Post-Withdrawal Iraq

[GreenGoo]

Thanks Obama!

[dbt1949]

I can just see the Iraqi army when the insurgents attack Baghdad....."Retreat! There's two of them!"

[Rip]

Wow, 30K troops fleeing 800 guys. That is more embarrassing than than the ass-kicking of the six day war.

[Kraken]

On the bright side...the only friendly casualties came from tripping over one another on the way to the exits.

[Sepiche]

And the situation continues to get worse:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27813239

Parliament in Baghdad has delayed voting on a request to grant the prime minister emergency powers as the north slips out of government control.

Just 128 out of the 325 MPs turned up for the vote on Nouri Maliki's request.

In the north, Kurdish forces claimed control of the oil city of Kirkuk, saying government forces had fled.

The Kurds secured the area after the cities of Mosul and Tikrit fell to Sunni Islamist insurgents during a lightning advance.

Kurdish fighters are seen as a bulwark against the Sunni Muslim insurgents but they have also been locked for years in a dispute with Baghdad over Kirkuk, seeking to incorporate it into their own autonomous area.

[LawBeefaroni]

11 years, 4,490 KIA, 32,000 WIA, and $2T later and we're nearly right back to where we started. But hey, we dug Saddam Hussein out of a hole and hung him. So...win?

[Isgrimnur]

Thanks, Obama!

The Obama administration's apparent miscalculation of the threat posed by Al Qaeda-aligned militants in Iraq drew severe criticism Thursday from top Republican lawmakers, who accused President Obama and his national security team of "taking a nap," warning "the next 9/11 is in the making."
...
GOP lawmakers vented that advances made by the militant Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are confirming their "worst fears" about what would happen in the wake of the Obama-ordered U.S. troop withdrawal in 2011.

"What's the president doing? Taking a nap," House Speaker John Boehner snapped, before abruptly ending his weekly press conference on Thursday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Iraq is "collapsing," calling it another potential Benghazi and urging the president to address the American people.

"The next 9/11 is in the making," Graham said.

President Obama, asked about the violence in Iraq, said Thursday that the U.S. can't be "everywhere all the time," but said he's concerned about what he described as an "emergency situation." He said his administration is in close consultation with Baghdad, and acknowledged they "need more help" from the U.S. and international community.

"My team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective assistance to them. I don't rule out anything," Obama said.
...
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday that the current national security team is a "failure," urging Obama to get a "new team." He also took a shot at Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying: "We need a new chairman."

[LawBeefaroni]

Wait until people see gas prices.

[GreenGoo]

It's laugh or cry time.

It's easy to be a naysayer, but I never thought Iraq was a good idea and completely expected this or something like this right from the beginning when the US went in there.

It's frustrating to see people (anyone, not necessarily here) be surprised and/or expect anything but a complete mess. It's not Afghanistan, but chopping the head off the government (as oppresive and death squad-y as it was) sure came close to turning into it.

I sympahtize with America, but man.

Sorry.

And that doesn't even include th sympathy I have for the average Iraqi who just wants to get on with living their lives.

What. A. Mess.

The idea that anything short of occupying the country indefinitely (and accepting that Americans are going to die constantly during it) would result in a stable(ish) Iraq is a pipe dream. All those criticizing the President haven't a clue what to do about the situation, other than keep the military over there, and neither the US bank account or population want that.

It's frustrating to watch the administration take crap for this, when nothing could have prevented it. In my opinion of course.

[dbt1949]

I certainly don't blame Obama for the mess known as Iraq. That goes straight back to GW.
The most Obama could have done is sent troops back in there and most Americans didn't and don't want that.

[LordMortis]

I certainly don't blame Obama for the mess known as Iraq. That goes straight back to GW.
The most Obama could have done is sent troops back in there and most Americans didn't and don't want that.

And Clinton and Bush the Elder and to some extent Regan's nation building.

If hindsight were 20/20, once Bush the Elder went in to defend the Kurds(' oil), we should have ended warred for a total victory then. Clinton had very little justification to go in an kick and the cripple and Bush the Younger had none that I ever found.

This particular part of the 30 year mess is our mess that Bush the Younger commit us to and I do think we have an obligation to continue to try an see it through, though I don't know how far the obligation goes and quite frankly I don't have any idea of what the objective for a stable self sufficient Iraq is. I have no expectations for Obama because I have no idea what a solution would be... I still have residual anger toward W, but that's because I am a stubborn mule.

[Holman]

The invasion of Iraq will go down as the greatest foreign policy blunder in a lifetime. It was founded on wishful thinking and sold with lies. It cost us our economy, any chance of success in Afghanistan, and the world's post-9/11 good will. It's really shameful.

[Kraken]

11 years, 4,490 KIA, 32,000 WIA, and $2T later and we're nearly right back to where we started. But hey, we dug Saddam Hussein out of a hole and hung him. So...win?

