We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with the military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.

[Chathamization]

The fact that there’s been widespread violence doesn’t mean that we should be engaged militarily. If that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now, where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife, which we haven't done. We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea.

You can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun. There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts.

[arcane1]

1. If we didn't run on oil, most Americans wouldn't even recognize the name "Iraq"

Indeed, the nation known as "Iraq" wouldn't even exist otherwise.

THERE is the underlying problem.

[longship]

2. Good argument. The problem is... What would you do?

Remember, we broke it. At what point do we own it? At what point do we not own it?

Maybe these are imponderables which should not be pondered. Nevertheless, I think that the GOP owns this clusterfuck.

[Chathamization]

5. Thanks, but those aren't my words, they're Obama's from 2007

With the exception of this sentence: "The fact that there’s been widespread violence doesn’t mean that we should be engaged militarily," which comes from reports of his AP interview (couldn't find the actual interview).

As for what I would do, I mostly agree with Obama 2007. Keep in mind we were calling for troops to be withdrawn amid mass ethnic cleansing and ISIS (well, we were calling it “al Qaeda” at the time) operating in large areas of Iraq (and even mass violing against Yazidis). The Neocon arguments against withdrawal were the same arguments we’re hearing on DU now – are we just going to let these people die, we can’t just do nothing, this could be a genocide if we don’t act, if we don’t stop the terrorists over there we’ll be fighting them over here, etc.

Obama did the right thing by rejecting those facile arguments back then.

[Cayenne]

3. To our chagrin, Iran will rescue Baghdad

[Lurks Often]

4. Yes and No

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

In the end Iraq will have to resolve it's religious and tribal differences or break up into smaller countries to become stable. What we can do is give them a chance by providing a level of military support that the Iraqi military is not currently equipped or sufficiently trained and experienced yet to do themselves.

It takes time to build a competent military and in the Iraqi military under Saddam, most of the (if not all) senior officers were Sunni Ba'athists and most of them were either killed, captured and tried under the new government or escaped to lead the military arm of ISIS.