A solution for Iraq

[JollyRoger]

We agree its fixable--WRONG.

J

Then why the call for Obama to fix it and the claims by various passengers of the clown car that they will fix it?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would agree on US troops to take over Irak now, solely on the fact that ISIS seems like a real threat to World security.

What makes you think US troops could "take over Iraq" now? US troops are neither trained nor equipped for "taking over" Iraq, and they never have been. They are trained and equipped to destroy enemy military capabilities. In Iraq they already did that. There is nothing more for them to do there.

If ISIS becomes a "real threat to world security," the US military is fully capable of destroying their military capabilities in very short order, just as they did to Iraq. The world merely needs to make the call, I expect. However, at some point the world needs to get it through their heads that destruction of military capabilities on a regular basis is not ever going to "solve the problem."

 

[onejayhawk]

Then why the call for Obama to fix it and the claims by various passengers of the clown car that they will fix it?

The situation in 2008 was a vast improvement on 2000. That is a fact. You can argue the cost was too high, but the cost had been paid in full. Iraq 2008 was a flawed asset, but an asset. Iraq 2015 is worse than Iraq 2000.

Of course the politicians claim to have a solution. They are politicians. It's what they do.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The situation in 2008 was a vast improvement on 2000. That is a fact. You can argue the cost was too high, but the cost had been paid in full. Iraq 2008 was a flawed asset, but an asset. Iraq 2015 is worse than Iraq 2000.

Of course the politicians claim to have a solution. They are politicians. It's what they do.

J

This is standard neo con "reasoning". It is glaringly dangerous.

Iraq in 2000 was a sovereign nation. The leader maintained order, in ways we find hard to stomach. The military was consistent with the demands of regional stability.

The two pronged neo con fantasy:

If we overthrow that leader all the disparate elements of the population that have been kept in check by his brutal methods are going to come together and sing kumbaya. Guess what, that was stupid to think in the first place, and did not happen.

If we destroy their military capability, all other military forces in the region will take the opportunity to downsize themselves to establish a new lower balance. Guess what, that was stupid to think in the first place and did not happen.

In 2008 this incredibly stupid thinking had not gleaned us a "flawed asset," it had foisted an unnecessary disaster upon us and the rest of the world. A disaster we are all still stuck coping with. Neo cons should be shot on sight...or at least shipped to Baghdad and turned loose to enjoy the fruits of their stupidity first hand. What they should not be is entertained as potential future candidates for leadership roles in America.

 

[onejayhawk]

It is not a fantasy. Iraq 2008 was a huge improvement. Yes, it needed military support, but that is only one consideration on the balance sheet. Add the plusses and minuses up, it was an asset to both US interests and the region.

What we have now is worse than 2000. More than that, it was the predictable--and predicted--outcome of removing the military support abruptly.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is not a fantasy. Iraq 2008 was a huge improvement. Yes, it needed military support, but that is only one consideration on the balance sheet. Add the plusses and minuses up, it was an asset to both US interests and the region.

What we have now is worse than 2000. More than that, it was the predictable--and predicted--outcome of removing the military support abruptly.

J

It was a conquered nation denied its own sovereignty. That is the action of a rogue state. Such actions didn't "hugely improve" anything in this century, just like they haven't improved anything, ever. The neocon position is blatantly divorced from reality, as well as morally indefensible.

 

[JollyRoger]

The situation in 2008 was a vast improvement on 2000. That is a fact. You can argue the cost was too high, but the cost had been paid in full.

J

If the price was paid in full, then why the criticism of the decision to stop paying?

 

[Antilogic]

Love the idea, reminds me of the classic filibusters in Central America.

 

[JollyRoger]

The bottom line on the United States invading Iraq 12 years ago is that it wasn't worth it, says Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense for President George H.W. Bush.

"It really wasn't. It's harsh saying it because I was very vocal in supporting the war — [but] it clearly isn't and it wasn't," Babbin, a Washington Times columnist, said Friday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"We should have known at the very beginning and I will take some pride in the fact that even from 2003, I was saying nation building doesn't work, let's not do it.

"We went off on this neocon tirade and tried to nation build in Iraq. Right now, it was a foreseeable event that we'd have what we've got now."

Babbin, author of "The BDS War Against Israel: The Orwellian Campaign to Destroy Israel Through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement," written with Herbert London and published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform — said there was no way the United States could "meld Iraq together" as one nation.

"You've got three separate groups there, they're not really a nation, they're not going to be a nation," he told Steve Malzberg.

"And at this point I really regret shedding any American blood over this and we sure as hell shouldn't do anymore."

"We have some responsibility. George [W.] Bush became a neocon. He said that there was not going to be nation building when he was campaigning. He turned into a nation builder. That was wrong. The Republican Party has to take responsibility."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jed-Babbin-Iraq-mistake-2003/2015/06/12/id/650309/


Link to video.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jed-Babbin-Iraq-mistake-2003/2015/06/12/id/650309/

I would be more impressed if I could be sure this wasn't just the typical neo con ploy to get back in power.

"Look, we are never going to get a shot at Iran if we keep trying to pretend that Iraq worked. No one but that Jayhawk dude, and a few old people in retirement homes believes that. We need some of the younger guys to start saying that Iraq was a mistake and how they tried to say so at the time. Then we get them into cabinet positions in the next Republican administration and they can say that even though Iraq was a mistake Iran isn't and get us our next shot at nation building. If we can get enough tries eventually one has to work, and then we will be vindicated."

Make a note of this Jed Babbin dude...he might be dangerous.

 

[Commodore]

America needs to just accept that it doesn't have the solutions to all the world's problems.

