama has no coherent definition of winning, no metric of what it means to be ahead. The very notion of triumphing has somehow become evil. Instead he has raised process to an end it itself and plays a scoreless game in a world of local contexts. His goal is merely to be perceived as engaged and acting responsibly whatever that means."

Link to article:http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/06/18/the-pretzel-man/#more-37485

I knew in 2009 that he had no concept of how to win. A thought for the apologists: what is his favorite game? Golf, in which you essentially play against yourself. Has ANYONE ever heard/read of his score in any of the 170+ rounds he has played since January 2009?

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

davefales wrote:

It's looking grim regarding our options to save Ir... (show quote)

This attitude has prevailed in the USA since the Korean conflict.

C.R. Loc: United States of Confusion

Caesar had it right 2000 years ago, at the end of chapters dealing with various tribes was a statement that read similar to this, "and the helvici were no more".

Sherman had it right, war is hell, get out of my way, i'm going to burn a swath from here to the ocean.

When Carthaginia was finally sacked the Romans salted the earth to make it barren forever.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Actually, before becoming President, and something he plays almost daily is Basketball.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

davefales wrote:

It's looking grim regarding our options to save Ir... (show quote)

There is no concept of how to win, and there hasn't been for 5,000 years!

This is why it was incredibly stupid to go in there in the first place!

What many predicted in 2002-3 has come true as they proclaimed.

Sad. Stupid. Sad. Criminal.

Gnslngr

davefales wrote:

It's looking grim regarding our options to save Ir... (show quote)

What does "victory" look like in Iraq? What is "winning" there?

The fact of the matter is that when we first made the ridiculously moronic decision to invade that country the question never answered was "what is our exit strategy?"

No one could answer that question then. Now, of course, to right wing nut jobs, the answer seems to be, "whatever Obama is not doing." You guys are exhausting in your simplistic, infantile view of the world.

davefales Loc: Virginia

Gnslngr wrote:

What is "winning" there?

I believe regional stabilization was achievable. We have had troops in Europe (not so many now) since 1942 and Korea since 1950. Their purpose was to let the bad guys know they could not attack/invade without drawing the US into the battle. ("Tripwire". ) A residual force of 23000 US troops in Iraq would have served the same purpose. You may not like that thought but it has been pretty successful when tried.

Gnslngr

davefales wrote:

I believe regional stabilization was achievable. We have had troops in Europe (not so many now) since 1942 and Korea since 1950. Their purpose was to let the bad guys know they could not attack/invade without drawing the US into the battle. ("Tripwire". ) A residual force of 23000 US troops in Iraq would have served the same purpose. You may not like that thought but it has been pretty successful when tried.

Given the internal struggles of that country your plan is laughingly infantile. Europe was divided with a great deal of it under Soviet control. Korea was divided. Our troops in both places were a welcome force. Not so in Iraq.

Osama Bin Laden's plan was to have the US do exactly what it has been doing for the last 13 years, and we walked right into his trap.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

davefales wrote:

I believe regional stabilization was achievable. We have had troops in Europe (not so many now) since 1942 and Korea since 1950. Their purpose was to let the bad guys know they could not attack/invade without drawing the US into the battle. ("Tripwire". ) A residual force of 23000 US troops in Iraq would have served the same purpose. You may not like that thought but it has been pretty successful when tried.

I don't think I'm in favor of stationing thousands of troops around the world to babysit and make certain others live and behave as the US would demand. We continue to preach freedom of choice and promote democracy and then get pissed when either is exercised. If Iraq and Iran or Syria what to destroy each other that's up to them. If they should come to us and "ask" us for aid then we can make a decision on how to approach any assistance we would offer. Having said that should anyone assault us such as 9/11 to hell with collateral damage concerns we should strike and strike hard and let the world know that we'll stay out of your political affairs but you really don't what to assault or threaten us as the consequences will be severe.

davefales Loc: Virginia

Gnslngr wrote:

Europe was divided with a great deal of it under Soviet control. Korea was divided. Our troops in both places were a welcome force.

If you can't get the history correct, you are likely to draw wrong conclusions. There were lots of dangerous people who did not welcome our troops. But given time, they earned the respect of the locals. Japan is a particularly good example.

Reports I have seen from Iraq in 2008-9 indicated we were making similar headway. We just decided to throw it away.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

davefales wrote:

If you can't get the history correct, you are likely to draw wrong conclusions. There were lots of dangerous people who did not welcome our troops. But given time, they earned the respect of the locals. Japan is a particularly good example.

Reports I have seen from Iraq in 2008-9 indicated we were making similar headway. We just decided to throw it away.

You really don't understand Islam, we will never be a welcome presence in any Muslim country. Even the Saudis and the Turks at best tolerate us.

Checkmate Loc: Southern California

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Actually, before becoming President, and something he plays almost daily is Basketball.

We all know he doesn't let all this activity get in the way of "ACTING" like a responsible president! lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

davefales Loc: Virginia

Pepper wrote:

You really don't understand Islam, we will never be a welcome presence in any Muslim country. Even the Saudis and the Turks at best tolerate us.

Being tolerated is quite acceptable. And it seems to have worked with Turkey and Saudi Arabia reasonably well. If we could have been allowed to achieve the same "acceptance" in Iraq, the world would be a safer place.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

davefales wrote:

Being tolerated is quite acceptable. And it seems to have worked with Turkey and Saudi Arabia reasonably well. If we could have been allowed to achieve the same "acceptance" in Iraq, the world would be a safer place.

Really? How long have we had a presence in Saudi Arabia? Who flew the planes into the WTC? Who sponsored those who piloted those planes? From what country did this sponsor come?

davefales Loc: Virginia

Saudis certainly have extremist elements (Wahhabis) as do we (Timothy McVeigh?), but they allow us important airfields on their soil...and have for decades. We used Dhahran Airfield from 1945 to 1961.

Edit: we significantly reduced our presence in 2004 because it was an irritant.