Turkey has called for an emergency NATO meeting. Should we support the Iraqi government (if asked)? Should we bomb the bejeezus out of Al Qaida anyway? Or should we wash our hand of the whole damn business and let them sort it out themselves?
I have a feeling that doing nothing may be the best thing to do. I’d hate to see more of our soldiers lives thrown away in that god-forsaken place.
If asked, yes. It’s a deep question you ask though.
Keep ourselves out of it. All we ever do is make things worse. The last thing Iraq needs is for us to barge in again and kill a few more tens of thousands of Iraqis to “save” them.
If we are asked, then yes we should help. We helped created the mess after all, and it’s pretty clear that the Iraqi’s are floundering, and that this has wider implications than just in Iraq. A lot of the people fighting in Iraq aren’t Iraqis, but foreign fighters from places like Syria.
That said, it’s hard for me to believe that Iraq WOULD ask the US directly for assistance in this, so I think the point is kind of moot. And if they don’t ask, we should basically keep our noses out of it and let them deal with it themselves if that’s what they want.
Is going back in time to 2003 an option? No? Well…
I think we should definitely support the Iraqi government. Sure it’s far from perfect, but I’m more scared of ISIL than I am of the central government. But openly sending troops seems excessive and very likely to backfire.
The West should also send a special operations force to Arbil and bring back a friend of mine who thought it’d be a good idea to get a job there. I’m genuinely worried about him
It certainly seems obvious to me that the average Iraqi isn’t interested in defending their country, city or neighborhood. What possible long term good could come out of going back into such a pit?
The “west” should never have gone, and it should never go back. The price of invasion is now watching the country crumble.
If the Iraqi government requests aid, we’ll basically be obligated to go. Obama is currently looking weak because of how he handled Russia and China’s annexations, and had to go on a tour telling everyone that he will send troops when calls for help come in.
If he doesn’t, there’s going to be a greater issue around the world than just Iraq’s stability.
My vote is that we air drop Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Powell into downtown Tikrit or Mosul. Parachutes optional.
Of course, that’s been my proposed solution to most of life’s problems for the last eleven years or so.
Other than not sending American troops back I have no advice, and I am glad I am not president.
Western leaders, such as Obama and Cameron, should make some speeches. If that fails to solve the conflict they should make some more.
Well, according to the NY Times, the US was already asked. The answer was, ‘no thanks’.
What a difference nine short years make, eh?
What should the [del]West[/del] United States do about the present situation in Iraq?
Fixed your title for you, aldiboronti.
The invasion of Iraq in Gulf War II was an American/UK/Australian measure.* It was not a western policy; in fact it was opposed by many western countries. Nor did it have any standing at international law, unlike Gulf War I, which was authorised by the [Security Council Resolution 678](United Nations Security Council Resolution 678). Bush II pretty much ignored the UN when he wanted to invade Iraq and overthrow its government (except for sending Colin Powell to lie to the Security Council, of course).
If the US perceives its national interests are still at stake in Iraq, it will take whatever actions it deems necessary. That’s what Great Powers do. But don’t try to put on the window-dressing that it’s a “western” security concern and a “western” response.
*Oops, sorry, I forgot Poland.
Did you actually read the OP? Turkey is asking NATO (aka, “The West”) to convene and figure out what to do. And just because the original invasion was a huge US/UK fuck-up, that doesn’t mean “The West” shouldn’t do anything now.
Now, I’m all for staying out of this unless we really have to get involved. But not just because TEH USA is TEH Suxxor. The question here is whether NATO can step in and help. That doesn’t mean boots on the ground. Maybe that just means throwing more dollars and arms at Malaki’s government. Do we try an prop up the status quo, or let the chips fall where they may? I have to honestly say that I don’t know enough about the current Iraqi government to know whether they are worth supporting or not. But that is the central question here. Not what happened in the past.
Once bitten twice shy.
And of course nine years, or even four, makes a difference. The effort to establish stable government in Iraq failed. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth trying.
30,000 troops ran from 800 fighters. There’s nothing that can be done.
Yes, I found the complete collapse of the Iraqi forces astonishing. I’m beginning to think there was a good reason that Saddam and the minority Sunnis were able to hold down the majority Shi’ites for so long.
I thought at first the Kurds might intervene; they’re good fighters and their quasi-autonomous province is right next door to Mosul. OTOH they might be quite content to let their enemies slaughter each other.
The other question is Iran. They are not going to be happy to see fellow Shi’ites killed but as long as the conflict stays out of the South I don’t think they’ll intervene.
I agree. Why go in to kill tens of thousands when they seem perfectly ready, willing and able to do it themselves without help.