Geopolitically speaking, I think a lot of people miss Saddam. At least his secular government kept a lid on sectarianism. His own citizens, however, are probably not pining for those good old days.

Wait until people see gas prices.

Iran is ready to pump an additional 700,000 bbl per day as soon as sanctions are lifted. Target date is July 20.

I certainly don't blame Obama for the mess known as Iraq. That goes straight back to GW.
The most Obama could have done is sent troops back in there and most Americans didn't and don't want that.

Absolutely not. Does anyone here think that a residual US presence (a few thousand troops confined to bases) would have prevented the current militant surge? The root failure is the Shiite Maliki government's failure to accommodate Sunnis.

[LawBeefaroni]

Iran is ready to pump an additional 700,000 bbl per day as soon as sanctions are lifted. Target date is July 20.

NYMEX Crude futures are up almost 2% through Sept contracts.

And do we really want such a boon for Iran? Weren't we about to bomb them or something?

[Holman]

And do we really want such a boon for Iran? Weren't we about to bomb them or something?

We already removed their biggest rival. They owe us some kickbacks, at least.

[Alefroth]

Thanks, Obama!

They love to push him for action so they can then criticize it.

[Kraken]

Iran is ready to pump an additional 700,000 bbl per day as soon as sanctions are lifted. Target date is July 20.

NYMEX Crude futures are up almost 2% through Sept contracts.

And do we really want such a boon for Iran? Weren't we about to bomb them or something?

That's their incentive for forgoing nuclear weapons. Besides, we're always bombing somebody or other over there.

[Rip]

Iran is ready to pump an additional 700,000 bbl per day as soon as sanctions are lifted. Target date is July 20.

NYMEX Crude futures are up almost 2% through Sept contracts.

And do we really want such a boon for Iran? Weren't we about to bomb them or something?

That's their incentive for forgoing nuclear weapons. Besides, we're always bombing somebody or other over there.

Why would they do that when they can just take the incentive and keep on building a weapon? Only a fool would believe they have any intention of foregoing a nuclear weapons program no matter what incentive you offer/give.

[Unagi]

Pretty sure everyone warned that this war was the wrong war for the very reasons we see unfolding. Saddam, as bad as he was, was a stabilizing force in an unstable place.

Thanks George!

My heart goes out to everyone killed and wounded for this worthless war. My god... I would NEVER let my kids join our military (if I had any say in it). What a total waste. Fucking sad.

[JSHAW]

Only have one thing to say about the current situation in Iraq - What a clusterfuck!

[raydude]

I would hope we can all agree that we shouldn't throw good money after bad and send the troops back in or commit even more US resources towards Iraq. I feel really sorry for the folks in the military who wonder what their buddies died for, but we won't be honoring them by sending even more troops to die for nothing.

[Kraken]

I'm inclined to agree with raydude: enough is enough. I don't see anything good for the US in this situation.

[$iljanus]

I think the Kurds who have been very patient will come out very well out of all this with their well trained militia which for all intents is a standing army. And we have a long relationship with them.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I would hope we can all agree that we shouldn't throw good money after bad and send the troops back in or commit even more US resources towards Iraq. I feel really sorry for the folks in the military who wonder what their buddies died for, but we won't be honoring them by sending even more troops to die for nothing.

Alas, the figure behind ISIS is virulently anti-American, and unlikely to be content to leave us be after he's done in Syria and Iraq.

It certainly sounds like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (AKA Abu Dua), the shadowy leader behind ISIS, is shaping up to be a significant threat:

For all his power and newfound notoriety, there are only two authenticated photos of a man now called the world’s “most powerful jihadi leader.” One shows a serious man with an olive complexion and round countenance. The other, released by the Iraqi government in January, depicts an unsmiling bearded figure in a black suit. The image is cracked and blurry, as though someone had taken a picture of a picture.

The murkiness of the photo of the man who calls himself Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is appropriate. Though he’s “the world’s most dangerous man” to Time magazine and the “the new bin Laden” to Le Monde, the man who orchestrated the sacking of northern Iraq’s largest city and today controls a nation-size swath of land, is a relatively unknown and enigmatic figure.

Much of what is known of Baghdadi’s history is unconfirmed, while other information is disputed to such a degree that it’s nearly impossible to discern where fact meets Baghdadi’s rising myth.

Several facts, however, are clear: Baghdadi leads the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He is a shrewd strategist, a prolific fundraiser and a ruthless killer. The United States has a $10 million bounty on his head. He has thrown off the yoke of al-Qaeda command and just took his biggest prize yet in Mosul, an oil hub that sits at the vital intersection of Iraq, Turkey and Syria. And in just one year of grisly killing, he has in all likelihood surpassed even al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in international clout and prestige among Islamist militants.

