Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just another spin statement obviously. We also gave them a lot of equipment left behind. Now I have read about requestt for air strike and talk about sending more equipment.I think the decision that Iraq could stand on its own was obviously wrong. Hillary just said no danger to us from terrorist there.Nt sure that is true but it indicates this administration believe same. I don't want to sent troops under Obama leadership.
That hasn't been "standard" since at least Clausewitz. War as a political tool has been used like a hammer is used: When the nailhead reaches the wood, stop hammering. When the war achieves its political goal, stop killing.
Political goals achieved against long-established nation-states have the benefit of being supportable by that nation-state. Germany and Japan had functioning national governments--and their populations fully recognized those national governments--prior to WWII. There was a recognized national government that could surrender, and that government's surrender was accepted by its population.
That's not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan. They don't have functioning national governments or populations that fully recognize what purports to be national governments.
And a democratic national government can't be built from the top down, it has to be built from the bottom up. Democracy must start at the local level.
Can't rep you again, so I'll just repost this bit of wisdom...
There was never any risk the occupation of Iraq would become a "victory." Even during the very quietest parts of the occupation, there were still over 200 Iraqi civilians (just civilians, not Iraqi security forces) being killed by militant violence every single month:
And every single day of the US occupation cost a lot of money.
At some point, the realism has to kick in, and silly ideas like "democracy in a unified Iraq" have to be abandoned. You can hold a broken egg together in your hands for a long time. But that doesn't unbreak the shell.
Here we go, the total collapse of Obama's foreign policy for all to see...let's hope there's no one left behind for Obama to trade for. Maybe he'll send them someplace safe like Libya.
From The Blaze - The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad is preparing contingency plans to evacuate its employees if necessary now that one of the deadliest Islamic militant groups in the region has taken control of large swaths of Iraq, a U.S. official told TheBlaze. U.S. Embassy Prepares for Possible Evacuation as Militants Take Control in Iraq | TheBlaze.com
There was never any risk the occupation of Iraq would become a "victory." Even during the very quietest parts of the occupation, there were still over 200 Iraqi civilians (just civilians, not Iraqi security forces) being killed by militant violence every single month:
And every single day of the US occupation cost a lot of money.
At some point, the realism has to kick in, and silly ideas like "democracy in a unified Iraq" have to be abandoned. You can hold a broken egg together in your hands for a long time. But that doesn't unbreak the shell.
We should have just took over the nation, and stole its oil, I mean at least that would have made sense.....
JIHADISTS have overrun Iraq's second city of Mosul and a string of Sunni Arab northern towns in a spectacular blow against the Shiite-led government that Washington warned threatens the entire region.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked parliament to declare a state of emergency and announced the government would arm citizens to fight the jihadists and their allies.
“All of Nineveh province fell into the hands of militants,” parliament speaker Osama al-Nujaifi told journalists in Baghdad, adding the gunmen were heading south towards neighbouring Salaheddin province.Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
So is history repeating itself with the implications of the US withdraw, as demonstrated in Vietnam in the 1970s?
I don't think so.
The jihadists will have problems holding the cities they captured. If they try to go against the Kurds in the north, they will have a hard fight on their hands, as the Kurds now have their own trained military with heavy weaponry, and will fight, not run. Now that a Kurdistan exists at last, the Kurds won't be willing to give up an inch of their territory.
The jihadists don't have well structured lines of supply. If Baghdad gives them stiff resistance, and it most likely will, as the army is headquartered there, they won't be able to hold their gains for long.
I believe there is a possibility of Turkey getting into the fight. The Turks are mostly Sunni, but they want to keep Iraq as a buffer between them and Iran, a much more dangerous opponent and a competitor for leadership in the middle east. Since parts of Iraq once were Turkish territory, this may be a good time for them to try and get the territory back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
