Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. to support fight on al Qaeda in Iraq without troops: Kerry
Chicago Tribune ^ | January 5, 2014 | Reuters

Posted on 01/05/2014 3:01:08 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry voiced confidence on Sunday the Iraqi government and tribes would be successful in their fight against al Qaeda, and said Washington was not considering sending troops back to Iraq.

Sectarian and ethnic tensions have risen in Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in December 2011, inflamed by the conflict in neighboring Syria, where mainly Sunni rebels are trying to oust President Bashar al-Assad, who is backed by Shi'ite Iran.

The Iraqi army has joined forces with local tribesmen to battle al Qaeda, which has teamed up with groups of Syrian rebels to try to create across the Iraqi-Syrian border a state based on strict medieval Sunni Islamic practice.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: iraq; johnkerry; middleeast; noleadership

1 posted on 01/05/2014 3:01:08 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The U. S. should NEVER have attacked and sent troops to Iraq in the first place. The region would be much better off today if Sadam Hussein hadn’t been deposed and executed.

Our Department of State has been rudderless for decades and it would be better off if we’d just eliminate the position of SOS because with Clinton and now Kerry in charge our position in world affairs can go nowhere but down.


2 posted on 01/05/2014 3:25:11 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

So, Israel would have been left alone peacefully? What is shortsighted- your statements, or my question?


3 posted on 01/05/2014 3:38:09 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

Our foreign policy should always represent US interests, not Israel or any other country.


4 posted on 01/05/2014 3:50:09 AM PST by MCF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

Israel would be better off if we never went into Iraq. Saddam was a Stalinist mass murderer but a secular one, he did an effective job controlling both Sunni radicals at home and Shiite lunatics in Iran.

The removal of Saddam greatly strengthened Iran, giving it the clout and political cover for developing nuclear weapons.

Even worst, the Iraq War is a direct cause of the Arab Spring with destabilization of secular governments and rise in fundamentalist political power. Right now Israel is facing the prospect of two Al-Qaeda states arising on its border, one in Egypt and one in Syria.

The US public has had it with the region, there is no political will to start another war in the region, one that will be bloodier than Iraq/Afghanistan or even Vietnam. Iran will have nukes and give them to Hezbollah, Syria, maybe even Hamas. Egypt, Syria, and Iraq may become Al Qaeda outposts. If Israel is attacked they may have to fend for themselves.

Bush was worst for Israel and US foreign policy than Carter, and Obama is continuing the trend.


5 posted on 01/05/2014 3:53:43 AM PST by BurningOak (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830849/reply?c=1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MCF

How does Israel not represent Our US interests in the middle east?


6 posted on 01/05/2014 3:57:33 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

Israel will survive this current world action. The US, perhaps will not. You have a good insight...


7 posted on 01/05/2014 4:19:44 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

I believe, sir or madam, that it is your inane question.

Saddam was a buffer and a threat to Iran. Give me an example of any untoward motions he made in regards to Israel.

Had the United States stayed out of the 1967 war Israel would have decisively won instead of being stalemated and would be the foremost power in the entire middle east. Instead our meddling then and now is a pointless trip down a dark hole.


8 posted on 01/05/2014 4:37:22 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

No.


9 posted on 01/05/2014 4:41:39 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I think that our war in Iraq was well fought, and Iraq was in a great position to move forward with prosperity. Then the numbskull Obama came along preaching of peace and humanity.....


10 posted on 01/05/2014 4:45:26 AM PST by castlegreyskull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I will indulge you one time- SCUD missiles.


11 posted on 01/05/2014 4:47:41 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

HE BETTER NOT SEND OUR TROOPS BACK TO IRAQ. WHAT A NERVE THINKING ABOUT IT. GET THEM ALL HOME!


12 posted on 01/05/2014 4:50:00 AM PST by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

The United States doesn’t have a treaty obligation to protect Israel from attack, nor would the Israelis have needed help kicking Saddam’s butt.

Maybe that should be made more clear to ALL the players involved.


13 posted on 01/05/2014 4:54:08 AM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

What in the hell do the scuds have to do with anything under discussion here? Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Scuds have no guidance systems and should more appropriately be called duds.

Do you believe Israel should have been halted by the USA playing Big Brother?


14 posted on 01/05/2014 4:54:25 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Did Iraq splash scuds?


