The Islamic State

[Crazydog7]

This is a shameful fucking disgrace. The kurds are our most loyal allies in the region, and once again, we're leaving them out to dry. We're watching them get victimized by genocide...AGAIN. We pat them on the back and promise the world, but when shit goes south, we bail. It's humiliating.

I'm in favor of a full push into kurdistan. Solidify those borders, hammer-fuck ISIS, and support those who have shed so much blood for us. It's the least we should do.

I'd go.

You think that is bad

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/169872/iraq-seeks-seizure-of-kurdistan-oil-in-tanker-sitting-off-texas-coast.html

Yeah seriously. Think of all the good that money could do. A Democratic (well more or less) state in the Middle East that isn't run by a pack of Goddamn nutballs? Yeah can't have that.

[Ranger275]

Because Maliki is mostly the innocent scapegoat. The mess in Iraq is mostly the fault of American policies and to a lesser degree Iranian incompetence.

Most of the advice given here about what he should have done were either impossible for him to do or would have made the situation worse.

Meh. Maliki was really, really, really disliked before ISIS popped up.

[aceluby]

Yes it is true. Originally, the UN wanted a yet state solution and Israel said OK! The Palestinians said no and started attacking. You have to understand they don't want peace or a solution, they want the Jews gone. You can put together what gone means

Read the other reply, it's Israeli propaganda because the terms were something they knew Palestine would reject; it keeps the status quo militarily, requires even more land that is rightfully the Palestinians, and basically allows for Israeli rule of Palestine. When your options are to accept being oppressed or attack your oppressors it is completely reasonable to attack your oppressors. If any side is acting rationally these past couple years it has been Palestine with Israel playing the bully.

Also your 'they want the Jews gone' statement is ignorant. They have not stated that for almost a decade and have made many good faith efforts to prove that, like the last 3 month cease fire that Palestine agreed to and kept, but Israel decided not to honor its side and continue its illegal settling.

Really, this all belongs in the MENA thread though.

[Istakhr]

Meh. Maliki was really, really, really disliked before ISIS popped up.

True, but the dislike of Maliki was very similar to Obama hatred among white christian conservatives in the US. You have a minority (in Iraq Sunni Arabs, in US white christian conservatives) which used to run the country, and now that they no longer have the power under no circumstances are going to accept the loss and even agree to leave the majority alone and not control their lives.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Read the other reply, it's Israeli propaganda because the terms were something they knew Palestine would reject; it keeps the status quo militarily, requires even more land that is rightfully the Palestinians, and basically allows for Israeli rule of Palestine. When your options are to accept being oppressed or attack your oppressors it is completely reasonable to attack your oppressors. If any side is acting rationally these past couple years it has been Palestine with Israel playing the bully.

Also your 'they want the Jews gone' statement is ignorant. They have not stated that for almost a decade and have made many good faith efforts to prove that, like the last 3 month cease fire that Palestine agreed to and kept, but Israel decided not to honor its side and continue its illegal settling.

Really, this all belongs in the MENA thread though.

Wow! I'm shocked at how wrong you are... Sept. 3, 1947 the UN adopted a plan for an independent Arab state, an independent Jewish state, and the city of Jerusalem. Israel accepted the terms and the Arab league rejected the terms. Dec. 1, 1947 they attacked Israel and lost. A quarter million Palestinian's were booted out and may the following year the state of Israel was established. If they wanted peace it was there, they didn't. But, hey, don't let some thing like the facts get in the way of your bias's. And you tried to call me ignorant... That's funny

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

You'll find that most violence doesn't actually come from, nor is motivated by, religion. Islam happens to be the dominant religion within the regions in question. Religion can of course be used as a powerful justification within someone's head, but the real causes of violence are political. For instance, if someone were to claim that 9/11 was purely or mostly due to religious factors, that would show an extreme ignorance of the enemy.

ISIS, on the other hand, are very likely religion-driven opportunists.

This is true for the people in charge, but not for the boots on the ground. Want me to provide links for 50+ VICE videos? The boots on the ground, in Africa and the ME, are just religious nut jobs killing in the name of their god.

[ljkeane]

Capital letters or not since Hamas weren't at the peace talks at Camp David that doesn't appear particularly relevant to the previous conversation and is certainly not relevant to a thread on ISIS.

[The Fallen]

He pulled forces out that would have prevented this situation from getting this bad

The Iraqis didn't want our forces there so Obama pulled them out. I guess he could've strong-armed them, but with public opinion what it was he made the decision that was best. At some point the Iraqis have to take control of security.

True, but the dislike of Maliki was very similar to Obama hatred among white christian in the US. You have a minority (in Iraq Sunni Arabs, in US white christian conservatives) which used to run the country, and now that they no longer have the power under no circumstances are going to accept the loss and even agree to leave the majority alone and not control their lives.

From what I've read, Maliki continually passed legislation that alienated the Sunnis. And when they protested he cracked down savagely.

One of the great things about Nelson Mandela was that he didn't try to pay back white South Africans once they took over power. Of course, religion wasn't involved. Although with the leadership of these groups religion is used as a pretext.

[Ranger275]

True, but the dislike of Maliki was very similar to Obama hatred among white christian conservatives in the US. You have a minority (in Iraq Sunni Arabs, in US white christian conservatives) which used to run the country, and now that they no longer have the power under no circumstances are going to accept the loss and even agree to leave the majority alone and not control their lives.

Nodog.jpg

Sunni/Shia issue was going to be there, granted, but there was definitely an element of "get back" in that administration. The Kurds were also treated like shit, as were Shia without large bank accounts. The Iraq political situation isn't anything like that in the US, and calling Maliki an innocent scapegoat is a big reach.

What better options were there? I don't remember. I was over there during that hot mess, and from what I can remember, Maliki was a dark horse candidate at best, initially.

[Ranger275]

The Iraqis didn't want our forces there so Obama pulled them out. I guess he could've strong-armed them, but with public opinion what it was he made the decision that was best. At some point the Iraqis have to take control of security.

From what I've read, Maliki continually passed legislation that alienated the Sunnis. And when they protested he cracked down savagely.

One of the great things about Nelson Mandela was that he didn't try to pay back white South Africans once they took over power. Of course, religion wasn't involved. Although with the leadership of these groups religion is used as a pretext.

There were mixed opinions over there about us leaving. Certainly, many wanted us gone. Most of the law enforcement and military Iraqis knew how unstable their forces were (outside of a few key elements), and wanted us to keep a few strategic locations. Al Asad, and a few others from what I remember. They were to be "just in case" forces, until the LN forces were confident.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

For the love of God please don't turn this into a discussion of who is respomsible for how screwed up iraq has become. That's a waste of time. The more interesting discussion is of what we need to do to oppose ISIS.

[Ranger275]

For the love of God please don't turn this into a discussion of who is respomsible for how screwed up iraq has become. That's a waste of time. The more interesting discussion is of what we need to do to oppose ISIS.

It's pretty easy. Hammer fist them, and provide logistical support and equipment for the Pesh, along with intel. That would take care of the northern regions.

With regards to Diyala and Anbar, well, replacing their PM might help create another Awakening movement, and that, coupled with a main effort push from IA, might just see IS right out of the country.

The first would be much easier to execute than the second.

[Ranger275]

I'm not familiar enough with Syria to say much about it from a strategic stance.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The Iraqis didn't want our forces there so Obama pulled them out. I guess he could've strong-armed them, but with public opinion what it was he made the decision that was best. At some point the Iraqis have to take control of security.

According to Robert Gates, Obama's Secretary of Defense during this period, there was actually a strong undercurrent of support among Iraqi elites for a continued US troop presence after withdrawal. He basically says in his memoir that Maliki was looking for some terms that would have allowed him to sell a continued US troop presence to his people, despite popular opinion in Iraq being against it, and that Obama's personal dislike of Maliki (not to mention his general disdain for the Iraq war) and the failure of his administration to engage with the Maliki government ultimately prevented a do-able deal from being reached. Obama's failure to reach a new Status of Forces agreement with the Maliki government may, unfortunately, turn out to be one of his biggest foreign policy mistakes.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

According to Robert Gates, Obama's Secretary of Defense during this period, there was actually a strong undercurrent of support among Iraqi elites for a continued US troop presence after withdrawal. He basically says in his memoir that Maliki was looking for some terms that would have allowed him to sell a continued US troop presence to his people, despite popular opinion in Iraq being against it, and that Obama's personal dislike of Maliki (not to mention his general disdain for the Iraq war) and the failure of his administration to engage with the Maliki government ultimately prevented a do-able deal from being reached. Obama's failure to reach a new Status of Forces agreement with the Maliki government may, unfortunately, turn out to be one of his biggest foreign policy mistakes.

Gates' is hardly an objective viewpoint though. He was very against ending the war, so of course he blames Obama (and I'm not saying Obama doesn't deserve blame. He does. I just wouldn't respect much of what Gates says).

Ultimately the problem was an inability to negotiate terms that would have provided criminal immunity for U.S. soldiers. From all accounts I've seen and read, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept this term, which was a deal breaker for both sides.

[The Fallen]

There were mixed opinions over there about us leaving. Certainly, many wanted us gone. Most of the law enforcement and military Iraqis knew how unstable their forces were (outside of a few key elements), and wanted us to keep a few strategic locations. Al Asad, and a few others from what I remember. They were to be "just in case" forces, until the LN forces were confident.

I was referring to the leadership. I believe they didn't want to renew the agreement we had with them. But I don't doubt there were those who were afraid of what would happen once our forces pulled out.

Ser Scot,

It's amazing a force of 7,000 can take this much territory. Especially the 800 that took Mosul. They had a 40:1 disadvantage. It obviously has to do with the chaos going on. But I don't see how 7,000 men can hold that much territory; about the size of Luxembourg.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Gates' is hardly an objective viewpoint though. He was very against ending the war, so of course he blames Obama (and I'm not saying Obama doesn't deserve blame. He does. I just wouldn't respect much of what Gates says).

