Going into Iraq

[iris lily]

wait, didn't we just leave? We sent a warship, now "military advisors," but there will NOT be boots on the grounds, no there will not, the Prez says so.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

More sounds of crickets on this website about our President and his Iraq strategy. Chirp.......Chirp.....

[bae]

And again, the Pink People For Peace who were actively protesting the war(s) here every day/week on our Village Green have been not seen once since Obama was elected.

Chirp....chirp....

[Yossarian]

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

Never get involved in a land war in Asia
~Vizzini

[ApatheticNoMore]

I think it's more confusing to oppose reentry in a war the U.S. already started (the U.S. is THE reason Iraq is such a mess), as opposed to a brand shiny new war (relatively speaking).

For me it's a weariness of keeping up with systems that I've long since decided are rotten to the core. We've always been at war with Eurasia indeed. U.S. imperialism doesn't mean well, it is rotten to the core, but it's also getting more and more stealthy. It's like reading a novel with a protagonist so evil and unlikable that eventually you just throw the book across the room sick of even spending time with the evil @#$#. That's what living with U.S. empire is like. And also most people probably lost track of what was happening in Iraq somewhere in the other dozen wars the U.S. helped start since then, I know I did (the Ukranian situation with the fascists the U.S. helped support isn't even cold yet). It takes great mental effort to even keep up on the histories of a dozen countries the U.S wants to kill people in, a new one appearing in the news every day, like a game of whack a mole.

I haven't much of a clue what exactly is even really happening in Iraq now, or even what the Obama admin wants to be happening. What is pretty well known: U.S. arming of Syrian rebels almost certainly let to the growth of groups like ISIS - as if the arming them wasn't obviously a dumb idea that wouldn't end well from day 1.


More sounds of crickets on this website about our President and his Iraq strategy. Chirp.......Chirp.....

:laff: I'm not sure the Dem partisans even post much. The agreement to get out wasn't Obama but was Bush, but what was the alternative stay there and fight an endless war forever? I guess that could happen anyway.

[Rogar]

I can see how, if we went into Iraq in the first place to eliminate a dangerous dictator and reduce the risk of terrorism, it would make sense to intervene in order to justify the loss of life and years of military effort. Maybe what ever we accomplished is being reversed by a ragged bunch of organized hoodlums sweeping through poorly protected areas.

I was not in favor of us going into Iraq initially, but we did and that can't be reversed. A lot of young men and women gave loss of life and limb to get to where ever things are. To deny any military action to defend what was accomplished seems like an admission of how futile it these losses were.

[CathyA]

But I don't see how going back will make all those deaths/injuries right.
And I think sending equipment over there is really short-sighted. After all, ISIS has already taken over equipment we had there earlier.
And I DO think a lot of the losses over there WERE in vain.
Why do we have to put our U.S. noses into everything all the time?

I heard on the news tonight that Iran is also sending advisors. Richard Engel said it will be like driving a car with 2 steering wheels..........both wanting to go in a different direction.
What a screwed up mess.
And how can we ever believe what's being said about anything?

[ApatheticNoMore]

I can see how, if we went into Iraq in the first place to eliminate a dangerous dictator and reduce the risk of terrorism, it would make sense to intervene in order to justify the loss of life and years of military effort. Maybe what ever we accomplished is being reversed by a ragged bunch of organized hoodlums sweeping through poorly protected areas.

I was not in favor of us going into Iraq initially, but we did and that can't be reversed. A lot of young men and women gave loss of life and limb to get to where ever things are. To deny any military action to defend what was accomplished seems like an admission of how futile it these losses were.

This is what the economists call sunk cost fallacy :). In economic terms it would be: we've all ready sunk a bunch of money into the losing money pit might as well sink more even though it's no better an investment than it was originally. I find it hard to believe ANYTHING was accomplished by the first mission to Iraq. But I certainly get why people are just kind of "meh" (apathetic). Because it's hard to see a good future awaiting Iraq either way.

So an anti-war movement if there is one will be built on this: the U.S. can still kill more, it can still use chemical weapons (white phosphorous) to kill more, it can still poison the environment more (this is no small matter - tons of Iraqis were born with birth defects), destroy the infrastructure more, torture more - so yea abu grihab more, extraordinary rendition more, lock more in Gitmo etc. - and use it all as an excuse why we can't afford anything at all in this country. Although the meh is some of that stuff will probably happen just from the forces already taking over Iraq (well killing and destruction of infrastructure perhaps anyway). But the U.S. doesn't exactly have a reputation of improving situations any.

[Rogar]

ANM, I think your sunk cost fallacy explanation is an elaborate way of saying not to throw good money after bad. I wonder about that too. The losses we had ended up giving the people more freedom in selecting their leaders in a fair election, but the whole region just seems too unstable to expect anything to be around for long. The terrorist threat of the Sadaam regime will probably be a debate for years to come.

What I wonder is why the people seem so docile. The soldiers we trained seem to have fled without much of a fight and there doesn't appear to be any local resistance from a militia or underground. I can picture an armed unpopular take over of my neighborhood and see a lot of old hunting weapons coming out of closets. Maybe you have to be there.