“The true heir to Osama bin Laden may be ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” wrote The Washington Post’s David Ignatius. He is “more violent, more virulent, more anti-American,” a senior U.S. intelligence official told the columnist, while the cautious and uncharismatic Zawahiri “is not coping well.” In fact, Baghdadi is now recruiting fighters from other Zawahiri affiliates, including al-Qaeda’s Yemen branch and the Somalia-based al-Shabab.

“For the last 10 years or more, [Zawahiri] has been holed up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and hasn’t really done very much more than issue a few statements and videos,” Richard Barrett, a former counterterrorism chief with the British foreign intelligence service, told Agence France-Presse last week. “Whereas Baghdadi has done an amazing amount — he has captured cities, he has mobilized huge amounts of people, he is killing ruthlessly throughout Iraq and Syria…. If you were a guy who wanted action, you would go with Baghdadi.”

If the following accounts are accurate, the guys who want action could pose a serious problem for those of us in the Western world:

ISIS is led by the shadowy Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and backed by thousands of Islamist fighters in Syria and Iraq, many of them Westerners, and it appears to be surpassing al-Qaeda as the world's most dangerous jihadist group.

Western governments fear it could eventually emulate al-Qaeda and strike overseas, but their biggest worry for now is likely the eventual return home of foreign fighters attracted by ISIS and Baghdadi.

Among them are men like Mehdi Nemmouche, a 29-year-old Frenchman who allegedly carried out a deadly shooting on a Jewish museum in Belgium last month after spending a year fighting with ISIS in Syria.

The Soufan Group, a New York-based consultancy, estimates that 12,000 foreign fighters have travelled to Syria, including 3,000 from the West.

And ISIS appears to have the greatest appeal, with King's College London Professor Peter Neumann estimating around 80 per cent of Western fighters in Syria have joined the group.

Unlike other groups fighting Assad, ISIS is seen working towards an ideal Islamic emirate that straddles Syria and Iraq. And compared with al-Qaeda's franchise in Syria, Al-Nusra Front, it has lower entry barriers.

ISIL has also sought to appeal to non-Arabs, recently publishing two English-language magazines, having already released videos in English, or with English subtitles.

The jihadist group claims to have had fighters from the Britain, France, Germany and other European countries, as well as the United States, and from the Arab world and the Caucasus.

Among his strategies, Al-Baghdadi has opened the door to foreign fighters, particularly Europeans and Americans, providing them with training and a sense of purpose.

While they are useful on the Syrian battlefield, they may also head back home one day, war veterans with experience to recruit others to carry out attacks for Al-Baghdadi outside the Middle East.

[Rip]

Joe Biden:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

[Unagi]

[GreenGoo]

Wait. Iraq wasn't involved in any terrorist attacks BEFORE you went in there. Are you (Anonymous Bosch) suggesting that these guys are going to come after the US because you guys went there?! I'm curious what your point is.

Iraq was never about "the war on terrorism" and the troops there are not keeping America "safe" and that was never their purpose, so I fail to see how pulling them out now will suddenly result in the US being attacked.

Biden says stuff. Whether he was overly optimistic or simply unable to say "that place is fucked" in front of the media, I don't know. Nor do I care. I mean...really.

Unless you're willing to have an indefinite presence in Iraq, what can you possibly expect? And if you did, you would make Russia look like Ukraine's best friend in comparison. Occupying a sovereign state because people in it might attack you one day doesn't sound like viable foreign policy.

Anywho, good luck with all that.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Are you (Anonymous Bosch) suggesting that these guys are going to come after the US because you guys went there?! I'm curious what your point is.

I'm suggesting that if senior U.S. intelligence describes the leader of this particular militant Jihadist organization as "more violent, more virulent, more anti-American" than Ayman chuffing al-Zawahiri, that's a pretty high bar; he's highly unlikely to be the type to simply forgive and forget since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And if "Western governments fear it could eventually emulate al-Qaeda and strike overseas, but their biggest worry for now is likely the eventual return home of foreign fighters attracted by ISIS and Baghdadi," that's likely a pretty f'n valid cause for concern.

[msduncan]

Another fantastic Obama foreign policy debacle. This could have been mitigated if he had responded to the requests for air support weeks ago.

[Unagi]

right.

forever mitigated.

[raydude]

Another fantastic Obama foreign policy debacle. This could have been mitigated if he had responded to the requests for air support weeks ago.

This is the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. But lets not forget that it started way back when we declared Iraq War 2.

[raydude]

Are you (Anonymous Bosch) suggesting that these guys are going to come after the US because you guys went there?! I'm curious what your point is.

