Post-Withdrawal Iraq

[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.

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.

I'm fine with whatever he says as long as he doesn't get us involved in Iraq again. And why should we get involved with a people who won't even try to defend their own homeland? They outnumber these terrorists and they have more military hardware. What the hell is their problem?

[msduncan]

200 American civilian contractors are currently surrounded and in a military base trying to hold off the fighters. The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist. These people are going to be murdered if this Administration does not act. Private security forces and Iraqi army threw down their weapons and fled when the Jihadists announced over loudspeakers that they should leave immediately or be executed.

These are contractors that were preparing a military base for the arrival of airplanes sold to Iraq by the administration.

[LawBeefaroni]

200 American civilian contractors are currently surrounded and in a military base trying to hold off the fighters. The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist. These people are going to be murdered if this Administration does not act.

These are contractors that were preparing a military base for the arrival of airplanes sold to Iraq by the administration.

All I've heard about are contractors evacutating. Not of 200 trapped facing impending death.

Is your source Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily?

It may be accurate but I'd want verification.

[Alefroth]

Where did you hear the Air Force is under stand down?

[msduncan]

200 American civilian contractors are currently surrounded and in a military base trying to hold off the fighters. The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist. These people are going to be murdered if this Administration does not act.

These are contractors that were preparing a military base for the arrival of airplanes sold to Iraq by the administration.

All I've heard about are contractors evacutating. Not of 200 trapped facing impending death.

Is your source Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily?

It may be accurate but I'd want verification.

Heard it on the radio, but that appears to be the source.

[malchior]

200 American civilian contractors are currently surrounded and in a military base trying to hold off the fighters. The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist. These people are going to be murdered if this Administration does not act.

These are contractors that were preparing a military base for the arrival of airplanes sold to Iraq by the administration.

Source for this account is WND i.e. not exactly credible right now.

[Octavious]

Even Fox isn't running that story from what I can see. IF that were true it would be pretty messed up.

[RunningMn9]

Non-US sources were reporting 200 civilian contractors being evacuated. Not 200 civilian contractors surrounded and intentionally left for dead by the Air Force. Maybe there will be updates.

[LawBeefaroni]

200 American civilian contractors are currently surrounded and in a military base trying to hold off the fighters. The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist. These people are going to be murdered if this Administration does not act.

These are contractors that were preparing a military base for the arrival of airplanes sold to Iraq by the administration.

Source for this account is WND i.e. not exactly credible right now.

But the comments, on the other hand, are freaking golden.

parabellum • 8 minutes ago
Interesting; civilian non-metrosexual Americans who probably grew up exercising their Second Amendment rights, pick up discarded weapons and offer a more professional response to the Jihadis than Iraqi Army and hired help could muster. I guess Ubama does have a reason to fear America's armed sovereign citizens.

Тарас Шевченко(TarasShevchenko • 9 minutes ago
Imagine if the Nazis were pushed back to within Germany and the war was declared over and they were allowed to re expand across europe.

That is basically what has happened in Iraq.

[malchior]

I can't simply blame WND's readership *directly* right now. Drudge linked the story and these type of comments naturally flow from that association. He has the power of the derp at his fingertips.

[Carpet_pissr]

Interesting comment (in the comments section proper) from one of The Economist articles I read this morning:

"The article glosses over the fundamental issues that divide Shia’s and Suni’s and is not of the research and journalistic standards one would expect from the Economist.

Shia sect is supposed to represent progressive Islam. Ayatollah’s are not representative of god on earth but much like the Rabbis in Judaism are expected to interpret Islam’s Holly book for their followers and apply Koran’s rulings to the modern living (Fatwah). Just like Judaism, you are supposed to elect an Ayatollah and follow their teachings and interpretation, so you cannot create your own Ala Carte religion by mixing and matching rulings from different Ayatollah’s.

This basic system of reformation and reinterpretation of Koran is meant to create an ever evolving religion fit for its time and place. On the opposite spectrum you have the Suni’s that see the words of Koran as absolute and Koranic laws “Sharia Law” without modification and alterations as the only law permissible (fundamentalists). This is why the Sunis see Shias as heretics and not because of what Shias call their religious leaders.

