General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnd Creeeeeeep: White House beginning to consider conflicts in Syria and Iraq as single challenge
The Obama administration has begun to consider the conflicts in Syria and Iraq as a single challenge, with an al-Qaeda-inspired insurgency threatening both countries governments and the regions broader stability, according to senior administration officials.
At a National Security Council meeting this week, President Obama and his senior advisers reviewed the consequences of possible airstrikes in Iraq, a bolder push to train Syrias moderate rebel factions, and various political initiatives to break down the sectarian divisions that have stirred Iraqs Sunni Muslims against the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Senior administration officials familiar with the discussions say what is clear to the president and his advisers is that any long-term plan to slow the progress of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, as the insurgency is known, will have far-reaching consequences on both sides of the increasingly inconsequential desert border between the two countries.
The key to both Syria and Iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country, working with moderate Syrian opposition, working with an Iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same direction, Obama said at a news conference Thursday. Rather than try to play whack-a-mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-beginning-to-consider-conflicts-in-syria-and-iraq-as-single-challenge/2014/06/19/b14bd8b4-f7ac-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)But the crises are of a piece.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)if what we are seeing is not part of a greater plan that began with the original invasion.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)the original invasion had no plan. It has been all improvisation ever since.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 21, 2014, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)
Refresher Course: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025111728
bullwinkle428
(20,626 posts)cross the border into Iraq, and we'll drone the living shit out of you!!!"
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Javaman
(62,439 posts)How about a new and novel approach, we don't get involved in other countries Civil Wars.
Hell, even Britain and France knew enough to stay out of ours (but don't get me wrong, they wanted to jump right in, but not on the losing side, so they let it play out).
saddam via ruthless dictatorial powers kept the country inline. Anyone paying the least, the very least amount of attention, knew once he was out, there would be a civil war.
we were stupid enough, via george w. moron*, to take that gamble with lies.
now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that saddam should have been left in power (shoulda coulda woulda) but that was a sovereign nation that had no business to be bombed into oblivion by us. all because of moron* and crashcart's want of their oil and/or morons* daddy complex.
we fucked that nation for generations to come, if not multiple centuries.
If I was an average slob Iraqi, I would tell us (the U.S.) thank you but we have had enough of your "help".
morningfog
(18,115 posts)in their civil wars. NONE.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)knowing that replacing saddam and inserting a new Iraqi government would not last and result in what we are seeing now. Just a thought I had while following similar posts.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)what would be the ultimate goal? to make sure the middle east is always at war thus preventing any sort of coalition?
keep them off balance so there is never a single strong nation?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)this of course would be in the best interest of the Saudis.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)Iran is already isolated for the most part.
and more so, there have been rumblings in the political sphere that "we" (the U.S.) and Iran have been talking about the best way to keep Iraq from further disintegrating.
While Saudi Arabia is mmostly Sunni, I honestly don't think they want that kind of radical Sunni sect north of their border.
It's more in Saudia Arabia's interest to keep someone in Iraq that is stable and not so extreme, regardless of they are Sunni or Shia.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Destabilization in Iraq led by a Sunni uprising could serve the Saudis in several ways. The Saudis have been supporting Sunni militants in Syria. Maliki has accused them of supporting the uprising in Iraq followed by the Saudis warning Iran not to interfere.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/uk-iraq-security-idINKBN0ES19S20140617
http://news.yahoo.com/saudis-apparent-warning-iran-dont-meddle-iraq-125538829.html
Javaman
(62,439 posts)I fear, like with most militant groups, that while the Saudi's would like to eliminate Iran's allies, controlling the ISIS Or ISLA might prove to be more difficult than the Saudi's have bargained for.
It's one thing to be a lose cannon wanting to overthrow a nation, but it's a very different thing when that same lose cannon controls a nation.
But what you said, does make sense. I mean, hell, the U.S. government did that with Maliki.
all things never appear exactly as they are, huh? LOL
Cheers!
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)That's what I believe anyway.
Javaman
(62,439 posts)and carved it up for the wealthy nations to exploit.
bigtree
(85,917 posts). . . well, yeah. He's already said that Syrian targets are under consideration for U.S. military attack to defend U.S. 'interests' in Iraq.
It's fine to have sympathy for President Obama in Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025126306
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At the end of WWI, the British and French carved up the Middle East. They had conquered the Ottoman Empire after it sided with the Germans.
The UK created Iraq by drawing the lines where they felt like drawing the lines. They utterly ignored the local population, and their ethnic and religious conflicts. The French took Syria, doing a similar stupidity.
As a result, the borders in the middle east are not where they should be. That's why ISIS put Iraq and Syria in its name. There is a clump of Sunnis in Western Iraq, 1/2 of Syria, and chunks of Jordan who should be their own country. In the North of Iraq and Southeast of Turkey is a clump of Kurds who should be their own country. The Shiites in Iraq should be part of Iran, or a country aligned with Iran.