15 posted on 01/05/2014 4:56:27 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

Would you care to elaborate intelligently on your stance? Otherwise response is pointless.

Now. Let’s all go to church.


16 posted on 01/05/2014 4:58:19 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Huh?


17 posted on 01/05/2014 4:58:30 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Onward Christian Soldiers...
18 posted on 01/05/2014 5:00:58 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks ("Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Huh?


19 posted on 01/05/2014 5:01:03 AM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“U.S. to support fight on al Qaeda in Iraq without troops”

And how did that work in benghazi?


20 posted on 01/05/2014 5:05:48 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MCF

Guess where the scumbag that blew up the towers in NY went after the dirty deed....Iraq.


21 posted on 01/05/2014 5:21:47 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but Saddam reportedly gave 25k to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.


22 posted on 01/05/2014 5:24:18 AM PST by pluvmantelo (Disqus seems to be taking longer than usual. Reload?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

TRANSLATION: Kerry and Obama intend to finance any future wars in Itaq with US taxpayer dollars!!


23 posted on 01/05/2014 5:35:38 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

Which part of my comment didn’t you understand, Einstein?


24 posted on 01/05/2014 5:46:49 AM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pluvmantelo

He did and Fox News reported it.


25 posted on 01/05/2014 6:07:06 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The U. S. should NEVER have attacked and sent troops to Iraq in the first place. The region would be much better off today if Sadam Hussein hadn’t been deposed and executed.

Irrelevant. Our troops did the job and paid the price. To say their sacrifice was in vain is disrespectful. The Surge worked remarkably well. The problem came when Obama -- against the advice of generals and Pentagon chiefs -- refused to leave any troops behind to prevent Al Queda filling the vaccum. OBAMA is the issue here, not Bush or our troops past actions. That you wish to make that your focus , makes me suspicious of your motives.

26 posted on 01/05/2014 6:51:36 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Well I don’t think you should be suspicious of a right-wing senior citizen and veteran.

I don’t believe in useless military activity, especially when one reflects on the Korean (my war) and Vietnam Wars and the fact that we left one in an eternal stalemate and the other in a disgraceful retreat.

I could go on and on about our involvement in foreign wars and military actions subsequent to 1917, but then there are a plethora of books on the subject which I feel certain you have read your share of them.

But chew on this factoid: we don’t even defend our borders and have literally shredded what this Republic once stood for. How can we continue to build larger embassies, schools, hospitals, roads and airports in foreign countries when we are as bankrupt as Zimbabwe?


27 posted on 01/05/2014 7:00:02 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The U. S. should NEVER have attacked and sent troops to Iraq in the first place. The region would be much better off today if Saddam Hussein hadn’t been deposed and executed.

So true. The greatest threat to civilization today is radical islam. In the middle east, who were the two biggest obstacles to the spread of radical islam?

The Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein.

Carter did radical islam a great favor by removing the Shah. Bush II did radical islam a great favor by removing Saddam.

We will eventually pay very dearly for both of those idiotic moves.

28 posted on 01/05/2014 7:40:36 AM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Seems to me he rained missiles on Israel while being evicted from Kuwait.


29 posted on 01/05/2014 8:03:41 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: montag813
The problem came when Obama -- against the advice of generals and Pentagon chiefs -- refused to leave any troops behind to prevent Al Queda filling the vacuum.

That was due to the inability/unwillingness of DoS to negotiate immunity for US soldiers/contractors after the signing of the of the US/Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. No one wants to see an American end up in a foreign jail as "payback" for activities in a foreign country, and that was a real possibility in Iraq. The "government" we rebuilt for them is a petulant child looking for revenge.

Yes, the troops did their job, but I agree with IBJensen, we should never went into Iraq to begin with. We should have expended the effort on Saudi Arabia.

30 posted on 01/05/2014 9:25:05 AM PST by Sarajevo (Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
The U. S. should NEVER have attacked and sent troops to Iraq in the first place. The region would be much better off today if Sadam Hussein hadn’t been deposed and executed.

Our Department of State has been rudderless for decades and it would be better off if we’d just eliminate the position of SOS because with Clinton and now Kerry in charge our position in world affairs can go nowhere but down.

BAM! Off the top rope, and I wholeheartedly agree with the entire post. DoS is ineffective and incompetent.

