What should the USA do in Iraq?

Great Debates
1

Being an American, when I see what is happening in Iraq I instinctively - and I think logically - look to see what we have done there and what we can do there. I say logically because in theory I have a voice in my country’s foreign policy. As limited as that may be, it’s still more than my input into what other countries are doing and why.

So rather than clutter up another thread about happenings in Iraq, I thought a separate thread would be useful.

People on the right are of course using this as an excuse to bash Obama because that’s kind of what they do. I would say it’s the only thing they were good at, actually.

Everyone from Lindsey Graham to Obama-bashers at my own place of employment are taking Obama to task for this, which I find ludicrous since the previous administration not only got us into this mess but also got us out of it: Before Obama ever took office, George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which mandated us getting out of Iraq completely by the end of 2011.

Still, I was in favor of us leaving Iraq as was most of the country, so I was glad that Obama saw things through. On Bill Maher’s show this week, Richard A. Clarke, the is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States who worked for both Bush and Clinton, said it best that regardless of whenever the US left Iraq that this was inevitable, unless we wanted to stay there for a thousand years.

While it’s easy to look back in hindsight and say that going there was a mistake, and I don’t think that dwelling on what we could have done differently and just point fingers for what already happened, I don’t understand why the media is so gung-ho to trot out the same people who were completely and demonstratively wrong about everything about Iraq this time around.

Jon Stewart pointed out with ten-year old clips and current quotes from the likes of Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, the aforementioned Graham and the warhawk John McCain, that they were laughably wrong about Iraq in almost every way a decade ago, but here they are again, acting authoritatively on the subject and not a single person doing the interviewing is asking them to explain exactly why we should trust them now when they were so completely wrong the last time?

The thing that is also making the rounds is how taking a side in what is going on in Iraq means that we will suddenly be allied with the Axis Of Evil Iran and the gas-it’s-own-citizens in Syria.

We have notoriously sucked at picking sides in the Middle East (going back to Reagan and probably even further) and the current quagmire is a good reason why: The instability of the region means that a group that today might seem the best people to have in charge of a country there might actually be the worst thing in a couple of years.

My instinct is to say that we should do nothing and let whatever happens there happen. Backing anyone in a fight seems foolish and sending in US troops seems even worse.

I understand that ISIS is supposed to hate America with a passion that makes Al-Qaeda seem positively quaint and is doing horrible things. I also understand that a terrorist organization that gains power and has money (which they do after bumping off banks on their Iraq tour they’ve been on) and hates America can very well be a threat to us.

As someone who recalls the horrors of 9/11, I am willing to listen to people when they say that letting ISIS gain a foothold in the Middle East would risk similar attacks happening, but when it’s the same neocons whose predictions about the region for the past decade have all been wrong, and it involves alliances with countries or groups of people who have traditionally not been our best friends in the world and will potentially risk relationships with the likes of Saudi Arabia that have generally been good, I’m more inclined to feel that being reactive is a much better option than being proactive.

Thoughts?

2

Mostly nothing. Not your problem; the whole world is not your responsibility. Support policies that further energy independence. Stop financing rebels in Syria. Throw the Saudi and Pakistani under the bus and switch allegiance to India and Iran. Support Kurdish independence. Bomb Islamists with drones if they become a little too bothersome. But mostly the people in the region will have to take it upon themselves to combat the snake at their breast.

The EU should probably speed up EU integration with Turkey.

3

Share your intelligence, such as it is, with the Kurds and the Iranians.

Maybe put in a few airstrikes and drone strikes against ISIS targets, if and when the Kurds and/or the Iranians call for them.

Other than that, stay out.

Circumstances being what they are, you’re unlikely to a) commit ground troops, and/or b) directly support all of ISIS’s enemies. (Bashar al-Assad, for example, is one guy you probably won’t be supporting anytime soon - not directly, anyway, and certainly not openly.)

Basically, just slap this guy on the back, wish him luck, and then sit down on the sidelines and watch him do his thing.

If Iraq eventually breaks apart into a de facto Iraqi Kurdistan, a de facto Iraqi Shiastan and a de facto Sunnistan, you’d have friendly relations with two out of three. That’s OK, I guess.

4

American has done enough harm to the people of Iraq, they don’t need more.

5

Pull out completely and leaflet the country with a notice that reads WE WILL NUKE EVERY ONE OF YOU F*CKERS THAT SETS FOOT OVER THE NATIONAL BORDER. HAVE A NICE DAY.

Then forget the place ever existed.

6

The trouble with the US doing nothing is that the same issues that actually drove us to invade in the first place are still viable. No, not WMD. Oil. Iraq still comprises a rather large percentage of both oil reserves and current/projected potential production. We can’t really afford to have that production cut substantially, nor for the potential revenue to fall into the hands of folks who will use that money to spread or support terrorist movements and expansion into the other large oil producing nations near them. So, the US can’t simply ignore what’s happening in Iraq, even if we helped create the mess because, aside from the rather key point about oil we helped create the freaking mess.

