Iraq: Choose your presidential options.

[Kaitzilla]

You are the president of the United States of America. What you gonna dooo?

Protect our new $750 million embassy in Baghdad!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Baghdad

Plan for the worst so our 5000 don't get stranded.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/security-beefed-us-embassy-baghdad-24147974

Security at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was bolstered and some staff members were being moved out of Iraq's capital city as it was threatened by the advance of an al-Qaida inspired insurgency, a State Department spokeswoman said Sunday.

Jen Psaki said in a statement that much of U.S. embassy staff will stay in place even as parts of the country experience instability and violence. She did not say the number of personnel affected. The embassy is within Baghdad's Green Zone. It has about 5,000 personnel, making it the largest U.S. diplomatic post in the world.

Move a carrier within range obviously.

Politically, we are "out" of Iraq, so anything that doesn't involve sending in ground troops is possible.


**Edit**
Hmm, looks like they got it covered. Carrier arrived today.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ir...cruiser-destroyer-arrive-persian-gulf-n131596

The aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and two other U.S. Navy ships arrived in the Persian Gulf Sunday, as Iraqi troops mobilized to protect their country from a wave of Sunni insurgents taking over cities, and threatening the nation's capital.

The USS George H.W. Bush — accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and the guided-missile destroyer USS Truxtun — was ordered to the Persian Gulf Saturday to protect American lives and interests in the region.

Meanwhile the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) launched a raid on Tal Afar, a town near the Syrian border, according to security forces and a local official. The Sunni insurgents have already seized several towns and were advancing toward Baghdad.

President Barack Obama said Friday he would not send troops back to Iraq, but he was consulting with his national security team to "prepare a range of other options."

The oil situation will obviously get complicated.
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/580528...iolence-in-iraq-could-threaten-the-oil-supply


Help the Kurds with refugees too.
Gently remind them to maintain the pretense of being part of Iraq. Don't want to upset Turkey.

"The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of peshmerga," Kurdish spokesman Jabbar Yawar told Reuters. "No Iraq army remains in Kirkuk now."

Last sentence needs a bit of PC work.

 

[r16]

The army sure pissed away national resources in a hot hurry when they gave up the northern oil fields without a fight.

turns out the N.Iraqis have been preparing for the ISIS/ISIL offensive for over a year and within hours they increased the territory they controlled by 40% . In Kerkük they actually fired on the Iraqi forces so that the division in situ would disband without too much fuss .

any US official including the President would never do the thing the history will write that they should have done . They are absolutely laughable ; if they are powerful enough to induce Maliki to give up North so that he won't have to fight the Kurds in addition to Sunnis , maybe they should invade and declare the 'stan , instead of the "creatures" that roam Iraq now or maybe just shut up .

so Barack Hussein is actually gloriously successful in this conduct of wrecking the Middle East yet further .

strategy sites also include accounts of US Contractors in fight ; those in Balad Airbase after the Iraqi forces fled . They were /are supposed to be airlifted soon .

...

"Don't want to upset Turkey." Uhmm , why ? ı have 10 news networks following each other on the TV at home . Every single one of them praises the glory of the Kurds who supposedly will be partners . There are lots of unashamed people who claim soon there will be a federation of Turkey and the N.Iraq .

 

[CavLancer]

Best I can figure the Sunni Muslims are fanatic nut jobs but...should they be friendly fanatic nut jobs? Are they only fanatic nut jobs to us because we attacked them and their guy, Saddam, once? The Shiites of Iran want the US to help the Shiites of Iraq by bombing the Sunni. In other words, they want us to play their game, again. Here we get back to that idiot, Bush. He attacked the minority Sunni Baathist party of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and did what nobody else in the region could do (ie Iran), beat him and Iraq, No! Him and Sunni Iraq. The nation then went into the hands of the Shiite majority, woohoo, democracy. Remember Iran is Shiite. Iraq then went after the Sunni and treated them like second hand trash and the second hand trash revolted, which is what we have now. With the Sunni revolt they are going after the Shiites of Iran and Iraq and TGS and Iran's offering to join the US in blowing them to bits (us) and defeating them in Iraq (Iran). So why does Iran offer to join the great Satin (TGS) in this battle? Well why not? Allah has already used TGS to defeat their Sunni enemy once. Shiite Iraq is now so much their ***** that they had Iraq throw the US out. Turns out the Sunnis are not quite dead and the civil war bought with American blood when we defeated Iran's enemy is about to get going, and we really shouldn't get involved other than using our drones against the side that is with Iran, at long last.

What Bush s h o u l d have done was used Bathist Iraq to provide ground troops for the invasion and defeat of Iran after 9/11 which would have been a lot tougher than Iraq, terrain and all. Scratch Iran, the true supporter of terror.

I think we're on the wrong side here.

 

[Borachio]

I think you're pretty much right... until you say:

and the civil war bought with American blood when we defeated Iran's enemy is about to get going, and we really shouldn't get involved other than using our drones against the side that is with Iran, at long last.

What Bush s h o u l d have done was used Bathist Iraq to provide ground troops for the invasion and defeat of Iran after 9/11 which would have been a lot tougher than Iraq, terrain and all. Scratch Iran, the true supporter of terror.

I think we're on the wrong side here.

 

[CavLancer]

Why am I wrong? I'd kinda like to be wrong...

 

[Borachio]

Taking on Iran would be a really poor idea, imo.

Iran is 95% Shia. It's a fairly unified relatively monolithic society. Nothing like Iraq. (I think. There're people on this forum who know immensely more about this than I do.)

You might defeat it, but only at vast cost to the Iranian population, I think.

 

[CavLancer]

I'm not for taking on Iran now, at least not by invading. I'm talking about keeping them out of Iraq's civil war.

