Anbar Province

[H2O Man]

There are a lot of things about President Obama that I really like. I support most of the positions and actions that he has taken. There are some areas where I have some disagreements, and a few where I disagree strongly with the President. Yet, I am not entirely sure where my concern with the decision to send 450 more troops to the Anbar Province in Iraq ranks.

I disagree with sending any more troops -- and failing to remove every last US military “adviser” from Iraq. There is some merit to the “you broke it, you pay for it” position. Yes, the Bush-Cheney administration broke Iraq. Yes, they should pay for it. But these slime have actually been paid for their crimes, and there appears to be little-to-no chance of their ever being held responsible. Instead, it is the military -- and the tax-payers -- who are paying for what Bush-Cheney broke.

The argument that ISIS poses a potential threat to the inhabitants of American cities, should they fully secure their own nation-state, strikes me as curious. Here I thought it was a group of grubby men, hiding in caves in the outer regions of Afghanistan, that orchestrated 9-11. And I’m not commenting about any conspiracy theory -- unless one considers the documented reasons that the United States uses for keeping a military force in that region as a “theory.” It seems more like a national policy to me.

George W. Bush’s nonsense about “why do they hate us?” was an insult to our intelligence. A valid question would be, “how could they not despise the US?” It would seem that our government knowingly takes steps to insure that the US will be hated. This tactic is surely part of one segment of the country’s agenda.

I’m not sure exactly how I view President Obama’s role in this. It would be vile indeed, were it simply part of apolitical move, such as to help a potential Democratic candidate in 2016. But I lean more to the idea that even the President of the United States has very limited ability to stop the US military occupation and on-going conflict in that region. I believe, for example, that President Obama was sincere about ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he ordered the Joint Chiefs and Pentagon to make plans to do just that …..before learning that his decision had been over-ruled by forces more powerful than the executive branch of our government.

And that’s one of the reasons that I might endorse and support Bernie Sanders. It’s not that he would have more power than President Obama. Rather, it’s because I think he would be honest with the American public about why we are in Iraq, and why we don’t seem to be able to get out.

Peace,
H2O Man

[arcane1]

1. Agreed wholeheartedly n/t

[H2O Man]

10. Thanks!

[JI7]

2. obama has been honest with his comments about not having a plan

And similar ones expressing uncertainty .

I think the thing with letting Isis is it brings up Afghanistan before 9-11. How the world ignored it and others were able to use it for attacks and in turn we ended up going in.


It's a Difficult issue

[H2O Man]

11. It is a difficult issue.

There is no clear solution. However, it seems clear the the US can not play a wholesome role by attempting to militarily impose the will of certain corporations. Any solution will have to be regional in nature, and that isn't our neighborhood.

[guillaumeb]

3. Does the use of military force set in motion a parade that is hard to stop?

What concerns me is the similarity to Vietnam, and the similarity to all the military actions that are undertaken by the US. In the name of geopolitics, and at an incalculable cost to the US economy, the US has anywhere from 500 to 3700 bases all over the world. Because of the cost of empire, the infrastructure is decaying. High speed rail is becoming more common in Europe and Asia, but is not considered in the US. Instead the GOP votes to defund the railroads.

But of course US politicians never use power politics as the reason for interventions. It is always presented as the only reasonable and effective response to an existential threat to the US way of life.

So if a Democratic President is no more likely to scale back on military adventurism than is a GOP President, what is the solution?

[H2O Man]

12. Very well said!

Thank you for this. You hit the nail on the head.

The solution is difficult to identify at this time. There is no easy solution. However, the first step is electing the correct people to both houses of Congress, and the White House. That is the combination with the greatest potential of being able to do battle with the "shadow government" that currently sets US foreign policy.

[guillaumeb]

31. That first step is a large one.

I think your point about the "shadow government" is correct, if little recognized or understood.

I would also add that war is immensely profitable for the 1%. To paraphrase what General Smedley Butler once said, the profits of war are shared by the rich while the costs of war are borne by the poor.

Consider Iraq, where military contractors reap huge profits while the US taxpayers pay for the war. And the veterans pay the most, in physical and/or mental trauma.

[scarletwoman]

4. Those 450 "military advisors" in Anbar? Just call them "bait".

Because once Daesh attacks that base and kills a bunch of U.S. soldiers - and they will - the cry that will arise for "boots on the ground" will echo from sea to shining sea - the MIC propagandists will make sure of it, just as they did for the original invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

As Madeleine Albright once said: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

[H2O Man]

13. Absolutely correct.

We've been down this path. We know where its leading.

