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

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:17 AM Jun 2014

If there are US airstrikes in Iraq, then what? How does intervention improve the political crisis?

tweeted by, Steve Benen ?@stevebenen 12m
If there are US airstrikes in Iraq, then what? How does intervention improve political crisis & sectarian conflict? http://on.msnbc.com/SFY6EX

____ 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?

Let’s say the White House grudgingly agrees to intervene, militarily, again. Let’s 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?

Iraq’s political problem will not have gone away; it’ll simply be lurking under a cloud of fire and dust. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki still won’t have an inclusive government; sectarian conflicts will still divide the nation; and the security threats will still linger.

For the conservatives who’ve gotten every aspect of Iraq wrong since 2002, the answer is probably more of the same: if insurgents don’t “get the message” with one round of air strikes, then we’d hit them again. And then again. And then some more.

How long would this last? They haven’t said specifically, but presumably the answer is indefinitely . . .


read more: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/problem-the-united-states-cant-solve

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

randys1

(16,286 posts)
1. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle etal should put on uniforms and go over there
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:24 AM
Jun 2014

and figure out what to do.

McCain and Graham need to join them...

But they wont, some kid from a poor neighborhood will go and die, some pilot will die too...

Thus is America

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
2. It really doesn't help. The Iraqi government does not deserve our help. Only the people of Iraq
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:25 AM
Jun 2014

deserve our help. They are in the middle of a once-upon-a-time nation into a destabilized pile of rubble. If we help Baghdad we will be helping Iran. If we bomb the insurgents we will be bombing Sunnis and Saudi Arabia will not like that. The GOP needs to do nothing other than help the President get our people out. If they politicize this they do not deserve to remain in office.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
3. I think we'll end up doing airstrikes, at least drone strikes.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:43 AM
Jun 2014

Probably to buy time/space to protect Baghdad and give Iraqis a chance to get their shit together and fight. It won't solve the underlying political problems, but there's enough of a menace there for the US to act now--you wouldn't want the capital to collapse and a major Sunni extremist/Shia/Kurd war and the potential for jihadists to control the whole country.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
4. it would be bombing mostly Sunnis in defense of the Shia-dominated government
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:48 AM
Jun 2014

. . . and will likely do nothing more than fuel the conflict to the point where the rebels can clearly associate the Maliki regime with its former U.S. benefactors.

Intervening militarily in Iraq has always involved choosing sides in their civil conflict. Re-intervening after telling all sides that their solution is political will put the lid on any notion or pretense that the U.S. wants a political solution there.

I'm not sure why folks think the Maliki government is some bastion of democracy worth defending as if they have some legitimacy that the U.S. is able to broker to the Iraqi people. They regularly oppress and agitate the Sunni minority and others outside of their political circle. The violence from government forces against that community are documented. It's an autocratic government which is little more than a dictatorship at this point.

Airstrikes aren't going to stop the sectarian strife, they will exacerbate the tension and division and we have no way of managing the aftermath. The idea that U.S. airstrikes or military intervention will unravel resistance to corrupt government has been disproved in Afghanistan. The most we will do in that case is begin again to be the primary defense of whatever regime folks think should be in power there - PERPETUAL WAR.

See how that works? It's a slippery slope back to untenable paternalism, imperialism.

Javaman

(62,528 posts)
5. it won't help a thing other then maintain the festering boil of a mess that we made it.
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 10:54 AM
Jun 2014

keeping the middle east unstable for years to come is the actual U.S. military and foreign policy objective.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
7. "If there are air strikes, then what?"
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:10 AM
Jun 2014

Answers: More dead Arabs. More hatred of America. More terrorists.

enid602

(8,616 posts)
8. al Maliki
Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:30 AM
Jun 2014

Al Maliki has essentially purged the Baghdad 'coalition' government of all Sunni. Sunni troops in the Iraq Army have by and large deserted and joined the ISIS forces. The al Maliki government is currently allied with and receiving support from Iran. The Revolutionary Guard is IN Iraq right now. Southern Iraq is contingent to Iran. Any help to the Iraqi Government is aid to Iran. Period.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If there are US airstrike...