We got into several interesting discussions over hearMP Iraq Mission Creep
"Okay, I'll bite, What do you non-interventionists want to do?
Should we have let:It would be interesting to see what the Middle East would have looked like if the Ottoman Empire had not entered WWI on the wrong side. Unfortunately they did and the rest is history. BBC Middle East History" G2A
- Saddam invade our ally Kuwait? (and maybe Saudi Arabia)
- Maintained the No Fly Zones for 60 years? (kind of the like in Korea)
- Let the Taliban continue to allow terrorist training camps?
- Let ISIL continue to take land, secure funding, grow, etc?
"In Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq? I would not have invaded Iraq in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now. Afghanistan may be hopeless--progress is going to be stymied in a country with such relatively small economic potential. Syria is also a hard case. Assad should go, but he is being backed by Russia, so there is little US pressure that would work. I think containing Daesh is the top priority now, and the US military has a limited role it can or should play there (intelligence, possibly air support)." RBNow the Liberals can try to blame past US Foreign Policy and Interventions for many things, however the reality is that it does not matter. It is in the past and can not be changed. My summary of RB's position is that US should revert back to President Obama's ~2011 strategy regarding the Middle East.
- Pull all US ground troops out Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East.
- Just provide intelligence, air support and political support.
- In essence let the countries resolve their own issues through civil war.
So I will ask again, what do you non-interventionists want to do?
- Pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban enslave the country again?
- Pull out of Iraq / Syria and let ISIS start growing again?
- Other?
22 comments:
I support Obama's policies. He is smarter than me, has much more information / advisors, and spends his days thinking about these issues. I think Trump would be a major danger / disaster as commander in chief. Hillary is perhaps just a bit too hawkish.
So that means you are okay with him re-escalating our involvement in the Iraq/Syria, keeping troops in Afghanistan, maintaining drone strikes and sending advisers back to Yemen?
Would you be saying the same thing if it was a Republican President?
Would you be saying the same thing if it was a Republican President?
In foreign policy terms, Barack Obama is very much a Republican president. The only reason Republicans criticize his policy is that they are reflexively opposed to everything he does because of partisan political considerations.
--Hiram
G.W. Bush was a republican president and I thought he was an idiot. If he took terrorism seriously from the start perhaps 911 would have been prevented and the Iraq war was a total disaster (I may have accidentally quoted Trump on this.) As I mentioned already, I think Trump would be very dangerous as a commander in chief, as would Cruz (I don't support carpet bombing until the sand glows.) If you have other republicans in mind I probably don't know enough about them to have an opinion. With Obama's foreign policy I did slog through that recent 20 page Atlantic article on him, which earned Obama a greater degree of trust from me.
FYI. My comment to RB made it through the MP censors... Yippee...
"So in summary, it sounds like your answer is to pull all American ground forces out of the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. And then start providing only intelligence and some air support in Syria / Iraq. And maybe try for political solutions.
How do you think that will work out for them, Europe and US? Please remember that sounds a lot like Obama's original plan, before he learned that it allowed ISIS to thrive and expand.
Now folks can try to blame the situation on past policies and events, though it is somewhat pointless since they are in the past. The big question is what do we do going forward." G2A
Though they have not replied yet.
Hiram,
I think Obama has learned that fanaticism must be met with force. Unfortunately he let it get far out of control before learning this.
Laurie,
My question is do you support:
"During the past fifteen months, the U.S. has deployed 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq and has engaged in more than 6,000 air strikes in the fight against ISIS" And that piece was written 6 months ago, so many more bombs, boots on the ground and drone strikes have occurred since then.
So if Romney had won the election and implemented these exact same actions, plus kept the military in Afghanistan just like Obama... Would you be trusting his judgement or would you be out standing in some anti-war down with the GOP non-interventionist rally?
And my question has NOTHING to do with Bush, Trump or Cruz...
The Atlantic piece is from the April issue and I don't know what I would think of Romney foreign policy, as he doesn't have one- no decisions, speeches, interviews, or press conferences. In general I only protest incredibly stupid foreign policy like the Iraq war. As for the actions Obama has taken, I support them all. Maybe some of them are mistakes, but no one is perfect. To me he seems reluctant to use force beyond drone strikes, which fits my views.
I really don't read much of anybody's opinion on foreign policy details, so you think Obama should have been more interventionist?
Laurie,
I don't think he should have pulled out of Iraq so fast and left such a power vacuum in the first place. However he had to try to fulfill his campaign promises whether they made sense or not...
Then he learned as many many innocent people died and/or fled that he had made a BIG MISTAKE, and has been slowly rebuilding the US forces in Iraq. Apparently almost 4,000 now and 7,000 air strikes... Certainly more than a few drone strikes.
"stupid foreign policy like the Iraq war"
So you would have:
- let Saddam keep Kuwait in 1991 and grow his power?
- dropped the No Fly Zones in 2003 and just let Saddam kill the rebels and rebuild?
- maintained the No Fly Zones indefinitely like we do in Korea? (ie 25,000 military personnel)
- other?