[iris lilies]

ANM, I think your sunk cost fallacy explanation is an elaborate way of saying not to throw good money after bad. I wonder about that too. The losses we had ended up giving the people more freedom in selecting their leaders in a fair election, but the whole region just seems too unstable to expect anything to be around for long. The terrorist threat of the Sadaam regime will probably be a debate for years to come.

What I wonder is why the people seem so docile. The soldiers we trained seem to have fled without much of a fight and there doesn't appear to be any local resistance from a militia or underground. I can picture an armed unpopular take over of my neighborhood and see a lot of old hunting weapons coming out of closets. Maybe you have to be there.

I remember hearing a young Iraqi journalist interviewed on NPR in the early years of the Iraq war and it stayed with me. He pleaded for Americans to understand that it will take a while for democracy to bloom, for Iraqis to find their way, and for Americans to trust that young Iraq really does have hopes and dreams of a free country.

But that sure is hard for us to see. And living in a constantly warring country is exhausting so the people there have limited energy for "fighting" for whichever bloke of the moment is in ascendency. And then, the Sunis and the Shiite--to me they are like the Methodists vs the Lutherans and I want to say to them "really how are ya'll that different?" But of course the conflict is really about tribal cultures and affiliations, just like Northern Ireland was class and culture wars, not Catholics vs Protestants.

[bUU]

When I help someone up off the sidewalk after they've slipped and fallen, I don't place expectations on them to never fall again. I won't accompany them along all their travels to catch them should they fall, but I also won't turn a blind eye to them when I see them fall again, because I hold some personal animosity toward them for not living as I think they should have lived to preclude having fallen again.

[peggy]

We should never have gone in and we shouldn't go back. You do know the only reason we are sending in a small group now is the fact that we actually still have folks in there and cannot leave them completely unprotected. (how would critics of Obama wail if we did THAT) I do believe we will still draw down any combat folks while leaving advisors (as we have in so many other countries) and of course we will leave a small group to protect those.

Let us not lose sight of who's fault this is. Yeah, I know people(mostly republican) roll their eyes when we mention Bush but the inconvenient truth is, he IS at fault. Then and still! We would NOT be dealing with this mess if it wasn't for his aggressive invasion of this country. All the money spent, and lives lost, American and Iraqi, for nothing. I will stop pointing my finger when we are not still dealing with the mess he made. As long as we have to keep dealing with the fallout, his blame isn't ancient history. Time/history doesn't start and stop with each new President. You can't unring that bell, no matter how hard the right tries to. All we can do is move forward and try to 'fix' the broken bits. Unfortunately, Iraq cannot be fixed. Not by us at least. Bush broke it and only time and THEIR effort will maybe fix it. Trying to pin this mess on Obama is pretty pathetic, IMO

Now, to deal with this, and the original invasion, along with the fallout, let's look to see what congress is doing. Well, first of all, republicans voted against expanding aid to veterans, health, jobs, etc...However, they are positively chomping at the bit to send people back in! OK, to be fair, not all republicans. Many have learned their lesson, and are smart enough to see we shouldn't go back. (by go back I mean strikes, boots on ground, etc..I'm not talking about the small group of advisors and protectors) But McCain wants to go back. He wants to be at war forever! (are we still wishing he and Palin won?) And Rumsfeld, Cheney, who else? Just about all those who GOT IT WRONG THE FIRST TIME..suddenly they know what they are talking about?

I think the biggest challenge for Obama will be to resist the urge to 'fix' what Bush/we broke. I believe he is a man of conscience, and I'm sure he is seeing those poor people everyday thinking 'we gotta fix this'. But it can't be fixed. If we went back and stayed a year, 10 years, 30 years, this same would happen the minute we left. And it's what will happen in Afghanistan when we leave there. I know he knows that. But will he believe it....that's the question.

[Spartana]

When I help someone up off the sidewalk after they've slipped and fallen, I don't place expectations on them to never fall again. I won't accompany them along all their travels to catch them should they fall, but I also won't turn a blind eye to them when I see them fall again, because I hold some personal animosity toward them for not living as I think they should have lived to preclude having fallen again.Problem with that analogy is that you haven't lost limbs or life (or seen your love ones lose them) to help that person up continuously. Hard to keep helping when that potential exists and the "person" who keeps falling continues to refuse to take the steps needed to help themselves.

[Florence]

We should never have gone into Iraq. We got out and should not go back. (We also should get out of Afghanistan completely by the end of this year.)

[creaker]

Problem with that analogy is that you haven't lost limbs or life (or seen your love ones lose them) to help that person up continuously. Hard to keep helping when that potential exists and the "person" who keeps falling continues to refuse to take the steps needed to help themselves.

Also to continue that analogy there are situations where continually helping someone helping someone up just becomes enabling. While we imposed rule in Iraq (and isn't that what Saddam did?), we don't seem to have done much to change underlying issues - we just weakened the structures that were controlling them.

[CathyA]

I would be soooooooooo upset (and irate) if my child were headed back to Iraq. I mean seriously..........the U.S. spent so much time and money training the Iraqi's and they ran from the enemy. It's time to say no, and deal with whatever consequences might ensue.

