The president wants to use these military people to get our people out before the Civil War really gets off?

He does not need to send in military personnel to do that.

It is a massive undertaking to evacuate thousands from a war zone.

If this is a issue why not evacuate now? Do you wait until the situation does "rapidly deteriorates"? And what are all those thousands doing anyway? I would guess not much.

Would immediately make it a huge target. The situation is rapidly declining. It was a well planned offensive - why assume that planning did not include killing Americans in great numbers when they tried to evacuate?

There is no one near that airport. That number can be transported out extremely quickly with military transport aircraft. Are you suggesting they sneak out in ones and twos?

Why do you think it is safe? They need the security to get them safely to the airport. Plus a core group of diplomats will stay - that is their job. They will need more security.

Why are you so freaked over such a small group of marines and soldiers?

It is called mission creep. Want to get a plane out? http://www.baghdad-airport.com/departures.cfm

Plenty of civilian planes and there are no bombs on the road going to the airport. If it is dangerous why aren't they all being evacuated now? Are we trying to force an incident? No it is NOT the job of a "core group of diplomats" to stay. If their security can't be assured you move them out -- everyone.

.

Whose Presidency didn't involve at least one armed conflict or intervention? I can't think of one since Wilson's, except, perhaps, President Carter's?

Happened on Carter's watch. I don;t think we've ever had a Prez who didn;t use he military to intervene somewhere. Goes with the territory.

I remember those days well, certainly well enough not to want to see it happen all over again.

use a refresher.

The AUMF Congressional Votes:

United States House of Representatives

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote

Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0

TOTALS 297 133 0 3

82 (just under 40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).

The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)

Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.


United States Senate

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote

Republican 48 1 0 0
Democratic 29 21 0 0
Independent 0 1 0 0

TOTALS 77 23 0 0

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution.

Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).

The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

Also, the Iraq AUMF was passed when Democrats, along with the Independent Jeffords had a majority in the Senate.

Republicans had a slim majority in the House of Representatives and did not have sufficient votes to pass the AUMF without Democratic votes - but the two Republican no votes were probably held in reserve if needed to reach the required 217.

What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted?

If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice?
...

La BoeTie's work here.

"A 16th-century essay entitled Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by the French jurist Étienne de La Boétie (1530–1563) discusses a question that haunts those who love liberty: Why do people obey unjust laws?

That is here.

I think I would replace indifference with self-interest, but I like this writing as an analysis of power and how a group takes it back.

Unless you were Chinese (then you had to go) or a government official (leave, reeducation camp or die) then the population of South Vietnam was in the clear. ISIS wants the Shia population converted or dead. Everyone would leave, convert or die.

"Damn, that chopper pilot was good!"

-- Mal

God DAMN the GOP.

There will be a lot of craziness when the ISIS folks get the signal to act.

One of their big fat targets will be the big fat US embassy.

I hope that those troops will be shredding and burning documents, destroying anything useful and preparing to evacuate at a moment's notice.

Warrant46 has already posted the picture of the helicopter on top of our former embassy in Saigon. We do not need a repeat of that or of Tehran.

But I don't want to see a hostage situation, either.

That mess in Tehran back in '79 was awful, not just for the people involved, but for everybody nearly everywhere because Carter's failure, so it seemed, to get the hostages out before the 1980 election had a lot to do with Reagan getting elected. Of course we know now that Reagan and his campaign had made sure that Carter could make no headway with the Iranians. The promise of good US-made arms saw to that. I don't want the Pukes to make political hay with this. It will be bad for everyone on the planet just like it was with Reagan.

I read elsewhere that the UN and the Turks are pulling out. I wonder what the Brits, the Canadians and the French are doing. We might need some friends.

security issue that could be used to bash the President again. ?

break out, too. No win situation.

for the murder-bent ISIS hordes.

The government of Iraq has screwed the pooch on this one already.

This is exactly how the Vietnam War started, just a few score of trainers and advisers being sent somewhere no one gave a damn about.

"Nothing to see here folks. Just move along now. Nothing to see here."

it all started with a handful of advisers being sent to a country most Americans were probably quite unaware of, unless they really followed international news of that era.

Because of the insurgent activity all over South Vietnam, that first contingent couldn't really do its training job, so more troops (Marine combat units) were sent to help protect important areas, and Americans began to die. Of course, more troops were needed to push the insurgents further back, to give the South Vietnamese Army time to, "Get on their feet."

It all happened so gradually that no one much seemed to notice until a hundred thousand young Americans were in Vietnam, and plane-loads of coffin were coming home weekly.

Vietnam was so gradual, that no really paid attention to it until LBJ went in full-bore.

My father, a WWII vet, said that Vietnam was pretty much on no one's radar screen until about 1964 or 1965; that's when Americans starting paying attention, but by then, it was far too late.

