Plan B Forum

Going there in the first place was a colossal blunder even beyond the the lie that they had WMDs; and it has been proven that all of the critics were right. It is one of the worst decisions by any president in all of history.

2. Sectarian conflict will tear the country apart: even during the American occupation the Shiias would lie and manipulate the Americans to bomb their political and ethnic rivals and not the real military targets. This deepened the Iraqis hatred and mistrust of Americans and made us the targets of all armed groups in the country.

3. Once Saddam was over thrown we would be dealing with corrupt 'leaders' and weak security forces who would not fight if they were at risk: there was no way to put in place a secure government.

4. There was no WMD: When you say that "Saddam has wmd" (as Cheney-Bush did many times) you are making a positive statement that you have compelling evidence that this is true. If you have zero evidence you are lying; and Bush lied his head off. If you have zero evidence and Hans Blix (the person who caught the N. Koreans making nuclear weapons on Bush I s watch) has been on the ground looking for WMD for months and said there aren't any you are a liar and your party are all morons.

1. But the number ONE reason we should never have gone in in the first place is that the Iraqi people DID NOT ASK US TO. If the Iraqi people had said they wanted us to overthrow the terrible oppressor Saddam AND that they were ready to make the sacrifices to help us do it then Bush might have a case. They didn't! They were NEVER going to do that! It was a fucking blunder. colossal stupidity. the difference between Iraq and Libya is that the Libyan people were ALREADY fighting and dying to overthrow Qaddafi the Iraqis were not and would never.


But, getting back to the present. Going back there to repeat a stupid mistake would be an even worse mistake. We should support the Kurds in the north (these are the people that Henry Kissinger betrayed back in the day) and help them to defend themselves from the sectarian bloodbath Bush has created in the rest of the country.

A few overarching facts from Vox.com

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/20/5819018/6- ... aq-cost-us

1. At least 126,107 civilian deaths
2. America lost 4,486 service members (and nearly all of the VA problems were caused by the flood of injured Vets from Iraq)
3. The war created 2 million refugees
4. $817 billion in direct costs, and trillions more in indirect costs
5. Iraq is no freer than Iran
6. 0 weapons of mass destruction

So not only did hundreds of thousands of people die and trillions of dollars get squandered, but the actual strategic objective of the war (defusing the WMD threat) was nonexistent, as was the humanitarian objective of creating a pacific liberal democracy. The war accomplished little to nothing at an enormous cost. Let's not repeat it.

The top-line problem is that the Iraqis do not have any vision of a legitimate government, democratic or not, which might ever earn or deserve the support of Shiia and Sunni and Arab groups. ISIS only succeeded because the populations of those cities were Sunnis who were oppressed by Shiias and who supported the tiny band of ISIS fighters. We are not seeing the effect of ISIS so much as the inability to govern by the corrupt and murderous Shiia dolts Bush put in power.

yrs,
rubato

I agree rubato with your reasons, but the overarching reason we will go back, OIL.

And now we're hearing the old--We are only sending advisors, not combat troops. Those who ignore history...

As wiser folks than us have already concluded, there is no easy path for the U.S. here.

To allow the situation to devolve into chaos and anarchy would be to walk away from the tremendous sacrifices we made there. To prop up this corrupt, incompetent government would only delay its inevitable collapse.

To me, the irony is that the model for current-day Iraq is to be found in the United States Constitution. What it WAS, not what it has become. Iraq could be forged into a collection of independent states, only united for the purposes mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, but independent for all other purposes. It could clearly work, if they could form a government smart enough to do it.

To allow the situation to devolve into chaos and anarchy would be to walk away from the tremendous sacrifices we made there.

I remember that slogan too, a little after "we're only sending advisors, not combat troops" and before "peace with honor". the more things change....

Big RR wrote:I agree rubato with your reasons, but the overarching reason we will go back, OIL.

And now we're hearing the old--We are only sending advisors, not combat troops. Those who ignore history...

The global energy situation has changed dramatically in the past 10 years. Iraqi oil is just not all that important to us and won't be for a long time to come. If it is important to our European, Japanese or other allies then they can have a shot at fixing it up. We are out and should stay that way. Perhaps after 10 years of whatever they are descending into they will be willing to form a government which can earn the support of all the major groups.


yrs,
rubato

We are out and should stay out, but I'd bet we won't. Advisors today, air support tomorrow, then boots on the ground because to do any less would be a slap in the face to those who sacrificed so much.

"...I'd bet we won't..."

I would take that bet. Barry may authorize air strikes or drone activity, but I can't imagine he would commit any combat troops.

Well, I hope you're right, but I doubt it. And it's not just Obama, this will stretch on for years well into the next administration, so I wouldn't count on him being any voice of reason.