I'm suggesting that if senior U.S. intelligence describes the leader of this particular militant Jihadist organization as "more violent, more virulent, more anti-American" than Ayman chuffing al-Zawahiri, that's a pretty high bar; he's highly unlikely to be the type to simply forgive and forget since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And if "Western governments fear it could eventually emulate al-Qaeda and strike overseas, but their biggest worry for now is likely the eventual return home of foreign fighters attracted by ISIS and Baghdadi," that's likely a pretty f'n valid cause for concern.

Could. Might. Possibly. Terms that I heard as justification for the last Iraq war. Here's the thing:

1. We know now how easy it is to conquer Iraq. We did it, and now ISIS is doing it. What is harder is actually governing Iraq. If ISIS becomes as violent and virulent as their leader then sooner or later the Shiites are gonna chafe under their rule. Hell, there are Shiite youths signing up right now to kill ISIS militants.

2. Its not like the Shiites are only in Iraq. They have friends in Iran who probably won't look too kindly on their brethren getting rolled over like this.

3. If Iran intervenes then the Saudis intervene. Which makes Iraq a clusterfuck. But - the good thing is - you can't coordinate a terrorist attack on the US while you're involved in a clusterfuck. Gotta unfuck yourself first.

So I'd be interested in letting this play out. Yes, it sucks to be an Iraqi civilian right now. But there seems to be no end to the suck unless both sides go at each other for a little bit. Sort of like how Iran and Iraq went at each other for a while until they both decided it was getting tiresome and they weren't getting anywhere.

[GreenGoo]

Are you (Anonymous Bosch) suggesting that these guys are going to come after the US because you guys went there?! I'm curious what your point is.

I'm suggesting that if senior U.S. intelligence describes the leader of this particular militant Jihadist organization as "more violent, more virulent, more anti-American" than Ayman chuffing al-Zawahiri, that's a pretty high bar; he's highly unlikely to be the type to simply forgive and forget since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And if "Western governments fear it could eventually emulate al-Qaeda and strike overseas, but their biggest worry for now is likely the eventual return home of foreign fighters attracted by ISIS and Baghdadi," that's likely a pretty f'n valid cause for concern.

That's great information.

What do you propose the US *do* about it?

[Canuck]

Joe Biden:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

Biden's such a fool. He never should have authorized the Iraq invasion in the first place.

[LawBeefaroni]

Another fantastic Obama foreign policy debacle. This could have been mitigated if he had responded to the requests for air support weeks ago.

Damned if you do (Libya civil war), damned if you don't (Iraq 3).


IIRC, he got roasted for using US cruise missiles and intelligence to support French air strikes the last go-around. I can't imagine the Republican uproar if he decided to re-enter Iraq with US planes.

[ImLawBoy]

I'm enjoying each side trying to make sure that the other side has more blame in this discussion. Very productive.

[LawBeefaroni]

Are you (Anonymous Bosch) suggesting that these guys are going to come after the US because you guys went there?! I'm curious what your point is.

I'm suggesting that if senior U.S. intelligence describes the leader of this particular militant Jihadist organization as "more violent, more virulent, more anti-American" than Ayman chuffing al-Zawahiri, that's a pretty high bar; he's highly unlikely to be the type to simply forgive and forget since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And if "Western governments fear it could eventually emulate al-Qaeda and strike overseas, but their biggest worry for now is likely the eventual return home of foreign fighters attracted by ISIS and Baghdadi," that's likely a pretty f'n valid cause for concern.

It's a funny thing. The more you kill people, the more they hate you and the more sympathy they can get. Striking out blindly for 13 years has created a lot of new enemies and cost the US a lot of goodwill.

If you're going to strike, it should be surgical and decisive, not wideband and aimless. Iraq and Afghanistan were clusterfucks of historical proportions. We can double down on the cowboy stupidity or we can take a different approach. It may mean that in the short term we have to deal with some domestic threats and uncertainty. But short of colonizing all of the Middle East and much of Africa and swaths of Europe, we can't dictate absolute terms to the rest of the world.

We need to be motivated less by "ohhh, scary Taliban bogeyman" and more by a rational vision of the world we want to live in 20 years from now.

[Carpet_pissr]

We need to be motivated less by "ohhh, scary Taliban bogeyman" and more by a rational vision of the world we want to live in 20 years from now.

But when one of the major parties uses that scary bogeyman approach as it's fundamental tactic to stay in power...they are not simply going to let reason dictate otherwise.

[msduncan]

Another fantastic Obama foreign policy debacle. This could have been mitigated if he had responded to the requests for air support weeks ago.

This is the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. But lets not forget that it started way back when we declared Iraq War 2.

Obama is the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history.

Also, the Administration just called on the Iraqi people (government and militants) to 'come together'. They are completely out of touch with how these militant fundamentalist groups think. There is no 'coming together' unless everyone locks their women up as prisoners in their own homes and submit completely to a medieval code of laws.

Completely out of touch.

[Smoove_B]

He's out of touch - and they're out of time. Wake up to fantasy.