What do you think the result of your choice would be?
the words "Iraq war" refers to the dumb one Bush started in 2003. The words gulf war or operation desert storm refer to the battle to get Saddam out of Kuwait, which I did not protest. I generally don't pay enough attention to second guess the president about alternatives in foreign affairs, unless the president is really dumb or dishonest.
I believe the stated reason Bush want to war was because Iraq was thought to have WMD, which was false. So why are you in such strong support of this war?
about 4000 troop in Iraq - that fits within my description of reluctant to use force.
Okay Laurie. I understand that you think Bush made the wrong choice and it was "stupid"...
Now which would you have made?
- dropped the No Fly Zones in 2003 and just let Saddam kill the rebels and rebuild?
- maintained the No Fly Zones indefinitely like we do in Korea? (ie 25,000 military personnel)
- other?
What do you think the result of your choice would be?
You act like Iraq was at peace in 2003... Here is a little reminder about reality...
"I don't think he should have pulled out of Iraq so fast and left such a power vacuum in the first place."
President Obama withdrew troops on the schedule agreed to by President Bush and the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government demanded that we keep our end of the bargain. Are you suggesting that we should have stayed over their objections?
"maintained the No Fly Zones indefinitely like we do in Korea? (ie 25,000 military personnel)"
25,000 personnel were not involved in maintaining the No Fly Zone.
The apparently soon-to-be-declassified "28 Pages" of the 9-11 Report make it clear that our government knew that the country that provided support to the 19 hijackers was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
Who did we invade?
We invaded the "Tiger we were Holding by the Tail".
As for the "No Fly Zone", it was a pretty big deal based on the source I provided above. Also, please remember that Saudi Arabia wanted us out of their country after ~10 years...
As for withdrawal from Iraq, I am sure the US could have convinced (ie bribed) the Iraqis to let us maintain a military based in NW Iraq if Obama had wanted to. However he was in a hurry and the rest is history.
Back to the questions... Now which would you have made?
- dropped the No Fly Zones in 2003 and just let Saddam kill the rebels and rebuild?
- maintained the No Fly Zones indefinitely?
- other?
What do you think the result of your choice would be?
Sean, It sounds like you would have voted for maintaining the No Fly Zone as "long as necessary". Am I correct?
What do you think the situation would be today if we had done so?
"As for withdrawal from Iraq, I am sure the US could have convinced (ie bribed) the Iraqis to let us maintain a military based in NW Iraq if Obama had wanted to. However he was in a hurry and the rest is history."
Your Trumpian assurances on this issue are absurd. You should review the politics of the Iraqi Parliament at the time. They insisted on making U.S. troops subject to the Iraqi courts.
"Sean, It sounds like you would have voted for maintaining the No Fly Zone as "long as necessary". Am I correct?"
There are plenty of intermediate steps we could have taken between the two binary choices you laid out, such as extending the No-Fly Zone over the entire country, engaging in more extensive air strike campaigns, etc. Especially considering that the UN inspectors were back on the ground in the months leading up to the invasion. We could have (and should have) kept the pressure on Iraq to let them complete their work. If we were serious about WMD being the primary concern, that's what we would have done.
"We invaded the "Tiger we were Holding by the Tail"."
Iraq was such a "tiger" that most of their military headed for the hills when we invaded.
So again... Where do you think we would be today if we had taken "intermediate steps". I assume Saddam would still be there saber rattling and killing rebels like Assad is in Syria. Thoughts?
As for Tiger... Everything being relative, to the people of Iraq Saddam and his sons were pretty lethal Tigers.
Impossible to say for sure. But here's what we knew when we went into Iraq:
* A U.S. general said the Bush Administration was underestimating the needed occupation force by at least 1/2, and probably 2/3. They fired him for it.
* UN inspectors hadn't found any evidence of active WMD programs
* Osama bin Laden was still on the loose
* Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, was tied to the 9/11 hijackers
* The majority of Iraqis were Shia, which meant that going to democracy there was likely to give them power with likely ties to Iran
The lights were blinking red against invasion but we ignored it.
"Impossible to say for sure." And yet you insist that ending Saddam's violent regime and giving the Iraqi citizens a chance at self governance was a TERRIBLE choice...
It is easy to be a Monday morning Quarterback, that is I want to focus on the here and now.
As noted above, Obama is escalating quickly ... "During the past fifteen months, the U.S. has deployed 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq and has engaged in more than 6,000 air strikes in the fight against ISIS" And that piece was written 6 months ago, so many more bombs, boots on the ground and drone strikes have occurred since then.
Is this a good idea or a bad idea? What would you do TODAY?
"And yet you insist that ending Saddam's violent regime and giving the Iraqi citizens a chance at self governance was a TERRIBLE choice."
Yep. Because we ignored what was already known before we went in. Now, if we had properly planned for the post-war period (for instance, taking the advice of folks like Gen. Shinseki regarding what was really going to be required in the post-war period), maybe it would have been different. But people were saying *AT THE TIME* that this was doomed for failure.
"What would you do TODAY?"
I don't have a problem with limited on-the-ground engagement with ISIS. Our focus, though, should be on building the capacity of the Iraqis and others in the region to handle this problem on their own. And I don't believe ISIS represents a sufficient enough threat to the country that I would pour tens of thousands of troops in there again.
Post a Comment