You assume we are actually trying to solve the world's problems. Everything we do is to advance our own interests as a nation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it blows up in our face but we most certainly are not doing it to make the world a better place. We do the things we do to make the world a better place for the US. I happen to be of the opinion the current situation in Iraq is all part of the plan since it is my theory that a perpetually destabilized Middle East actually works to the benefit of the US and its allies.

 

[onejayhawk]

If the price was paid in full, then why the criticism of the decision to stop paying?

That was not the decision. The decision was to throw what we had in the trash. We did not even attempt an orderly draw down.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jed-Babbin-Iraq-mistake-2003/2015/06/12/id/650309/

Try to be more irrelevant. Go for a personal worst.

J

 

[JollyRoger]

So, if you believe things improved from 2000 to 2009 and are worse now than ever, why not go with my plan in the OP? Encourage those that pulled off the 2000-3008 miracle to do it again, this time with the advantage of a privately run operation rather than an inefficient government one?

 

[kiwitt]

We do the things we do to make the world a better place for the US. I happen to be of the opinion the current situation in Iraq is all part of the plan since it is my theory that a perpetually destabilized Middle East actually works to the benefit of the US and its allies.

And this is why a whole lot of the world dislikes the US. It acts so arrogantly, that it knows best, yet time and time again it does not. Sheesh ... this selfishness by the US is as old as the hills. It took the US over 2 years to get involved in WWII (and even longer in WWI), and that required you to have you own bloody nose to get started, and then it took you over 2 years to make any meaningful contribution to the war in Europe (The desert war and Italy were side shows). Then you seemed all heroic in the last year or so (nearly all the war movies and TV shows were about that) , where you were fighting a severely weakened Germany (bombed to bits), who had already lost all their good soldiers and Generals to fighting Russia. A quick look at the overall WWII stats in Europe, of the 300 divisions the Germans had, over 250 were fighting the 700 Russian divisions and the remaining 50 or so, were fighting over 100 Allied divisions. So no wonder you had a 'Heroic' time.

Then later wars.

North Korea still exists and is a pain in the ass even today - a loss
Vietnam was lost after a decade of war and became communist despite lots of hi-tech weaponry
Iraq 1 was a loss as you kept Saddam in power necessitating Iraq 2
Afghanistan is a loss, because it is still over-run by warlords, drug cartels and terrorists, the Taliban and even ISIS
Iraq 2 was a loss, because the 'new' country could not hold itself together leading to the success of a low-tech ISIS

America needs to develop alternative strategies that does not involve the use of force, because as shown above it really has no clue. Geez even your police forces are a joke to the rest of the world, and you think you can police the world - give us a break.

Iraq 3 will be a loss, because ...

 

[Commodore]

Iraq 2 was a loss, because the 'new' country could not hold itself together leading to the success of a low-tech ISIS

Well, I did say perpetual destabilization is part of the plan. So in that context one could say Iraq 2 was, in fact, a success.

 

[onejayhawk]

So, if you believe things improved from 2000 to 2009 and are worse now than ever?

Pretty much.

Since Bush did such a bang up job on Iraq and the private sector is superior to the public sector, my proposal is that President Obama clear the way for Bush to lead a private sector restoration of Iraq. The U.S. government will not stand in the way to a private sector solution and will grant certain waivers on weapon possession, passport restrictions, etc. so this can work.

Bush, for his part, should be encouraged to start a corporation and do an IPO to raise funds. While I really do not like government meddling, I can for see that a portion of the amount paid for shares could be tax deductible just to get things jump started.

Thoughts? Suggested details?

Since this involves another invasion (clear the way), do you really want to go there?

J

 

[JollyRoger]

A free market military - not the socialist one we used before.

 

[Commodore]

Pretty much.

Were you there at any point during that time period? I was and you know what I saw? A destroyed nation. And not just in the military sense either. Even the relatively well-off Iraqi citizens were having great difficulty securing reliable access to the most basic goods and services including food, water, housing, and medical care.

We (meaning my unit) did the best with what we had and helped where we could, but it just wasn't enough. That nation had more or less been burnt to the ground by the invasion and subsequent conflict with the seemingly endless number of insurgent groups that were popping up.

 

[kiwitt]

Well, I did say perpetual destabilization is part of the plan. So in that context one could say Iraq 2 was, in fact, a success.

It is a failure - on the Middle Eastern people and also the rest of the world as a whole.

1 million foreign dead = 1 US person. Great self-US-centred logic there.

 

[FriendlyFire]

It is not a fantasy.

What we have now is worse than 2000. More than that, it was the predictable--and predicted--outcome of removing the military support abruptly.

Well the US had to flush more blood and more treasure down the drain in AFGHANISTAN instead. So that US can declare another "victory" and withdraw.
That or elect another Republican as President again. We'll see what happens when the US doubles down on tax cuts and invasions again.

Were you there at any point during that time period? I was and you know what I saw? A destroyed nation. And not just in the military sense either. Even the relatively well-off Iraqi citizens were having great difficulty securing reliable access to the most basic goods and services including food, water, housing, and medical care.

We (meaning my unit) did the best with what we had and helped where we could, but it just wasn't enough. That nation had more or less been burnt to the ground by the invasion and subsequent conflict with the seemingly endless number of insurgent groups that were popping up.

We have meet the enemy and it is us.
Hopefully the blowback wont be catastrophic.

Ironiclly, the whole "you break it you own" it seems to be to much for Republicans to grasp.
You can thank Rumsfield dropping the ball, spiking the ball and then asking the US military to pay the price for hes criminal incompetence.