Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA problem the United States can’t solve
Posted with permission.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/problem-the-united-states-cant-solve
A problem the United States cant solve
06/13/14 08:00 AMUpdated 06/13/14 08:10 AM
By Steve Benen
If you missed last nights show, Rachel flagged a piece from Leslie Gelb on U.S. policy in the Middle East that rings true.
What happened in Iraq was history as usual. The U.S. fights in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Vietnam and other places (maybe next in Syria), provides billions of dollars in arms, trains the friendly soldiers, then begins to pull outand what happens? Our good allies on whom weve squandered our sacred lives and our wealth fall apart. Thats whats happening in Iraq now. [
]
No amount of U.S. air and drone attacks will alter this situation. This kind of outcome was inevitable for Iraq given the political lay of the land in that country . Before the United States jumps off another cliff, lets simply stop and take note of the bloody realities of more than fifty years. These internal civil wars, including the fights against these terrible extremists, are won and can only be won by the people Americans want to helpnot by American troops, planes, drones, trainers, equipment and arms.
No amount of U.S. air and drone attacks will alter this situation. This kind of outcome was inevitable for Iraq given the political lay of the land in that country . Before the United States jumps off another cliff, lets simply stop and take note of the bloody realities of more than fifty years. These internal civil wars, including the fights against these terrible extremists, are won and can only be won by the people Americans want to helpnot by American troops, planes, drones, trainers, equipment and arms.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorate and theres no denying the seriousness of the crisis the domestic debate has turned to some straightforward questions. For example, who bears responsibility for the violence, aside from the ISIS perpetrators themselves?
For the conservatives whove gotten every aspect of Iraq wrong since 2002, President Obama deserves the blame. Thats insane. It wasnt Obama who launched a catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003; it wasnt Obama who ignored warnings about sectarian conflicts in Iraq; and it certainly wasnt Obama who led Iraq in such a way as to exacerbate those conflicts.
Yes, obviously, the U.S. president ended the war just as he said he would and withdrew American forces. But the Obama administration left the future of Iraq in the hands of Iraqis, and after a decade of war, sacrifice, investment, and training, there was little more we could do to help Iraq succeed.
Nonsense, say the conservatives whove gotten every aspect of Iraq wrong since 2002. We could have embraced perpetual war and kept a lid on Iraqi violence by trying another decade or two, or more of war, sacrifice, investment, and training. But the root problems the right chose to ignore before havent gone away. Indeed, theyre worse. Perpetual war may inexplicably sound appealing to some Republican policymakers, but (a) they have no credibility; and (b) there are many problems perpetual wars cant solve. This is one of them.
Which leads to the second question: what do we do now?
Iraqi officials would welcome U.S. military support, probably in the support of air strikes, which or may not happen. But my question for proponents of air strikes has yet to be answered: what happens afterwards?
Lets say the White House grudgingly agrees to intervene, militarily, again. Lets also say the U.S. mission is a success: we target ISIS and related insurgents, we launch strikes, and we remove terrorists from the field of battle. Then what?
Iraqs political problem will not have gone away; itll simply be lurking under a cloud of fire and dust. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki still wont have an inclusive government; sectarian conflicts will still divide the nation; and the security threats will still linger.
For the conservatives whove gotten every aspect of Iraq wrong since 2002, the answer is probably more of the same: if insurgents dont get the message with one round of air strikes, then wed hit them again. And then again. And then some more.
How long would this last? They havent said specifically, but presumably the answer is indefinitely. Its not like we can trust the Iraqi military that weve spent billions arming and training, right?
Obama withdrew American forces in large part because there was nothing more we could do to secure Iraqs future. The conservatives whove gotten every aspect of Iraq wrong since 2002 find that unsatisfying, but and this is key reality doesnt care.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 475 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A problem the United States can’t solve (Original Post)
babylonsister
Jun 2014
OP
valerief
(53,235 posts)1. Wealth redistribution from the taxpayer to the defense industry.
That's what war is.