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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 07:07 AM Jun 2014

And 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 region’s 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 Syria’s moderate rebel factions, and various political initiatives to break down the sectarian divisions that have stirred Iraq’s 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

48 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And Creeeeeeep: White House beginning to consider conflicts in Syria and Iraq as single challenge (Original Post) morningfog Jun 2014 OP
And they are right to Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #1
All the more reason for the US military to stay the hell out. morningfog Jun 2014 #13
I have no opinion on that Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #41
+1000000000 woo me with science Jun 2014 #45
I am beginning to wonder Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #2
you are wrong Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #42
Good evidence for that: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) woo me with science Jun 2014 #46
"Stay in Syria, and we'll give you all kinds of money and arms, but bullwinkle428 Jun 2014 #3
Cambodia and Laos redux. hobbit709 Jun 2014 #4
this is the Viet Nam/ Cambodia syndrome. Javaman Jun 2014 #5
That's it. My here is no reason for us to get involved morningfog Jun 2014 #6
Unless it was part of a greater plan Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #7
That's an interesting observation. Javaman Jun 2014 #8
Isolate Iran? Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #9
how would that be achieved? Javaman Jun 2014 #10
Maybe neutralizing Iran's allies. Puzzledtraveller Jun 2014 #11
Good point. Javaman Jun 2014 #12
Change the borders so that the mix would be less volatile. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #43
I agree. the Treaty of Versailles destroyed that area of the world. Javaman Jun 2014 #47
defense of nebulous Iraqi political goals used as pretext for attacking neighbor Syria? bigtree Jun 2014 #14
Yes, clearly we should continue the UK's mistake from the end of WWI jeff47 Jun 2014 #15
The ultimate point is that this is not our conflict to solve. morningfog Jun 2014 #16
We can't solve it, but we can try to steer it some. jeff47 Jun 2014 #17
The "up to 300" military advisers are not there to provide security to the embassy. morningfog Jun 2014 #19
Good thing I mentioned training and advice!! jeff47 Jun 2014 #20
Target strikes are "training and advice?" morningfog Jun 2014 #22
You mean the ones we ruled out? jeff47 Jun 2014 #27
"...for now" on Tuesday, the 17th. Yesterday, Obama said U.S. Prepared to Take 'Targeted' Action morningfog Jun 2014 #28
How, exactly, will we be conducting airstrikes without using any American forces? jeff47 Jun 2014 #29
Because they don't consider air strikes the same as "troops returning to combat". n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #30
Sure they do. Someone has to fly the planes/drones. That's combat. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2014 #32
If you notice the statements from the White House, they distinguish "combat troops" on the ground PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #36
Yes, when they say "troops on the ground". jeff47 Jun 2014 #39
Well, obviously, we will be using American forces. That is my point. morningfog Jun 2014 #31
You can't declare future events to have already happened. jeff47 Jun 2014 #33
I have not said we have or will have "troops on the ground in combat." morningfog Jun 2014 #34
It's the logical result from where you're heading. jeff47 Jun 2014 #35
I haven't seen Obama or anyone say that airstrikes aren't happening. morningfog Jun 2014 #37
Yes you have, I linked the WSJ article where they did. jeff47 Jun 2014 #38
"...FOR NOW" form your linked article. morningfog Jun 2014 #40
And now we have US forces conducting aristrikes in Iraq, as was clear over a month ago. morningfog Aug 2014 #48
Also, assistance grew from 100 "trainers" to now 300 trainers/special forces. YUP! We're ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2014 #18
Our policy regarding Syria and Iraq is incoherent. Comrade Grumpy Jun 2014 #21
I don't know how the White House can articulate the policy with a straight face, amandabeech Jun 2014 #23
It has all the earmarks of "nation building" and "defending our vital national interests". Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #24
and 'terror' bigtree Jun 2014 #25
Even now the Syrians and Iraqis are combining their mighty fleets to invade Malibu. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #26
Hey, why not? That way, they can blame it all on Russia... MattSh Jun 2014 #44

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
2. I am beginning to wonder
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 08:19 AM
Jun 2014

if what we are seeing is not part of a greater plan that began with the original invasion.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
46. Good evidence for that: The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 06:44 AM
Jun 2014

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)
3. "Stay in Syria, and we'll give you all kinds of money and arms, but
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:22 AM
Jun 2014

cross the border into Iraq, and we'll drone the living shit out of you!!!"

Javaman

(62,439 posts)
5. this is the Viet Nam/ Cambodia syndrome.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:27 AM
Jun 2014

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".

Puzzledtraveller

(5,937 posts)
7. Unless it was part of a greater plan
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:42 AM
Jun 2014

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)
8. That's an interesting observation.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:45 AM
Jun 2014

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?

Javaman

(62,439 posts)
10. how would that be achieved?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 09:57 AM
Jun 2014

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)
11. Maybe neutralizing Iran's allies.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:26 AM
Jun 2014

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)
12. Good point.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:34 AM
Jun 2014

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!

Javaman

(62,439 posts)
47. I agree. the Treaty of Versailles destroyed that area of the world.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:12 AM
Jun 2014

and carved it up for the wealthy nations to exploit.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
14. defense of nebulous Iraqi political goals used as pretext for attacking neighbor Syria?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:21 AM
Jun 2014

. . . 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)
15. Yes, clearly we should continue the UK's mistake from the end of WWI
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:21 AM
Jun 2014

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)
16. The ultimate point is that this is not our conflict to solve.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:00 PM
Jun 2014

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)
17. We can't solve it, but we can try to steer it some.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:09 PM
Jun 2014

We can try, diplomatically, to minimize the casualties and violence as they sort out the new borders.

The US military has no role in Iraq or Syria.

Actually, they do: security for the US embassy in Iraq. Which is what they're doing.

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.



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)
19. The "up to 300" military advisers are not there to provide security to the embassy.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:42 PM
Jun 2014

(head slap)

Nor would the "limited and targeted" strikes which are being discussed.

(another head slap)

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
20. Good thing I mentioned training and advice!!
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014

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)
28. "...for now" on Tuesday, the 17th. Yesterday, Obama said U.S. Prepared to Take 'Targeted' Action
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:30 PM
Jun 2014
President Barack Obama said Thursday that the United States is prepared to take “targeted and precise” military action against Islamist militants in Iraq, but he pledged that American forces “will not be returning to combat."

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)
29. How, exactly, will we be conducting airstrikes without using any American forces?
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:31 PM
Jun 2014

We gonna FedEx the bombs?

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
36. If you notice the statements from the White House, they distinguish "combat troops" on the ground
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:20 PM
Jun 2014

from other measures like air strikes.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
39. Yes, when they say "troops on the ground".
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:24 PM
Jun 2014

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)
31. Well, obviously, we will be using American forces. That is my point.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:36 PM
Jun 2014

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)
33. You can't declare future events to have already happened.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:45 PM
Jun 2014

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)
34. I have not said we have or will have "troops on the ground in combat."
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:12 PM
Jun 2014

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)
35. It's the logical result from where you're heading.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:15 PM
Jun 2014

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.

I disagree that special operations advisers should be there as well.

Is that an Iraq-only thing, or should we not have trainers/advisers anywhere else in the world?
 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
37. I haven't seen Obama or anyone say that airstrikes aren't happening.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:21 PM
Jun 2014

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)
38. Yes you have, I linked the WSJ article where they did.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:23 PM
Jun 2014

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)
40. "...FOR NOW" form your linked article.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:34 PM
Jun 2014

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.

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
18. Also, assistance grew from 100 "trainers" to now 300 trainers/special forces. YUP! We're
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jun 2014

going back in because the MIC's baby needs new shoes.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
21. Our policy regarding Syria and Iraq is incoherent.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:52 PM
Jun 2014

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)
23. I don't know how the White House can articulate the policy with a straight face,
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:37 PM
Jun 2014

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)
24. It has all the earmarks of "nation building" and "defending our vital national interests".
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:47 PM
Jun 2014

Been there, done that, too many times.

MattSh

(3,714 posts)
44. Hey, why not? That way, they can blame it all on Russia...
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 05:55 AM
Jun 2014

I wish that was but sadly it isn't. Not with the way those idiots in DC operate.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»And Creeeeeeep: White Hou...