This inflexibility from the Sunis has created extremist such as Al Qaeda, the Wahhabis, Taliban, etc. Unfortunately the West appears to be hell-bent on supporting the Sunis against the Shias even though the Shias are less likely to be extremists. The language of the press and politicians is continually demonising the Shias such as the references to Iran or Hezbollah of Lebanon by using “Militant” or “Extremists” after each mention of these groups as if to emphasis a political mantra.

The west would do well to understand that it can deal and negotiate with the Shias; after all this is what their religious beliefs are about (flexibility), whilst with the Sunis it is “Their way or no way”."

[Holman]

But there are also very reactionary Shias. You can't make a clear extremist/moderate split between Sunnis and Shias any more easily than you would between Catholics and Protestants.

[raydude]

But there are also very reactionary Shias. You can't make a clear extremist/moderate split between Sunnis and Shias any more easily than you would between Catholics and Protestants.

True. From the comment in the Economist if "you are supposed to elect an Ayatollah and follow their teachings and interpretation" then you are screwed if you happen to elect a batshit crazy Ayatollah

[gameoverman]

If Sunni and Shia don't get along, and our main allies are Sunni led countries(such as Saudi Arabia) then that explains our opposition to dealing with Shia. It would be awkward to say the least if we were to throw our weight behind the Shia part of Islam when our oil partners don't like them.

Also, the Iranians taking hostages back in the day was a negative, a huge negative, for the Shia side of things. When your people disrespect the rules of diplomacy to that extent you can't expect trust to be gained back any time soon. I realize Iranians had damn good reasons to be pissed off at the US, but rules are rules!

[El Guapo]

But there are also very reactionary Shias. You can't make a clear extremist/moderate split between Sunnis and Shias any more easily than you would between Catholics and Protestants.

Indeed. The quoted comment is facially ridiculous, most obviously so in that it ascribes all of the millions and millions of Sunni Muslims as all "my way or no way". Obviously the government of Iran is not so happy go lucky / flexible with regards to the U.S. despite being Shia.

[Carpet_pissr]

Very broadly, IF the comments are generally accurate, my take is we chose the wrong side, perhaps (keeping fully in mind that the poster may/probably has Shia bias), by siding (unknowingly?) with the typically more extreme Sunni faction, which immediately put us in bad with their traditional "enemy", so we are basically on both shit lists.

I wonder if my simplistic theory that before we took out Saddam (which had HUGE ramifications throughout the region), the Sunni/Shia tensions were at a relative calm (I know they have been antagonistic since 600/700AD, but at least in Iraq, they were living together relatively peacefully).

When that power vacuum was created, the old Shia/Sunni war flared up again. And in a major way that has resulted in the chaos and fighting we are witnessing in the region currently.

[GreenGoo]

The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist.

Yep, that sounds like the US air force alright. At least if you were asking a marine =D

I don't know what to say msd. When something sounds so outrageous that it inspires you to rage, not just annoy you but actually make you rage, you should probably try other sources and perhaps think more critically about the situation. We're all guilty of hearing what we want to hear and dismissing the rest, but my God. You are a master of it.

It's not that the forums are hostile to conservatives/republicans, it's that it's hostile to people who come in here and suggest that the administration is intentionally keeping the US armed forces from helping Americans who are under attack and about to be murdered/captured/touched in a naughty place.

I wouldn't have believed that crap even if it had been Bush in the WH.

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if the story has a seed of truth in it, but that it has been spun up until we're at Defcon 2 or 1. Say if some Americans were threatened by a street merchant with outrageous prices or something and the military refused to get involved. As just an example.

[El Guapo]

200 American civilian contractors are currently surrounded and in a military base trying to hold off the fighters. The Air Force is under a stand-down order to not assist. These people are going to be murdered if this Administration does not act.

These are contractors that were preparing a military base for the arrival of airplanes sold to Iraq by the administration.

Source for this account is WND i.e. not exactly credible right now ever.

[El Guapo]

Very broadly, IF the comments are generally accurate, my take is we chose the wrong side, perhaps (keeping fully in mind that the poster may/probably has Shia bias), by siding (unknowingly?) with the typically more extreme Sunni faction, which immediately put us in bad with their traditional "enemy", so we are basically on both shit lists.

I wonder if my simplistic theory that before we took out Saddam (which had HUGE ramifications throughout the region), the Sunni/Shia tensions were at a relative calm (I know they have been antagonistic since 600/700AD, but at least in Iraq, they were living together relatively peacefully).

When that power vacuum was created, the old Shia/Sunni war flared up again. And in a major way that has resulted in the chaos and fighting we are witnessing in the region currently.

How exactly have we sided with the "more extreme Sunni faction"? By deposing the Sunni leader of Iraq, supporting democratic elections which brought Shia leaders to power, and then supporting said Shia led government?

[Holman]

The story propagating across the right-wing blogosphere (and nowhere else) is that the contractors are not merely threatened by the extremists' advance but are actually in an Alamo-like shooting defense right now. WND is reporting this as fact with no room for ambiguity.

Either something huge is not being reported except by WND's super secret expert sources, or else they're now so desperate for a Benghazi scandal that they'll just make one up.

[Carpet_pissr]

How exactly have we sided with the "more extreme Sunni faction"? By deposing the Sunni leader of Iraq, supporting democratic elections which brought Shia leaders to power, and then supporting said Shia led government?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt (before the late unpleasantness)....I am sure there are other players that would be classified as "generally Sunni". Again, it's a simplistic, personal hypothesis based on my reading, nothing more. No idea if it has any basis in truth.

In my context, "sided with" means generally on favorable terms, relative to the predominantly Shia states.

[El Guapo]

How exactly have we sided with the "more extreme Sunni faction"? By deposing the Sunni leader of Iraq, supporting democratic elections which brought Shia leaders to power, and then supporting said Shia led government?

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt (before the late unpleasantness)....I am sure there are other players that would be classified as "generally Sunni". Again, it's a simplistic, personal hypothesis based on my reading, nothing more. No idea if it has any basis in truth.

In my context, "sided with" means generally on favorable terms, relative to the predominantly Shia states.

Turkey and the U.S. are not aligned at the moment. Yes, Turkey's still part of NATO, but no one would regard Erdogan as a U.S. ally.

Beyond that, that's misleading because there just aren't that many Shia states to align for or against. There's Iran, Iraq... and I think one of the Gulf States has a Shia majority (Qatar?), and that's about it. Given that the decision to overthrow a Sunni for a Shia in Iraq kind of destroys any notion that the U.S. systematically favors Sunni states. Especially given that the U.S. has spent much of the last decade plus killing a fair number of Sunni muslims.

[Holman]

Complicating Shia/Sunni political engagement is that our biggest modern antagonist in the Middle East came to power in a Shia revolution. (Remember all the "Kick the Shiite out of Iran" puns from the 1970's and 80's?) This made us feel more comfortable making deals with the Sunni governments (many of them more interested in Western trade than theology) that opposed Iran.

If I understand the scene, the broadest characterization that can be made is that, in the mixed Muslim world, economic elites tend to be Sunni while Shia tend to be lower-class. Obviously there are exceptions, such as the rural Sunni tribes that produce the Taliban.

It's also worth noting that the Shia are nearly always a minority. Around 88% of Muslims are Sunni, and Shia are the national majority only in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain. There really are no other "Shia states," although a minority can still be politically significant.

[Carpet_pissr]

EG: OK, you can believe that, but I completely disagree. We (and the West in general) have demonstrably had more favorable relations with the Sunni players, compared to the Shia players, in recent times. Additional Shia players: Syria (Assad), Hezbollah (Lebanon).

[Holman]

EG: OK, you can believe that, but I completely disagree. We (and the West in general) have demonstrably had more favorable relations with the Sunni players, compared to the Shia players, in recent times. Additional Shia players: Syria (Assad), Hezbollah (Lebanon).