31 posted on 01/05/2014 9:29:36 AM PST by Sarajevo (Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
A big reason the State Department could not negotiate a Status of Forces Treaty is that BO wanted to leave too few troops, and the Iraqies were not at all confident that he would allow those to be used aggressively. The Iraqi leadership faced a significant domestic political price for signing a Status of Forces Treaty, and they were not going to do it unless they had a great deal of confidence that BO would make it worth their while. He adamantly refused to do so, so they refused to sign a treaty.

The only thing I am unsure of is whether BO wanted out completely, and acted as he did to put the blame on the Iraqis, or whether he and his advisers are really too dull witted to under stand the situation.

32 posted on 01/05/2014 9:39:22 AM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pilsner
Ummm- no. We were still there from 18 Nov 2008 until early 2011. I pulled out in Jan. 2011, shortly before it all came down. If obama wanted to pull everyone out sooner, he could easily have started doing so.

Immunity for the troops/contractors was not in the US /Iraqi SOFA, but the negotiations were done almost as an afterthought. I was contracting there, and we were harassed incessantly by those b*******. It come down to the point where we wouldn't eave base because we were disarmed by our own. The Iraqi's would constantly pull the landing rights of civilian charters at Baghdad Int'l, and when those charters were allowed to land did, the Iraqi's would charge us excessively for their precious visa. That tomfoolery is the State Dept's purview, but I guess they were all too busy partying.

33 posted on 01/05/2014 2:40:43 PM PST by Sarajevo (Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
we were harassed incessantly by those b*******. It come down to the point where we wouldn't eave base because we were disarmed by our own. The Iraqi's would constantly pull the landing rights of civilian charters at Baghdad Int'l, and when those charters were allowed to land did, the Iraqi's would charge us excessively for their precious visa. That tomfoolery is the State Dept's purview, but I guess they were all too busy partying.

I was an unfan of Foggy Bottom for decades before the Hildabeast went to work there, but what happened in Iraq is not State's fault. Would you agree that there were many Iraqis who disliked the US and wanted us out? In addition to the Iraqis who were trying to inflate their own egos and line their own pockets by screwing over Americans at every opportunity?

The Iraqi Government would have been happy to face down those who wanted the US out if it something big in return -- like a US military presence large enough and active enough to make a real difference in fighting the jihadists. But BO was offering a small force, that he would probably keep confined to post (as it appears you basically were at the end). That did not provide enough military muscle - much less enough opportunity for shakedowns -- to make it worth the Iraqi Government's while. If they weren't going to have a robust American military presence to hide behind, the Iraqi Government wasn't going to take the flak for allowing the Americans to stay.

I don't doubt that State screwed up a lot of things in Iraq, but it could not change the fact that the Iraqi leaders were not prepared to bet their careers -- and lives -- on BO bailing them out when the sort of events we see today occurred.

34 posted on 01/05/2014 7:47:03 PM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Huh?


35 posted on 01/09/2014 11:35:06 PM PST by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RedHeeler

Did it take you a week to think up that response general?

Gosh you’re dumb.


36 posted on 01/10/2014 3:41:53 AM PST by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak

Almost everything you’ve listed is either flat out wrong, hyperbole and myopia.

Excactly what type “clout and political cover” was bestowed upon Iran as a result of our invasion of Iraq? Considering that Iran has received nuclear plant development support from Russia and Pakistan since the ‘70s your assertion is groundless and absurd.

Likewise your claim that Egypt and Syria are Alqaeda states is also absurd as both nations are in vigorous confrontation with Alqaeda.

And Alqaeda is a negligible threat to Israel. When was the last time the Israeli and Alqaeda air forces clashed vs. clashes by Israeli and Syrian air force?

Most conspicuous is the fact you’re conveniently forgetting the previous extensive support of Alqueda by the “secular governments” you bemoan which are now under pressure by the Arab Spring. Instead of supporting terrorists they now have to fight them in their own countries. This is due to mass public opposition to their dictatorship by citizens desiring the same sort of self-representation Iraq now has.

So you want the good ‘ole days of state-sponsored terrorism, attacks within Israel and regional wars every 10 years eh? Here’s a hint. Since the beginning of the Arab Spring Israel has enjoyed unprecedented peace within and on it’s borders. The terrorists for the most part have lost their state sponsors and are now attacking the prior benefactors under the cover of the popular opposition to those states’ dictatorships by those wanting representative governance as in Iraq.


37 posted on 01/10/2014 4:32:20 AM PST by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson