Cost about $400M last time. Extremely cheap when compared to the overall cost of the war. $400M every 5 years or so for the foreseeable future. Still cheap.
Of course, the political situation is different this time around, and we don’t have an army in place to act as a buffer between the Shi’a militias, so who knows if the same tactic will work today.
True. I fear this whole mess is going to end up like the Partition of India. Massive population shifts and ethnic massacres.
Incidentally, the current president of Iraq, Massoum, was a Communist in his youth.
So?
I’ve opposed a lot of U.S. military actions. I opposed meaningless air strikes in Syria (I also opposed threatening to act if X happens, then not doing it, too, though.) I was neutral on Libya, I didn’t think it would work out great but I also didn’t think Obama would get us involved on the ground (and more or less he hasn’t, aside from diplomatic staff getting killed and such.)
The Kurds don’t really need to be eradicated as part of the civil war. They don’t want control over Iraq, they’d be fine to be left alone. Again, you show a paucity of knowledge about Iraq and what’s actually happening here. This was stopping an actual army from committing genocide–something that required immediate, strong action. It wasn’t going to be fixed by any other tool in the tool box.
When we have a clear opportunity to prevent genocide, we have an imperative to act. Certainly a moral imperative, but much more importantly (as I don’t believe State actions should be governed by morality) we have arealpoliitk concern as well. The more nonsense like this the U.S. allows to happen on “its” watch as world hegemon, the less powerful and relevant we become. If you are never willing to use the big stick, then no one listens to you when you talk. Many countries barely pay attention to anything Obama says because he’s shown we are not a country of actions any longer. I’m glad to see he’s changing that at least in small part.
However they do want control of parts of Iraq other factions don’t concede. And that includes mixed population Kirkuk and its oil fields let alone their wider territorial claims.
The Kurds want to be ‘left alone’ to define their own borders. That won’t feel like being left alone by the other factions who have populations in those territories or want the oil beneath it.
There is no way ‘Kurdistan’ comes about without creating the seething resentment and perceived injustices that lead to conflict sooner or later.
This is The Middle East. Nothing is simple, nothing is forgotten and nothing is forgiven.
Edited to add:
We’ve already wielded the ‘Big Stick’ in Iraq. How well would you assess that’s been working out for us so far?
We’ve heard this “genocide” claim before. The Kurds were NOT in danger of being “eradicated”. We’re taking sides in an ongoing Civil War, plain and simple.
And I see no reason why it has to be the US every time military action is used. Where is the UN in this crisis? I want the US to stop being the policeman of the world, and the best way to do that is to stop being the policeman of the world.
You are conflating the situation of the Yazidis with that of the Kurds (speaking of paucity of knowledge). The Yazidis present an immediate humanitarian need, and several nations are participating in that.
If we want to takes sides in the Civil War, I’d rather see us arm the Kurds directly (which we are starting to do) and let them duke it out without us. And if we’re going to arm them now, we should have armed them months ago. And note: I’m choosing between two bad choices here. My preferred choice is to get out and stay out. We should never have been there in the first place, and doubling down on a mistake is just another mistake.
This is not ISIL acting alone, btw-- they wouldn’t have made their gains in Iraq without allying with the Sunni tribes. They’ve become a sophisticated fighting force thanks to a lot of help from the old guard-- holdovers from SH’s military machine. The Sunni Arabs are contesting land the Kurds have claimed. They’ve made an unholy pact with ISIL, and now both need each other. And so we are fighting on one side of a multi-sided Civil War. We’re the Kurdish Air Force, but not the Shi’a Air Force (yet). And make no mistake about it-- we’re fighting Iraqi Sunni Arabs, even if we think we’re only fighting ISIL.
Absolutely.
If the Kurds want to fight over Kirkuk that isn’t our business, but this issue actually is pretty simple. A region that we’ve protected for over 15 years was in dire threat, and we acted to protect he. There are good reasons we’ve protected this region, and continue to do so. I don’t know in what way that means I’m unaware of all other issues in Iraq.
I’m not sure anyone in this thread other than me actually knows the history of the past ten years. Otherwise I’d be very confused how limited airstrikes to stop an ISIS conventional advance is at all the same as a campaign to topple a government, replace it with one of our design, and then protect said government from insurgency for 8 years.
You guys seem to think all military action in Iraq is the same.