[bUU]

Problem with that analogy is that you haven't lost limbs or life (or seen your love ones lose them) to help that person up continuously.It was an analogy. If you want to keep the analogy at the same level of gravity, you have to recognize that the Iraqi people who appreciated American assistance were being killed, not just falling down.

Also, don't forget that it isn't one person living in Iraq. A compassionate person will help someone who has fallen down even if they've helped many other people who have fallen down in the past. They won't begrudge someone assistance they can offer because that they have already helped many other people.

If you haven't spoken to friends who actually had significant contact with Iraqi people since war, you may want to seek that insight.
http://uureading.org/worship/sermons/1840-a-report-from-iraq

It is okay to be unhappy about something without necessarily having that dictate whether it is the right thing to do.

[gimmethesimplelife]

wait, didn't we just leave? We sent a warship, now "military advisors," but there will NOT be boots on the grounds, no there will not, the Prez says so.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

More sounds of crickets on this website about our President and his Iraq strategy. Chirp.......Chirp.....IL don't drop dead of shock here but I agree with you and your implications. Obama did say no boots on the ground - then why are we sending ANYONE over that way? You will hear no crickets here, I am less than pleased with this. We need to start taking better care of our own first - how about seeing to it that our vets get the care they need instead of boots on the ground ANYWHERE? Gotta say on this one I am less than pleased with Mr. Obama. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

We should never have gone into Iraq. We got out and should not go back. (We also should get out of Afghanistan completely by the end of this year.)I couldn't agree more. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I'd just like to say I agree with Peggy in that Bush started this war in Iraq but then again, Obama has more than one term on his watch.....it's his time to step up to the plate and get us out of there. He's had the time, now let's have the results. Rob

[Alan]

It is interesting to me to see the difference between opinions voiced as different administrations control the military. To me, the discussion isn't "we shouldn't have been there in the first place so let the Iraqi's deal with it", it's "the ISIS leader has vowed to bring the fight to America, so how do we deal with it?"

If a terrorist leader tells me that he'll see me in New York, I'm inclined to take him at his word and make every effort to eliminate him and his followers as far from home as possible. If our leaders don't eliminate the threat, and another 9/11 happens on our shores, regardless of who's in power at that moment, that's a failure of leadership that sits directly on the doorstep of the Commander In Chief who elected to do nothing when he could.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well the thing is it is impossible to take our leaders at their word. So without getting into endless historical recursion does really recent history matter at all and can anything be learned from it? U.S. money almost certainly flowed into ISIS via backing the Syrian rebels (which backing is ongoing right? I wonder if money continues to flow right into the hands of ISIS), plus who else is backing them, possibly Saudi Arabia?

I'm not even entirely sure the U.S. govt doesn't secretly want ISIS pressure on Maliki as it sure is taking advantage of the situation to ask him to step down (allegedly democratically elected as he was, not that I'm much for defending the guy - but it is notable when protocol is and is not followed). So the agendas here, who knows what they really even are. I realize it's ancient history but does anyone really know why the U.S. attacked Iraq in the first place under W? 12 + years AFTER THE FACT as we are. Yes many believe it was oil, I don't think almost anyone believes the official story. And this is relevant how? Well .... we probably don't know the real agendas now either.

I signed one of those stupid petitions going to my congress people in opposition to escalating (starting) another war in Iraq. Hey well it's not much (yea I know those things are probably mostly ignored) but it's a start :)

[Spartana]

I just heard they are burning refineries (not sure "who" it is exactly though - ISIS?). I guess that may give the US greater reason to send in troops - and I expect that fuel prices will probably rise here significantly and all the price increases overall that will create. Been car shopping and almost sprung for a gas guzzling mini van or SUV but now a dinky compact is looking good. Or just ride my bike. Yeah, that's the best!

[flowerseverywhere]

It is interesting to me to see the difference between opinions voiced as different administrations control the military. To me, the discussion isn't "we shouldn't have been there in the first place so let the Iraqi's deal with it", it's "the ISIS leader has vowed to bring the fight to America, so how do we deal with it?"

If a terrorist leader tells me that he'll see me in New York, I'm inclined to take him at his word and make every effort to eliminate him and his followers as far from home as possible. If our leaders don't eliminate the threat, and another 9/11 happens on our shores, regardless of who's in power at that moment, that's a failure of leadership that sits directly on the doorstep of the Commander In Chief who elected to do nothing when he could.

so do you think we should send large scale troops back in? Is it possible to eliminate the threat of ISIS? If so, how.

[Alan]

so do you think we should send large scale troops back in? Is it possible to eliminate the threat of ISIS? If so, how.
No, I don't think we need large scale troops, there's only a few thousand people in the ISIS group. They've run through the country like Genghis Khan (that's Jane-gis Khan for John Kerry fans), executing and terrorizing anyone standing in their way mainly because there's been no dedicated opposition.

As for how do we do it, I don't know. I think it would help stiffen the spine of the locals if they knew there was a force of well-equipped, professional soldiers supporting them.