But it all started with military advisers.

You got that right!! Even after Iraq, too,we can't seem to learn!

The only lesson to learn is for the citizens of this country to learn that we are governed by a terrorist organization.

as described in the threads above. They are there to protect the embassy, not advise anyone about anything.

My point being that these three hundred could morph into three thousand in a month and into thirty thousand in six months. I'm sure you get my point.

a McRomney president dealing with this.

Evacuate the embassy and keep the troops home. This is a major disaster just waiting to happen. If we must send people over there, I suggest Dubya, Dick, Condie, Don, Lindsay, Johnnie Mac, and Sarah P. suit up and ship out. They never met a war they didn't like.

how many tours these soldiers have done before, or are they fresh recruits?

Jeebus, on the ground, would be nice to see everyone making for the exit door, not being relocated to other Iraqi cities. If these 275 were assisting in that endeavor, I'd cheer them on. And is this number only the beginning?

Why, Obama, say we will not be sending ground troops to Iraq??? if the next day you are going to pull a Rethug and do just that?? I can't stand double speak. Say what you mean and do what you say!

Don't think it's going to change anytime soon.

end. The Republicans just got a break--and they know it. By the time Iraq 2 is over, Iraq 1 will be just a memory and the low info voters will say : "George Bush? What does HE have to do with Iraq?" Some are already saying that now. The MIC string-pullers simply pulled a string.

"Iraq 2?" I'm pretty sure we've already fought two wars in Iraq...

-- Mal

The invasion phase and the fighting phase, during which the insurgency began. Then the long separation after the US pulled out of Iraq, long enough to call what will happen now a third phase, which you can characterize as you wish. I'll call it Iraq 2 to give it its due because of what I believe will happen not only to Iraq but the United States political situation. As I said: the walls are closing in. Three of them actually: Iraq. The new Russia-China alliance. The slow erosion of the dollar as a world currency.

I really don't understand your explanation. We fought one war with Iraq from 1990-91, combat for one month in '91, then another in 2003-11, which can be divided into the two phases you're suggesting. Are you arguing that 2003-11 is simply an extension of 1990-91?

So if yet another shooting war evolves in Iraq involving US troops, that will make three wars we will have fought with Iraq.

-- Mal

Iraq as Iraq 1.

We fought the Iraqi army, we entered Iraqi territory. We were opposed by Saddam Hussein. I distinctly remember General Schwartzkopf gloating about Hussein not being a real soldier.

-- Mal

however you like.

Does this also make the "Six-Day War" not a war?

In which case, I guess Tom Lehrer's WWIII wouldn't count, either. Then again, there wouldn't be anyone to count.

over a year. A quirk, if you like. After Vietnam, I don't use the word "war" as easily as before.

Which is when? After the hot bed in the Middle East, which has a 2,000 year history, has cooled down?
Or, as Filkins calls it...The Forever War.

Ugh.

That's only 2 companies at most, not even a whole battalion.

They're not in this for the long haul, no way.

They're not there to project force or impose our will on anybody. 275 Marines will make anyone thinking about attacking the embassy think long and hard before assaulting a prepared position.

They could also be there to destroy documents and what have you, but it would think that would be better handled by the state dept people already there. Protecting those secrets are part of their job.

and to neighboring Jordan. The Iraqi locations are Irbil, in the Kurdish zone, and Basra, in the very southern part of Iraq very near the Persian Gulf in the Shia zone. I believe that both spots have US consulates that are operational.

There are reports that there are 5500 Americans in the embassy, though, so that's a lot of people for the marine contingent that is already there and the 275 soldiers or marines who are going in. And that's a lot to evacuate, especially if the streets of Baghdad become dangerous, and evacuation must be done by air. There are reports that ISIS captured a good number of US Stinger anti-aircraft weapons when the Iraqi army dissolved and fled from a good deal of Iraqi real estate. Those things could easily down any helicopter or vertical-take-off-and-landing aircraft trying to go into or out of our embassy complex in Baghdad.

Obama and Kerry must have a lot of faith that the Iraqi government can keep control of the situation in Baghdad if they are not moving people out of Baghdad very quickly. Unfortunately, I don't have their confidence. It is not clear that the Shia militias that have been called out by the Iraqi Shia-led government would be very friendly to a convoy of US personnel trying to motor out of Baghdad. Any hold-up or snafu could be a big problem.

...but so is Afghanistan. Where are our leaders with the courage and authority to withdraw?

Maybe some of the people here who want a real shooting War can send their sons and daughters down to the recruiting office.

My son got out of there 2 years ago after 3 tours and he says, "Dad its a Cluster Fuck just like your Viet-Nam"

and get out. Let Iran and Saudi Arabia sort out their problems without our involvement.

I hope the personnel stay safe, and will leave safely after completing their jobs.