I’m fine with logistical support against ISIS, and I hope that countries in the region will do all this, but my judgment is that American military involvement will make things worse all around, based on past events. I’m not super-confident that airstrikes are a bad idea (but I lean towards “no airstrikes”), but I’m quite confident that US ground-troop involvement would be a disaster for everyone.
I care. I first started expressing my dismay to my elected representatives in 1991, especially the part about not taking the cultural and historical context into account. I remember being astounded that my patchy surface knowledge of the region was apparently better than the people leading the USA. Millions of people have tried to hold our government to account, but millions more are deeply ignorant and truly think the Muslims in the Middle East are some sort of replacement for our old Cowboys and Indians, good-vs-evil fantasies. I don’t know what to do about that.
I don’t think the leaders can really be that ignorant; certainly not in 2003 or 2015. I have to conclude that they are prioritizing the short-term interests of a subset of Americans over the long-term interest of the region and of the American people as a whole. What those interests might be, I can’t say: I would guess winning elections, and money for those who profit from a large, active military.
LOL. No, this is a country forged by warring factions of Islam. And we’ve tried to step in the middle of it and take control, tell them who’s right, and pick the winners and losers against everyone in the regions will.
If your fundamental assumption is that the US desperately needs “compliant” governments in the region in order to maintain some sort of economic or cultural leverage in order to secure cheap oil, then I guess it would seem odd to you.
Yes, Daesh does horrible things. If we were the “horrible things” police, that would be an argument in favor of intervention. We are not.
Yes, Daesh controls some oil fields. If we truly needed that oil, that would also be an argument for intervention. I submit that we do not.
You didn’t bring up another argument, but I know it’s floating out there: If Daesh were (or had the potential to be) a military or cultural threat to the US, that would also be an argument for intervention. They are not, and will not be.
We’ve spent decades involving ourselves in the Middle East purely in the name of cheap oil. What has it gotten us? We’re in bed with oppressive and murderous regimes, we’ve killed innumerable civilians, wasted billions of dollars in materiel, and thrown away the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens. We’ve created a great many enemies and forged few friendships. And nothing has been resolved. Nothing is better.
“Irrational?” *Irrational *is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. *Irrational *is expecting to “win” a land war in Asia. *Irrational *is propping up a dying fossil fuel industry with blood. Irrational is an obsession with projecting military force on the far side of the planet in the name of convenience. Irrational is failing to remember that my hands and yours are stained red, even though we are not the ones directly shedding blood.
*Irrational *is not believing that we are–or at least can be–better than that.
So yeah. I absolutely say “do nothing.” Nothing militarily at least. I’m sick and fucking tired of seeing the nation that I love leave a trail of broken bodies and towns and governments in its wake. For no gain.
Sadly, in this you are probably correct.
.
You know who was really good at keeping Iraq from descending into sectarian chaos? Saddam Hussein. You never hear from him anymore.
I don’t know if you’re a revisionist or a coward but most people could pick a point between the Ba’athist coup in 1963 and GWB’s ’ weapons of mass destruction’ to illustrate who created this mess of a country.
Don’t recognise any of that? It’s to be expected.
Just keep walking away.
Of course, starting the clock in 1963 would also be wrong. Much of what we’re seeing play out is the consequences of imperialist border-drawing. And it’s not as if Saddam’s rise to power and hold on it was independent from or contrary to western policy.
Iraq could have gone in a number of directions in the 60s. It was forced to go one.
“western policy” - is that code for something?
Only code in the sense that shorthand is code. What I mean is that if we wanted to trace the responsibility of the West (principally, the US, UK, and France) for the current situation in Iraq in 2015, we would have to go much further back than 2003. Not only must we understand the role of the West in what happened in the colonial era, but also the role of the West in Saddam’s rule.
I took you to be suggesting that Saddam Hussein is who is principally responsible for the current state of Iraq. But I think (1) just as important is the pre-1960 history; and (2) if you’re apportioning responsibility, you have to account for outside actor’s responsibility for Saddam Hussein’s success.
Iiraq had a Hashemite king until 1958? They king was overthrown and killed by an army general named Kasseem. Gen. Kasseem was even bloodier that Saddam Hussein-he’s believed to have killed in excess of 1 million people.
I’m not quite understanding your argument - is it that Iraqs are better off being killed by US imperialism?
Fwiw, I quite like the NYT version of history:
I’m not much of a fan of the argument, “We’ve fucked Iraq for decades and left it a mess, so we have a responsibility to keep fucking Iraq in the future.”
Yes, Iraq is a mess, and US intervention has been a large contributor to that mess. That means in my opinion that future US interventions are highly likely to be a repeat of the past, and will contribute to the mess rather than clean it up.
Or have we learned better? Like, back in 2003 we were innocent and naive and screwed things up, but NOW we’re squared away and know what’s up and our next invasion of Iraq is gonna go awesome. I sort of have the feeling that our next invasion of Iraq is going to be a disaster, and so, despite the mess in Iraq, I advocate not staging another invasion of Iraq.
If you have some arguments that our next invasion is going to work out great, then please make them and maybe you’ll convince me. I’ll be waiting over here, you get back to me when you’re ready.
Well, apart from mass murder, invading Iraq and Kuwait, rape rooms, torture, massacres and wholesale slaughter, he did a hell of a job.
Regards,
Shodan
…at keeping Iraq from descending into sectarian chaos. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
And honestly, can we say things are *better *now?
Things were better for America, most of the world, and most of the region (except Iran, due to their conflict with Iraq, and possibly the people of Iraq, due to having a mass-murdering tyrant in power) when Saddam was in power. Now, things are worse for America, most of the world, and most of the region (except Iran, since its influence has significantly increased, and possibly Iraq, due to the incredible instability).
I find the hand-wringing over Saddam or ISIS killing Iraqi civilians laughable, considering that these are generally the same people who hand-waved away the civilian casualties during our invasion and occupation.
Better than we did, and using largely the same techniques, too.
So you agree that the US should stay far away from any involvement?
I wasn’t aware that we used poison gas against the Kurds. Do you have a cite?
Regards,
Shodan
But if that had happened, you’d declare that it was just a few bad apples. Or that you used to do that sort of thing all the time at your frat house.