[scarletwoman]

33. This is not our first rodeo... nt

[guillaumeb]

32. Excellent point. It happened that way in Vietnam. The same progression

from advisers, to trainers, to helping out on the ground, to in country operations. The same escalation no matter which party occupies the White House.

[scarletwoman]

34. Even as I type this I hear the strains of "Ride of the Valkyries" in the distance.

I have to say, though, that these days Vietnam seems remarkably straightforward - although indisputably wrong-headed - compared to whatever the hell we're doing in the Middle East.

[Bonobo]

5. "You broke it, you fix it" may have some truth to it.

But my belief is that military action, by its very nature, can only exacerbate the problems and not offer a solution.

I fear that this 450 troops may just be the beginning.

With the upcoming election, I have to wonder what this (small) escalation will morph into.

The number of troops is easy to increase, not so easy to decrease. It just seems to be the case looking at history.

[H2O Man]

15. Right.

I have an uneasy feeling that it might, in part, be related to the 2016 election. I hope not. But the timing strikes me as raising that possibility.

[neverforget]

6. FUBAR Province.

It's a shit sandwich no matter what but adding American troops to the mix again isn't going to solve the problem.

[H2O Man]

17. I agree.

It is a terrible situation. I think the US invasion under Cheney created -- not surprisingly -- fertile ground for the rise in power of the most extremely violent forces in the region to take power. My greatest concern is for the "average" citizens, who simply want to live their lives in peace. The US destroyed that option.

[ms liberty]

7. K&R...n/t

[H2O Man]

18. Thanks!

[Bigmack]

8. LBJ.... Vietnam....

Hasn't President Obama read about how LBJ hated the war, but got sucked farther and farther into it?

What happens to bright, politically astute men that they simply cannot resist the push toward intervention?

I remember Candidate Obama and President Obama speaking to the American people as if we were adults.... why not do it now?

"We can't make it all go away by sending American troops... we're not going to get pulled into another quagmire."....

Something like that.

[H2O Man]

19. Exactly.

Thank you for this.

[Gregorian]

9. At half a trillion per year, it isn't any surprise that we've created a living monster.

An armed one. I imagine a gun to the head of every president in modern history who isn't willing to go along with the program.

Someone has to rock the boat, otherwise we'll just keep mowing down people in our path. I feel odd writing that. It's disgusting. It's evil. And there's little to no doubt that it's true.

[H2O Man]

20. Yep.

I remember back early in the US invasion, when huge stock-piles of weapons where being raided by Iraqi people .....and the US forces were just letting it happen. It was evident that one day, those weapons would be put to use. And that is besides the massive amount of weapons that the US has brought in since the Bush-Cheney war started.

[kentuck]

14. "....over-ruled by forces more powerful than the executive branch of our government."

Probably true but doesn't the buck stop with the President?

[H2O Man]

22. Good question. Fair question.

I think that at very least, the President is obligated to tell the American public what the real deal is. Obviously, no President is going to be able to be 100% open and honest with the public. That's not the nature of the game. More, some presidents -- George W. Bush being the prime example -- are incapable of ever telling the truth.

It's a very strange situation. I do believe that from 1968 on, the executive branch of the federal government has gained too much power in some areas; Jimmy Carter was the only one who attempted to re-create a healthy balance-of-powers. The Congress willingly, even purposefully, has stepped back from taking on its full responsibilities. In the 1990s, a group of republicans did their "best" to negate the House and Senate's abilities to function properly. Sadly, I lost almost all respect for the US Supreme Court with the Bush v Gore crime.

But yes, you are correct. Every president takes an oath of office. And that shouldn't be mistaken for a pledge of loyalty to corporations.

[CanSocDem]

16. Let this be a lesson....

...to those Americans who believe the POTUS can control the MIC.

" ...support Bernie Sanders....I think he would be honest with the American public..."

k&r




.

[H2O Man]

23. Thank you.

I'm finding this decision to send more "advisers" most depressing. No good can come of it.

[Quackers]

21. I went, I saw, people died, I don't want to go back. nt

[H2O Man]

24. I only know

a few people who have served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. They are my sons' ages. Only one of these guys views it now as in our nation's interest, and something he wants to go back to.

One of the more interesting vets from Iraq that I met worked for Schwan's, a food distributor that makes home deliveries. I talked with him a few times, back before Barack Obama was elected. He was a member of the "tea party," but not one of the obnoxiously toxic jackasses I usually associate that group with. He absolutely despised Dick Cheney, who he identified as primarily responsible for the lies that led our country into that war. And he was very clear in his belief that Cheney etc were the actual enemies of the United States, not the Iraqi people.

