Posted on 05/18/2015 9:14:16 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
We should be bombing Iranian nuke installations while cooperating with them on fighting ISIS in Iraq.
No need to. There are a couple hundred sitting in mothballs at Davis Monthan AND Boeing has a pretty new capability for rewinging them.
My first thought is that this is a scenario tailor made to the A-10’s capabilites. Especially since it now has a self-designation capability with LITENING/SNIPER and the “C” model upgrades.
Funny how, whenever there’s been an attempt to get rid of it, some enemy pops up to show us just how much we need it.
Between refusing to support the Iranian green movement, supporting the Arab Spring, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and then wailing when it was taken down, supporting the removal of just about every friendly leader in the middle east by fundamentalists and terrorists, and letting Iran humiliate us repeatedly at the bargaining table because he's so desperate to get them to sign up for a fake deal we know they'll break, it's almost as if Obama supports the advance of militant Islam.
To prevent ISIS or Iran from becoming much bigger threats. Again, the main principle is to prevent a Muhammad wannabe from unifying the Muslim world that incidentally includes the vast majority of the world's oil resources.
Ok the car bombing and other attacks were trending down in Iraq. I don’t know that I agree with that, but let’s say it’s true. Then what?
How long were we to stay there? Because, I believe, no matter when we left the thing was going to fall apart. Only Saddaam was able to hold it together, and even he had difficulty (wars with Iran and so forth). Same deal with Assad in Syria.
If you look at the overall history of the region, going way way back up to present day, the only time there was a semblance of peace in that region was when there was a brutal iron-fisted dictator or caliphate in charge. And that broke down often enough. Cities and lands have changed hands through brutal (and I do mean truly brutal) means over and over and over again in that whole region. It’s all in the history books. So, speaking of facts and experts, is the history wrong? Why would the people of the region suddenly, just because a completely foreign power takes over for a few years, leave behind all that and decide to live in peace and harmony?
I just do not see the rationale for that belief. I understand we are dealing with the psychology of previous investment. We put a lot of blood and treasure into Iraq (for whatever reason) and we don’t want to see that lost. That is understandable. But there is also such a thing as putting good money (and blood) after bad.
I’m not seeing the REASON for staying in Iraq for decades, maybe even centuries just to enforce and artificial peace on people who would otherwise be fighting each other as they have for centuries before. What is the end game there? Just so we don’t lose face?
Look, I just don’t want our military to die for stupid stuff. And dying so that one group of Muslims can be top dog over another group of Muslims is what I see we have been doing.
If you can explain to me how this can work and why it is in our interest I’d be willing to listen. How long would we have to stay there? How many other places would we have to go to do the same thing (Iran, Yemen, Libya?). Do we really need to be over there doing all this forced peacefulness and if so to whose benefit?
“This is why Muslim armies grew instead of shrank as you’d expect them to (from battle losses). ISIS will cut through the existing Muslim polities like a hot knife through butter if it isn’t stopped, gaining adherents along the way. Why would it make sense to let ISIS gather the majority of the world’s oil under its banner?”
I was reading where last year ISIS took over some town with 100 fighters. They soon had 500 to 800 in their group that they had enlisted from the town. The article had mentioned the new guys getting paid (no work in the area), but I imagine many were forced into it as well.
And yes, it is about oil, not Sunni vs. Shia or whatever. But it is also about terrorism. Once ISIS controls all of that oil they will be able to fund even more than they already do.
But we are taking sides. We sided with the Shia in Iraq, then we armed and trained the rebels (Sunni ISIS in Syria and Libya) and now we hear that we might team up with Shia Iran to fight ISIS (which, did I mention we armed and trained).
I’m not seeing a clear objective (much less strategy) here.
Also, why are these “the world’s oil resources”. Does the rest of the world have a right oil and other resources on American soil? I’m not getting that angle either.
So we team up with Iran against ISIS .. Iran who is working on a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and the US, which if they get access to same oil you are worried about ISIS getting , will use that oil to fund that little project.
I’m not seeing a clear strategy here.
If we don’t want either one to get the oil then why don’t we just make Iraq the 51st State and be done with it? (Never mind the precedent that sets).
OK but that doesn’t work with your WWII analogy. We were not bombing Stalin while simultaneously working with him defeat Hitler.
The objective is identical to what it was during WWII and the Cold War - prevent hostile powers from unifying the target region under its rule. The strategy is to cooperate with hostile powers when our interests coincide, and fight them where these interests do not.
Also, why are these “the world’s oil resources”. Does the rest of the world have a right oil and other resources on American soil? I’m not getting that angle either.
The rest of the world has a right to those resources as long as they (1) are not hostile to the US and (2) do not alter the existing geopolitical configuration via armed conquest. That's why military establishments exist - to defend a country's interests against hostile powers. If the Russians manage to persuade the Canadians to join the Russian Federation, good for them. If they decide to conquer Canada, then they will need to fight Uncle Sam to get at Canada's resources.
“If we don’t want either one to get the oil then why don’t we just make Iraq the 51st State and be done with it?”
We don’t need to make them a state - just an ally, but that possibility is gone I think. We won’t go back and fight in Iraq. And remember the saying about “makes odd bedfellows”. Like Saudi Arabia. Or heck - Red China during Vietnam. But, like in Vietnam we make an ally, and then abandon them.
Re you Canada/Russia analogy
Iraq already has the oil resources. They are on their soil. They are not conquering anyone to get them, they already own them, do they not?
I’m not seeing why they are “ours” ... either the US or as you said “the world’s” resources.
WWII was merely an instance where we allied with a treacherous mass killer devoted to toppling Western governments whose double-dealings made necessary our intervention in that war. If we could ally with people (Russians) responsible for body counts several orders of magnitude larger than the Sunni and Shiite players combined, we can ally with the Sunni and Shiite factions opposed to them. The extent to which we cooperate will obviously vary. That's the nature of alliances - they are relationships of convenience.
Knowing what we know now, I wonder if Obummer thinks it was a mistake to withdraw from Iraq?
(Of course, he won’t ever be asked.)
In his mind he probably does not even think the two events relate. He’s such a narcissist that he would never admit he was wrong. Remember on Happy Days how Fonzi could never say he was wrong? That’s Obama.
The issues are (1) they have openly declared their intent to conquer the world, starting with the Arab world and (2) they are part of the Islamist movement that toppled the Twin Towers on 9/11. By your logic, German and Russians are Europeans. How is it the business of anyone in the Americas if the Germans or the Russians conquered all of Europe? How was it our business if Japan conquered all of Asia? The issue, ultimately, is what the military can do to defuse threats before they become dangerous enough to kill large numbers of Americans.
Whatever would they want with Kuwait?/s
20,000 ISIS Fanatics vs 100,000 Iraqi Security Forces?
I pick ISIS.
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.