That demonstrates another factor, which is Israel. In general, we've approved of rulers (all of them Sunni) who could stand to ease tensions with Israel while putting pressure on those (including all Shia rulers) who couldn't.

[Rip]

Everything should be stable soon. George H. W. Bush is on the way.

[Carpet_pissr]

Totally thought you were going to post a pic of him skydiving on his 90th bday.

[em2nought]

Everything should be stable soon. George H. W. Bush is on the way.

USN: blue water, brown nose. Pandering to politicians with something that should be named "Saratoga", "Yorktown" or such.

[Canuck]

So what's the update on the Americans at the Alamo? msduncan isn't keeping us informed.

[Grifman]

Everything should be stable soon. George H. W. Bush is on the way.

USN: blue water, brown nose. Pandering to politicians with something that should be named "Saratoga", "Yorktown" or such.

They been naming carriers for president for a number of years now. And how can they pander to a former president, no longer in office?

[raydude]

Everything should be stable soon. George H. W. Bush is on the way.

USN: blue water, brown nose. Pandering to politicians with something that should be named "Saratoga", "Yorktown" or such.

They been naming carriers for president for a number of years now. And how can they pander to a former president, no longer in office?

7 out of 10 NImitz class carriers are named after presidents. Only 1 of the next-gen carriers is not named after a president - the USS Enterprise.

[RunningMn9]

So what's the update on the Americans at the Alamo? msduncan isn't keeping us informed.

How many people are surprised?

[GreenGoo]

So what's the update on the Americans at the Alamo? msduncan isn't keeping us informed.

How many people are surprised?

Me, slightly. I want to know what the exact situation was and I haven't been keeping up on my news. Sometimes I rely on you guys. It wouldn't surprise me to find out they were in some danger, although a desperate last stand while the Airforce stood by and watched seemed pretty far fetched.

What's the deal?

[RunningMn9]

The deal is that the story appears to have been completely made up or at the very least, seriously embellished in order to generate outrage in people like msduncan (I will note that we should all be outraged, if the story proved to be true).

What I mean by surprised is that are we surprised that msduncan just went silent on it? Will we be surprised when he continues to fall for this tactic, the is employed continuously by right wing media?

Nonsense like this is one of the many reasons that I have been turned completely off by the right.

[Smoove_B]

What's the deal?

We can check the Friday press briefing, but you know it came from Obama's office so take that for what it's worth GIANT ROLLEY EYES.

QUESTION: Okay. And could you just – are you in a position to be able to give us some more details about the evacuation of the airbase yesterday?

MS. HARF: A little bit.

QUESTION: Several hundred contractors, American citizens working with American companies who are contracted to the American Government.

MS. HARF: Yes. So we confirmed yesterday that U.S. citizens under contract to the Iraqi Government in support of the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program in Iraq are being temporarily relocated by their companies due to security concerns in the area. This is the folks that are at Balad. The status of the staffing at the Embassy and consulates has not changed. Of course, we continue to evaluate our security posture. I’m not going to get into details about where they were evacuated or anything of that sort. And obviously they’re private companies, can also – if they want to provide details, can.

QUESTION: And how many were there? Jo mentioned several hundred.

MS. HARF: I don’t have more specifics for you than that.

[GreenGoo]

What I mean by surprised is that are we surprised that msduncan just went silent on it? Will we be surprised when he continues to fall for this tactic, the is employed continuously by right wing media?

I don't mind that so much. We all have confirmation bias. I dislike when he blames us for being closed minded and anti-conservative or whatever. Like our criticism is somehow unwarranted partisan hackery, despite evidence that his concerns are very often based on complete nonsense at worst, or a mis-representation of the facts (by his media sources), at best.

I get that it's tough being a conservative on this forum, as mostly we don't lean that way so it's a lonely fight, but I don't want to scare any of them off, as I value hearing what other people think. Instances like this make it hard not to be critical though, which just leads to hard feelings.

As for that press release Smoove, it is so devoid of detail that I wouldn't be surprised if the actual situation was more complicated than that. This administration has eaten up any good will or benefit of the doubt I might have had for it at the beginning.