Most vets I know are, of course, around my age. Most served in Vietnam. None of them -- not a single one -- believes that our government is doing right by the men and women serving in the military these days.

[Quackers]

26. I'm 33 now.

When we went, we did the usual stops. We stayed in Kuwait for 3 weeks then flew in to TQ(Al Taqadum) uncertain of the actual spelling. We did missions in Fallujah and around TQ. After a few months, we moved onto Ramadi(this is where I lived most of my tour) and ran local missions in Ramadi, Hit, and al Assad. I got to go to Baghdad once, and spent some time on both the Syrian and Jordanian borders with the local IA and IP. I'm disabled now due to unknown heart issues. I feel like I'm in my 60's. My only goal now is to live long enough to see my kids grow up.

[democrank]

30. Quackers, I hope you get every bit of help you need.

Remember, you`re not alone.


~PEACE~

[bigtree]

25. I've always viewed Barack Obama's approach to the Pentagon's prerogatives as naive compromises

...that's not to say that he doesn't agree with the initiatives he promotes and employs in his military pursuits, but there's been too much of a deferential response to the wishes and advice from, what has been throughout his presidency, a collection of holdovers and cohorts of the same cabal of military-industrial warriors from the Bush administration. Even his choice of Hagel was a compromise between a liberal perspective and view of military policy and a moderate or conservative one.

Both Bush and Obama made their representations of the threat to the U.S. in a manner which assumed their unilateral authority to use our military forces (at least initially) anyway they see fit, without congressional pre-approval - justified almost entirely in their view by their opportunistic declarations that our security is threatened. It makes no difference at all that one justification for the use of military force abroad was a lie and the other isn't. BOTH distort and misrepresent the actual threat to our national security for the exact same reason.

That was the slippery slope that Bush used to war. That's the slope that Pres. Obama used to escalate Bush's Afghanistan occupation far beyond the former republican presidency's limits - with the catastrophic result of scores more casualties than Bush to our forces during this Democratic administration's first term and scores more innocent Afghans dead, maimed, or uprooted. That's the assumed 'authority' Pres. Obama is insisting he has to redeploy troops to Iraq today without congressional approval.

In pressing forward with a U.S. military response to the atrocities committed within Syria, this Democratic president conceded almost all of the ground we thought we'd covered in repudiating the opportunistic Bush wars. Bush's were waged, certainly, for oil and other greed; but just as certainly to effect U.S. expansionist ideals involving regime changes and 'dominoes.' The results, worldwide, of contemporary U.S. interventionism, speak for themselves. Pres. Obama believes his new 'pollyandish misadventure' in Iraq says something uniquely democratic and inspiring to countries in that region with his military forces directing attacks in countries which pose no actual threat to our nation. I'm afraid that all any one outside of this country hears is empire.

[TwilightGardener]

27. I've grown suspicious of the whole thing, frankly. We routed the Taliban fairly quickly in 2001.

I don't really know why ISIS isn't being conquered the same way--special forces doing their thing, teaming up with locals, spotters and airstrikes...unless some powers-that-be don't really want a quicker, more effective effort until there's many more boots on the ground and many more bases being built . CentCom and today's top brass know Iraq like the back of their hand--shouldn't be this hard to flush these guys out before they get established in various cities. What happened to the big coalition, the UAE and Jordan sending planes, where's the "war czar" Gen. Allen, where's Gen. Austin? Instead I'm hearing excuses and finger-pointing about Iraq's "will to fight" when we basically let Ramadi fall, and yet we're also sending in more advisors and going to build more bases? I've said before, I've lost faith in the administration's way of dealing with this. I actually still do believe ISIS is a destabilizing threat that must be combatted, but I just don't know what we're doing anymore. The whole shebang seems...incompetent.

[G_j]

28. K&R!

[democrank]

29. The fact that we can`t seem to get out of Iraq

is like the frosting on the catastrophic cake cooked up by Bush, Cheney and their lying enablers. It`s so distressing, so draining, so heart-wrenching. Day after day this awful thing drags on with no end in sight. Iraq has been devastated, nearly destroyed. I think of the deaths, the injuries, the refugees, the trauma, the destruction, the treasured artifacts reduced to shards, the desperate families, the money wasted.

And all this time, Congress displays indifference. They have more important things to do....like legislating ultrasounds, throwing snowballs around the Senate floor or demanding schoolchildren be taught that Noah carried at least two dinosaurs onto his ark.


The Republicans in Congress spend more time worrying about poor folks on food stamps buying a package of frozen shrimp than they do worrying about soldiers being deployed 4, 5, 6 times.

It`s time for a very frank discussion.