Bush could have invaded, but its too late for that. Bush already defeated Sunni Iraq, and they would likely have helped the US to defeat Iran. Anyway, those days are gone. Actually the only reason I would accept Iraqi help back then would be to save coalition lives. Pretty miserable bunch to have on ones side. Almost as bad as cozying up to Stalin and giving him Eastern Europe.

 

[Kaitzilla]

...

"Don't want to upset Turkey." Uhmm , why ? ı have 10 news networks following each other on the TV at home . Every single one of them praises the glory of the Kurds who supposedly will be partners . There are lots of unashamed people who claim soon there will be a federation of Turkey and the N.Iraq .

I was always under the impression that the reason the Kurds don't already have their own separate country in northern Iraq was that Turkey wouldn't allow it because then their own Kurds would want to break off and join them?

Being totally landlocked would be another major issue of course. Along with selling their oil.
Turkey would be ok with a Kurdish Iraq being their own country and helping them to access the ocean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan

The incorporation into Turkey of the Kurdish-inhabited regions of eastern Anatolia was opposed by many Kurds, and has resulted in a long-running separatist conflict in which thousands of lives have been lost. The region saw several major Kurdish rebellions, including the Koçkiri Rebellion of 1920 under the Ottomans, then successive insurrection under the Turkish state – including the 1924 Sheikh Said Rebellion, the Republic of Ararat in 1927, and the 1937 Dersim Rebellion. All were forcefully put down by the authorities. The region was declared a closed military area from which foreigners were banned between 1925 and 1965.[58][59][60]

In 1983, the Kurdish provinces were placed under martial law in response to the activities of the militant separatist organization, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).[61][62] A guerrilla war took place through the 1980s and 1990s in which much of the countryside was evacuated, thousands of Kurdish-populated villages were destroyed, and numerous extrajudicial summary executions were carried out by both sides.[63] More than 37,000 people were killed in the violence and hundreds of thousands more were forced to leave their homes.[64] Volatility in the region eased following the capture of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in 1999, and, with the encouragement of European Union, the adoption of tolerance policies toward Kurdish cultural activities by the Turkish state. After 2004, political violence increased, and the Turkish-Iraqi border region remains tense.[65]

 

[Old Hippy]

I'm not for taking on Iran now, at least not by invading. I'm talking about keeping them out of Iraq's civil war.

Bush could have invaded, but its too late for that. Bush already defeated Sunni Iraq, and they would likely have helped the US to defeat Iran. Anyway, those days are gone. Actually the only reason I would accept Iraqi help back then would be to save coalition lives. Pretty miserable bunch to have on ones side. Almost as bad as cozying up to Stalin and giving him Eastern Europe.

why do you want a war with Iran, for gods sake?
and when did the US give eastern Europe to Stalin or is that just another war we should have had, we could always bomb Vietnam again, help out our greatest trading partner...

 

[CavLancer]

I don't want to invade Iran, Graffito. I think I've mentioned that a couple times now.

I'm talking about after 9/11 when the US was on fire to go root out some terrorism. The WTC was a pile of garbage filled with bodies and fire trucks in the middle of New York City.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRMz8fKkG2g

The electorate was looking for terrorist blood. Bush, being an idiot, invaded Iraq. Terrorism is supported by Iran. They have terrorist training grounds there. Iran is working hard on WMDs, and everyone knows it. At that point in history, Iran.

Understand?

 

[Borachio]

I still can't see how the US invading Iran in 2003 would have been an any better idea than today.

Iran was still a monolithic mostly unified nation then, too. If your aim was to kill extremely large numbers of Iranians, then, yes, you might have been able to do that. I wouldn't say that's a terribly good idea, though.

 

[CavLancer]

Sometimes when a nation is attacked it wants war, think that might have happened before a few times Borachio. At that point trust me, the US was going to war. The nation was filled with sorrow and anger and someone was going to pay the price. Might as well go to war with the nation that's training terrorists and actively seeking WMDs than the nation next door.

 

[Borachio]

Nah! I don't agree. Best for the establishment to attack someone they knew they'd a good chance of militarily defeating quickly.

I agree that the US public opinion was looking for someone to "punish" for 9/11. I don't think they really cared who. After all, the world that matters largely ends beyond either seaboard for most Americans.

 

[CavLancer]

Nah! I don't agree. Best for the establishment to attack someone they knew they'd a good chance of militarily defeating quickly.

I agree that the US public opinion was looking for someone to "punish" for 9/11. I don't think they really cared who. After all, the world that matters largely ends beyond either seaboard for most Americans.

Perhaps that's what George Bush thought too, and thanks for tossing in the petty insult. I think perhaps it says more about you that you made it, than about Americans.

 

[Borachio]

I don't see what petty insult you refer to, actually.

I just made an observation that seems to fit most Americans. If you feel it applies to you, that's entirely your own affair. I, myself, would have thought it didn't apply to you in any way. But please yourself. If the cap fits: wear it.

Do you mean to suggest that most Americans do have much idea of the wider world beyond their borders? Because I don't see it. When Americans refer to London, England, and Paris, France, how much more parochial can one get? And seem to think they can "do" Europe in a fortnight.

(I do realize there are places with those names in the US, by the way.)


Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[Light Cleric]

Borachio why are you trying to troll

I know you're smarter than taking man on the street segments seriously

 

[Borachio]

Really? Take a look at the first video again. I found another version which begins with a survey of 8th and 12th graders.

Besides, what's wrong with being ignorant of the world beyond your borders? It means you're happy where you are, doesn't it?

And I don't suppose British school children know any more than US ones.

 

[CavLancer]

Lets stay at least somewhat on topic please.

 

[onejayhawk]

Where is the "Don't withdraw in the first place" option?

J

 

[GamezRule]

These aren't retroactive options.