Shrug. As long as people are safe (ish).

[raydude]

The deal is that the story appears to have been completely made up or at the very least, seriously embellished in order to generate outrage in people like msduncan (I will note that we should all be outraged, if the story proved to be true).

What I mean by surprised is that are we surprised that msduncan just went silent on it? Will we be surprised when he continues to fall for this tactic, the is employed continuously by right wing media?

Nonsense like this is one of the many reasons that I have been turned completely off by the right.

What bothers me is that it seems there is no skepticism filter applied at all when he hears these kinds of stories. Which means there are people out in the US who don't use a skepticism filter either. How long will it be before some nutjob realizes it is much easier to hijack a radio station, broadcast a fake story like "The President has implemented the UN takeover of the US! The police are in on it. Don't let them take you!" and just let all the true-believers run rampant?

[RunningMn9]

What bothers me is that it seems there is no skepticism filter applied at all when he hears these kinds of stories.

That's what I'm talking about.

If msduncan heard a story on the radio about how global climate change was real - he would likely spend hours trying to find something that sounded like it debunked it (and he would immediately believe almost anything that sounded like it debunked it). But if it's a story about something bad the Administration did? Well, that's gotta be true! Rage-o-meter instantly gets pegged at 11.

And no matter how many times the rage-o-meter gets artificially fired up by bullshit nonsense that is half- or not-true, he never takes a step back and says "Hold on a sec...maybe I should stop just believing and getting angry about everything that I hear - maybe after the 30th time this source has invented things to make me angry (so I keep clicking/listening), it's time to discard the source....".

He just does it every time, disappears when it turns out to be bullshit, and then does it again the next time as if it never happened before.

I get that this board isn't all that friendly to conservative viewpoints these days - but a big part of that reason is that the only people left forwarding the conservative viewpoint are peddling easily discarded conservative bullshit. What are we supposed to do? Respect it because that's all that's left?

[msduncan]

What bothers me is that it seems there is no skepticism filter applied at all when he hears these kinds of stories.

That's what I'm talking about.

If msduncan heard a story on the radio about how global climate change was real - he would likely spend hours trying to find something that sounded like it debunked it (and he would immediately believe almost anything that sounded like it debunked it). But if it's a story about something bad the Administration did? Well, that's gotta be true! Rage-o-meter instantly gets pegged at 11.

And no matter how many times the rage-o-meter gets artificially fired up by bullshit nonsense that is half- or not-true, he never takes a step back and says "Hold on a sec...maybe I should stop just believing and getting angry about everything that I hear - maybe after the 30th time this source has invented things to make me angry (so I keep clicking/listening), it's time to discard the source....".

He just does it every time, disappears when it turns out to be bullshit, and then does it again the next time as if it never happened before.

I get that this board isn't all that friendly to conservative viewpoints these days - but a big part of that reason is that the only people left forwarding the conservative viewpoint are peddling easily discarded conservative bullshit. What are we supposed to do? Respect it because that's all that's left?

1. I heard it on the radio (not AM talk radio either), and so I had no idea the source originated from the WND site as that was not mentioned. They just said 'reports'. I only realized it was WND after someone in this thread asked me if it was the source, to which I acknowledged that it probably was because I'd only heard it on the radio.

2. I was out of town over the weekend and so I didn't do a lot of in depth posting or researching

3. I still haven't heard evidence that there wasn't a bad situation with those contractors. Have you? I read above that there were some safety situations with contractors and that the companies in question managed to get them to safer locations. I still don't see any indication that what was reported was inaccurate. Do you trust this administration to tell you if there was a situation? I'm sure you probably do.

4. You have no fucking clue why someone might not post for a couple days. Work? Taking kids to Georgia to visit their grandparents? Sickness? No clue. You assume. But then again I really don't give a shit what you assume so go right on assuming.

[msduncan]

Here is a follow up to the WND story on the contractors. They reiterate that they were besieged and had to be rescued by Iraqi Air Force.

link