That said, I’m unsure of what we can really do at this point to help. I doubt anyone (except maybe the Kurds) would be keen on the US putting troops back into the field in Iraq. We’ve already tried to train the Iraqis with pretty mixed results (to put it mildly). And I’m not sure we want to be part of what will almost certainly be the solution, which is supporting Iran and the current Shia government (plus tribal militia groups who are going to really bring things back to the bad old days of the mid 2000s) because it will, IMHO, be a total blood bath with Sunni and Shia killings on both sides, and most likely in the end some level of ethnic cleansing of the less numerous Sunni when the Shia militias really get rolling.

7

Just asked this in the other thread but it seems more appropriate here:
Didn’t John McCain “vouch” for the “separatists” in Syria? Didn’t he go visit them to verify that
they were fighting the noble cause and we should support them?
Aren’t they pretty much the same group that’s now invading Iraq?
What say McCain now?

8

I’m afraid any U.S.-Iran alignment will be politically impossible here. There are still Pubs who want to invade Iran, just to stop their nuclear program.

9

I don’t know what McCain did or didn’t say, nor do I particularly care since he’s a get, but there are various groups in Syria fighting Assad. Not all of them are on the same page. This group has ties to AQ and is pretty nasty, so I kind of doubt these are the drones McCain was looking for…though it wouldn’t be surprising to me if he is clueless enough to not be able to make a distinction between groups, or to think that all fighting Assad are on the side of the angels. Or something.

10

It’d be interesting to know how “allied” the Syrian separatists are with the Iraq invaders. I remember it being in question how fundamental the separatists are and that Assaud, while being
a murderous tyrant, was actually pretty secular (Christian churches allowed, burkas optional).
McCain was convinced the separatists were fighting the noble cause and we should commit
to some involvement no matter what their level of Islamic fundamentalism.

11

Emphasis added. Cite?

12

Iran sought U.S. friendship 12 years ago but was rebuffed. Maybe it’s not too late: With U.S. backing, I think Iran could prevail in Iraq.

A big problem is how U.S. support for Iran would affect other U.S. allies, like Israel and the corrupt oil royals of Arabia. I suppose U.S. leaders are more concerned with high-stakes Poker, Risk or Diplomacy than any matters of right or wrong.

The idea that this buffoon’s opinion should matter is laughable. For over a decade he has consistently been unable to remember which factions are Sunni and which are Shi’ite! :smack:

13

Well perhaps that is not the best way of saying it, but McCain came to the conclusion the
separatists were on our side and we should support them. So whatever level of fundamentalism
the separatists subscribe to he apparently was ok with if he thinks we should be supporting them.

14

First he has to see what Obama thinks or does, then he knows what to come out against. Like pretty much any other leading Republican in Congress.

This is a guy who doesn’t think we should cooperate with the Nigerian government over retrieving the kidnapped schoolgirls (remember them?) because their president has a silly name.

15

Again, there are multiple groups fighting Assad…and, often each other. To put it mildly and with a heavy emphasis on understatement, these groups aren’t exactly in lock step. As I said, I have no idea which groups McCain was talking about since you didn’t link any cite to give some context to your claims, but I would doubt he’d be throwing his support, even verbal, to a group as radical as ISIS even before they started their push into Iraq. Groups like this are most likely the prime reason (well, one of them at least) Obama et al haven’t been taking a more active role in what’s happening in Syria, since it’s extremely unclear who would prevail if Assad takes the long drop.

16

Oh, please. Remember that McCain was about the only support Obama had in Congress when he was all about bombing Syria. When it comes to using military force, Obama can generally count on McCain to back him up. Fortunately, Obama is loathe to use military force the way Bush did.

I would love to see a cite for that.

17

Exaggerated, but fair.

Surprising you didn’t come across it at the time.

18

In this instance, I think McCain would be glad to support the president sending troops into Iraq, even if he would grumble that Obama shouldn’t have pulled them all out in the first place.

That’s certainly making fun of the guy’s name, but it doesn’t say he wouldn’t cooperate with him. It only says he wouldn’t wait for permission to do so. If GJ said “send in the drones” McCain would be glad to oblige, or if he said: “Please help us”, McCain would oblige.

19

It’s clearly saying he doesn’t give a crap if they cooperate or not. Yeah, if they asked the USA to do exactly what McCain wants, sure we can “cooperate”.

20

He would then immediately complain about putting them “in harm’s way” without a clear plan. You know who you’re dealing with.

McCain said, in effect, he’d do whatever the hell he wanted. That’s not cooperation.

This petulance is unbecoming.