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

kentuck

(111,051 posts)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:33 PM Jun 2014

Has President Obama chosen sides in Iraq?

Has he taken the side of the Shia government over the Sunni minority?

If the purpose of the 300 "advisers" is to help the "Iraqi Army" control the advance of the rebel Sunnis and to call in airstrikes if necessary, then how is that not taking a side?

Indeed, politics makes strange bedfellows. Iran has called for a new leader and a new Parliament, going even further than President Obama, in calling for a new government in Baghdad. But the new government will be run by the Shiites, not the Sunni, and it is difficult to see how anyone in the Baghdad government will include the Sunni and Kurds to a satisfactory degree?

If there are any American casualties, we will be drawn back into the quicksand of the civil war that is now raging in Iraq. It is a very treacherous path we have chosen. Any new war is owned by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

It may be that the "advisers" were sent to Iraq to satisfy political necessities more-so than prevent terrorism from coming to America once again? The odds for terrorism against America are greater if we are engaged in hostilities in Iraq than if we are not, contrary to the claims of the terrorism experts demanding that we get re-engaged in that country.

However, the "advisers" have temporarily satisfied the warmongering appetite of the neo-cons on the right. They see it as a first step and the President may regret this decision?

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Has President Obama chosen sides in Iraq? (Original Post) kentuck Jun 2014 OP
One can't be just a little pregnant! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2014 #1
yes, he has bigtree Jun 2014 #2
No, he hasn't ProSense Jun 2014 #3
I listened to and read that several times, ProSense bigtree Jun 2014 #4
K&R woo me with science Jun 2014 #5
Build a wall around the whole F$%$ing area. Then stand back and watch. nt clarice Jun 2014 #6
I still say the only solution is the one VP Bidden suggested years ago klyon Jun 2014 #7
Yes. But he hasn't selected the reason yet. rug Jun 2014 #8

bigtree

(85,974 posts)
2. yes, he has
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:46 PM
Jun 2014

. . . considering that the Iraqi regime hasn't done what's necessary to properly include Sunnis in their government; considering that the Maliki regime has been directing the force of their U.S. enabled military against their political opposition for years.


It's fine to have sympathy for President Obama in Iraq

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5126306

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. No, he hasn't
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:51 PM
Jun 2014
Remarks by the President on the Situation in Iraq

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:32 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. I just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq. We’ve been meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of Iraq. As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests. So today I wanted to provide you an update on how we’re responding to the situation.

First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq. As President, I have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas. So I’ve taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we’ve sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities.

Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq. And this will give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat.

Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi security forces. We’re prepared to create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL. Through our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, we’re prepared to work with Congress to provide additional equipment. We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.

American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.

Fourth, in recent days, we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region. Because of our increased intelligence resources, we’re developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL. And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it. If we do, I will consult closely with Congress and leaders in Iraq and in the region.

I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead.

Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq. At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners. And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.

Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future. Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities. Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible. The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.

Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders. It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis. Meanwhile, the United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another. There’s no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States. But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.

In closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America’s war in Iraq. Alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 American patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the rest of their lives. Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we’ve seen some of those debates resurface.

But what’s clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action. The most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and center -- the issue that I keep front and center -- is what is in the national security interests of the United States of America. As Commander-in-Chief, that’s what I stay focused on. As Americans, that’s what all of us should be focused on.

And going forward, we will continue to consult closely with Congress. We will keep the American people informed. We will remain vigilant. And we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the United States and the safety of the American people.

So with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions. I’ll start with Colleen McCain Nelson of the Wall Street Journal.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Do you have any confidence in Prime Minister Maliki at this point? And can Maliki bring political stability to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: As I said, it’s not our job to choose Iraq’s leaders. Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in Iraq was the right and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own destiny and choose their own leaders. But I don’t think there’s any secret that right now at least there is deep divisions between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders. And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.

And so we’ve consulted with Prime Minister Maliki, and we’ve said that to him privately. We’ve said it publicly that whether he is prime minister, or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia and Kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process. And we’ve seen over the last two years, actually dating back to 2008, 2009 -- but I think worse over the last two years -- the sense among Sunnis that their interests were not being served, that legislation that had been promised around, for example, De-Ba’athification had been stalled.

I think that you hear similar complaints that the government in Baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them in to a process that gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single nation-state. And that has to be worked through.

Part of the reason why we saw better-equipped Iraqi security forces with larger numbers not be able to hold contested territory against ISIL probably reflects that lack of a sense of commitment on the part of Sunni communities to work with Baghdad. And that has to be fixed if we’re going to get through this crisis.

- more -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/19/remarks-president-situation-iraq

bigtree

(85,974 posts)
4. I listened to and read that several times, ProSense
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:21 PM
Jun 2014

. . . I've read and listened to his other statements, as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025092643

I regard giving military assistance to the Maliki regime's army as effectively providing support for just one 'side' in the Iraq civil conflict.

Consider, not only has the Maliki government refused to completely include the Sunni community and others under the complete protection and support of their constitution; there has been absolutely no apparent political rapprochement even proffered by the Maliki regime in advance of this deployment of military advisers; the bulk of the Maliki regime's use of his U.S. enabled military forces has been against the communities of his political rivals; and there will correctly be no distinction in the Iraqis' minds at the receiving end of whatever support the U.S. materially or logistically provides the Iraqi forces between overt or covert attacks.

The President's own words about waiting for a political solution or that there is no military solution is transparently betrayed by his deployment of 300 military advisers who will sharpen the Iraqi forces attacks against Iraqi targets. Anyone who believes those attacks will be 'precise' and pinpointed obviously missed Bush's own assurances as he sought to do his own nation-building behind the force of our nation's defenses.

klyon

(1,697 posts)
7. I still say the only solution is the one VP Bidden suggested years ago
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:52 PM
Jun 2014

and I agreed with then
Split the country and the oil up into three
separate the waring parties
this is a civil war, we should not take sides
too bad we didn't do it then

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Has President Obama chose...