That is why there is a massive sectarian conflict. We can't solve the conflict by insisting we continue the UK's mistake of border placement. At this point, we need to try and make the break-up of Iraq as smooth as possible. However, that is greatly complicated by Turkey, Syria and Jordan not wanting to give up territory, and thus not wanting a smooth break-up of Iraq.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Regardless of, or perhaps significantly because of, the border histories.
The US military has no role in Iraq or Syria.
The other point is that the people of the UK and US were resoundingly against any military action in Syria. Opposition to re-entering Iraq seems similarly strong. Obama requested approval from Congress re: Syria, and didn't get it. He claims now he doesn't need it for Iraq, and is now signaling that his authority to go into Iraq can apply to Syria.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We can try, diplomatically, to minimize the casualties and violence as they sort out the new borders.
Actually, they do: security for the US embassy in Iraq. Which is what they're doing.
Syria would be the start of a new war, requiring Congressional approval. Additionally, Obama asked Congress for it so that Republicans would shut up about it - they'd have to actually vote, and vote to pay for it, instead of whine on the Sunday shows that Obama should use magic to fix it.
Sending more troops to the US embassy in Iraq is not a new war. It's putting more security personnel there so that we don't repeat the helicopters-on-the-roof scene from the end of Vietnam. Nor is training and advice a new war. Unless you want to claim we are at war with large swaths of South America and Africa.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)(head slap)
Nor would the "limited and targeted" strikes which are being discussed.
(another head slap)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Otherwise I'd have not talked about those.
Btw, if you want to put in a smilie, you can hit the "smilies" button under the subject of your reply. It's the button furthest to the right. You can also type in the name of the smilie between colons. (head slap) is facepalm, so : facepalm : in your post will insert it. (Just take out the spaces I put in so the text would be visible)
morningfog
(18,115 posts)(headshake)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)From the war-loving WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-rules-out-iraq-airstrikes-for-now-1403050875
Yes, the Iraqi government is asking for them. Doesn't mean we have to do it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/obama-u-s-prepared-take-targeted-action-iraq-n135621
The news happens fast. Strikes have not been ruled out, and never were.
(waving hand)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We gonna FedEx the bombs?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)from other measures like air strikes.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But you'll also find the White House saying they won't do airstrikes, even though Maliki is asking for them.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The administration will likely parse it that the flying of US war planes or dropping US bombs or sending strikes form the sea and by drone are not "combat forces." They will probably say no combat boots on the ground is not combat.
It is all semantics here. We are already flying planes over the airspace. We are already sending a couple hundred special forces on the ground as advisers. And we are clearly going to conduct airstrikes. But, no, none of those are to be considered US combat forces.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You're taking your expected future events and acting as if they have already happened. That we already have troops in ground combat in Iraq, because that's how you think it's going to go.
That is not necessarily how it will go. Take a look at Syria - it's pretty obvious that Obama was "bad cop" to Putin's "good cop" to go after the chemical stockpiles. Yet your approach would require us to act as if we had sent in troops.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We may well have that eventually, but that is not what I have been saying.
Obama said that targeted strikes are likely. Those would be military strikes. Those would be marketed as non-boots on the ground strikes. But, they would kill just the same. I am saying that there is no role for the US military, especially strikes. I disagree that special operations advisers should be there as well.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Why stop at airstrikes? If we're already assuming everyone is lying about where we'll stop, why stop at airstrikes? Your entire post is about creeping towards war, and that's where war is.
Is that an Iraq-only thing, or should we not have trainers/advisers anywhere else in the world?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I haven't said that is a lie, because that door is clearly left open, in fact, it has been explicitly stated as an option on the table. Even you link from Tuesday said only that airstrikes weren't happening "for now."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And that question at the end was a real question, not an attempt at a gotcha or anything similar. Is your objection to trainers/advisors because it's Iraq, or should we not be doing that in Latin America and Africa too?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Air strikes and drone strikes are not off the table, they are explicitly on the table.
I oppose the US military interjecting in almost every circumstance, including drone strikes, weapons proliferation, and in the form of advisers. I especially oppose it when there is no clear objective or national interest and in circumstances where we are taking sides in civil or sectarian wars.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)going back in because the MIC's baby needs new shoes.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)We want to fund "good" Sunni rebels in Syria to weaken Assad, thus providing breathing space for the "bad" Sunni rebels. Then we want to fight the "bad" Sunni rebels we have just helped strengthen by out Syria policy.
We need to quit fucking around in Syria. It's not our country. And since Assad is not going anywhere, all we're doing is getting more Syrians killed. And more Iraqis, too.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)since it is so obviously incoherent.
Maybe it should be a signal to get out altogether if our policy cannot be made coherent.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Been there, done that, too many times.
bigtree
(85,917 posts). . . don't forget, we're fighting Iraqis there, so we won't have to fight them here.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MattSh
(3,714 posts)I wish that was but sadly it isn't. Not with the way those idiots in DC operate.