I was in the Army during Gulf War I and I remember a lot of people bitterly opposed it on what I’d call dumb John Mace style grounds. That we were committing to govern Iraq forever and etc. But then what actually happened is we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait, bitch slapped his military, and then left. We didn’t take responsibility for Iraq’s governance.
This operation is even more limited than Gulf War I, because we are not seeking regime change in Baghdad. Nor are we committing to even fighting Baghdad’s wars. Obama has couched this in terms of stopping a specific ISIS campaign, not in terms of stopping ISIS, not in terms of fixing Iraq.
This is the same as Gulf War II in about the same way Gulf War I was the same as Gulf War II, or for that matter about the same as the Iran-Iraq War is compared to any of these conflicts. You guys seem to think “military action” and “Iraq” all are indistinguishable, identical things. That you can point to unwise things done in 2003 as an argument to not do something fundamentally different in 2014.
This shows me either an inability or a political unwillingness to think critically about the situation. Any idiot could distinguish between Gulf War I, Operation Desert Fox, Gulf War II, and this. I can only assume there is some deliberate obtuseness going on in those who cannot.
The Kurds have been victims of genocide in Turkey and in Iraq previously. These aren’t claims that’s history.
And so what if we take sides in a Civil War? One of the sides is clearly our enemy.
No one cares what you want, seriously.
Nope, I’m not.
Airstrikes are basically a nothing commitment. This is why I was neutral on Libya, people act like somehow airstrikes lead to something more, which many examples show does not happen. Decisions to do more lead to more, not airstrikes. I don’t actually see why we spend literally hundreds of billions maintaining the ability to project force (in the form of airstrikes) all over the globe if we aren’t willing to do it when it makes sense.
ISIS isn’t that sophisticated, but yes they have support from Iraqi Sunnis. They would not be in Iraq if that wasn’t the case. But they have no support from Iraqi Kurds, so they are not at all going to be conducting an insurgency in Kurdistan. We wanted them to halt their conventional invasion of Kurdistan, our airstrikes did that. What happens next is honestly of much less importance. If we want to give some better weapons to the Kurds, great. If we’re content to let them maintain a defensive position and hopefully ISIS and Baghdad fight it out, that’s great too. Not my concern.
But it was worth it to stop them from invading Kurdistan.
Do you actually know anything about the League of Nations and the United Nations? The whole point of those bodies, above and beyond being “forums” was to establish the concept that aggressive warfare is wrong. We were stopping aggressors in a war, it hardly matters if it’s a “civil” war or not. We were acting within the expected parameters given our international status, and as you and other imbeciles fail to recognize, not helping our friends makes us week. Which is the #1 reason we had to act.
We didn’t need to act in Syria because no one in Syria was our friend, but you only become weaker by being a great power that doesn’t help friends, because it makes you much less attractive as a partner going forward.
If you’re such a genius about what has happened in Iraq over the last many years, then you would have made some passing mention of Operation Provide Comfort (and its successor operations) which went on for more than a decade.
But what do I know: you’re the only one who knows what he’s talking about in this thread.
I dunno, I think Martin Hyde is making some very good points.
His points are fine (at least some of them), it’s his sense of his importance that needs to be taken down a notch.
BS US doesn’t have the power to nothin. 10 years we couldn’t beat the Vietnamese wearing their pajamas. 10 years we couldn’t win in Iraq or Afghanistan. 70 years we’ve stood behind Israel’s shoulder glaring at their prisoners in Gaza and nobody is cowed. Let’s forget about trying to rule the world and turn everything into a MiniAmerica.
Fair enough.
Gotta love the amazing knowledge of history this comment reveals.
War is war and killing is killing. If you see any difference between one dead body and the other you are like those who felt that “WE” had to remove Madman Hussein because “he killed his own people.” Then we killed probably 10 times as many of his people than he ever did. SO let’s go back a few generations and declare “Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. " I wanna kill, kill kill, burn villages kill women and children.” Remember Arlo Guthrie.
Cite?
Please post proof that my body composition resembles fecal matter from any breed of dog you desire. Furthermore, post proof that my body has been decomposing for at least 72 hours.
If you can’t do that, then shut the fuck up with the childish namecalling. You might learn someday that ad hominem responses are an open admission that you can’t refute what was said originally.
Your post is my cite.
Whining about being the target of ad hominem responses and name-calling after calling people ragheads and getting a mod warning for it. Classic, clothy.