Ultimately the problem was an inability to negotiate terms that would have provided criminal immunity for U.S. soldiers. From all accounts I've seen and read, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept this term, which was a deal breaker for both sides.

I'm not even sure what "objective viewpoint" in this context is supposed to even mean. No insider from the administration is ever going to be an "objective viewpoint" because they all had positions on these issues, as that was their job. All your post amounts to is a blanket refusal to consider Gates' first-hand account of the events because he thought it was important to maintain a military presence in Iraq and Obama apparently did not. Subsequent events certainly suggest that Gates might have had the right of it (Gates wanted to maintain an American presence on the border of Kurdish-controlled regions to protect the Kurds - which would have been very helpful right about now). Obama's lack of enthusiasm for negotiating with the Maliki government was reported at the time - and in fact, during his foreign policy debate with Romney, Obama actually denied ever wanting to reach a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, and flatly denied that he ever supported leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq after the draw-down, which was the compromise recommendation of Gates, and which was supported by Hillary Clinton (per her new book), and the military brass on the ground in Iraq. Per "Duty" - both our ambassador to Iraq, Jim Jeffrey, and General Lloyd Austin (the last commanding general of US forces in Iraq) both knew that Maliki and all of the key Iraqi leaders wanted a continuing US military presence in Iraq (although admittedly, Iraqi politicians feared the political blowback of publicly taking such a position).

It's impossible to know for sure what would have happened had the Obama administration actually been committed to this course. I freely concede that. But there is ample evidence to suggest that, probably for domestic political reasons, they didn't even try.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

I'm not even sure what "objective viewpoint" in this context is supposed to even mean. No insider from the administration is ever going to be an "objective viewpoint" because they all had positions on these issues, as that was their job. All your post amounts to is a blanket refusal to consider Gates' first-hand account of the events because he thought it was important to maintain a military presence in Iraq and Obama apparently did not. Subsequent events certainly suggest that Gates might have had the right of it (Gates wanted to maintain an American presence on the border of Kurdish-controlled regions to protect the Kurds - which would have been very helpful right about now). Obama's lack of enthusiasm for negotiating with the Maliki government was reported at the time - and in fact, during his foreign policy debate with Romney, Obama actually denied ever wanting to reach a new Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, and flatly denied that he ever supported leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq after the draw-down, which was the compromise recommendation of Gates, and which was supported by Hillary Clinton (per her new book), and the military brass on the ground in Iraq. Per "Duty" - both our ambassador to Iraq, Jim Jeffrey, and General Lloyd Austin (the last commanding general of US forces in Iraq) both knew that Maliki and all of the key Iraqi leaders wanted a continuing US military presence in Iraq (although admittedly, Iraqi politicians feared the political blowback of publicly taking such a position).

It's impossible to know for sure what would have happened had the Obama administration actually been committed to this course. I freely concede that. But there is ample evidence to suggest that, probably for domestic political reasons, they didn't even try.

Again, you're over looking the key fact:

The Iraqi Government would not accept any terms that included prosecutorial immunity for American soldiers, so there was nothing to negotiate with. We were not going to accept any terms that didn't preclude American judicial immunity.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Again, you're over looking the key fact:

The Iraqi Government would not accept any terms that included prosecutorial immunity for American soldiers, so there was nothing to negotiate with. We were not going to accept any terms that didn't preclude American judicial immunity.

I'm not overlooking this at all. What I'm telling you is that, according to the people who were there, on the ground, Maliki and the Iraqi political elite wanted the US to maintain a troop presence in Iraq; the military and State departments waned the US to maintain a troop presence in Iraq; and by all accounts, Obama didn't and didn't make any serious attempt to negotiate for it.

All you are doing is parroting the "official" reason for why the status of forces agreement never materialized. Which is fine, if want to keep the level of discussion on the shallow level of official press releases. But if you have any desire to understand what actually happened you have to, you know, explore a little bit deeper than the administration's Talking Points.

Based upon Obama's own comments, and the comments of people with first-person experience in the government, it seems clear that Obama was not committed to the idea of keeping troops in Iraq, despite the advice of the military and State department. I mean, he says as much in his debate with Romney. In fact, I think the administration's handling of the situation actually suggests they sabotaged the attempt by unilaterally setting requirements for the agreement that could not be met. For example, the Obama administration insisted that any SOFA had to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament. Why? Status of Forces Agreements, in US law, are executive agreements. They don't need to be, and generally are not, ratified by the legislative branch. There was no reason that the SOFA had to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament. In fact, the former US Ambassador to Iraq, Jim Jeffrey, confirmed that Maliki had explicitly suggested not sending the SOFA to the Iraqi Parliament and treating it purely as an executive agreement. The Obama Administration nixed this. This was criticized at the time, by stopped-clocks like John McCain, who called it a "poison pill" because the Obama administration knew it would never pass the parliament.

Plus, this is, you know, international relations. A SOFA is not required for the US to have troops inside Iraq. The US obviously didn't have one when it invaded Iraq in 2003, and it operated without one in Iraq all the way until 2008 when it was first executed by Bush. It was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament with just 54% of the vote. If the Bush administration knew they couldn't muster the bare majority to ratify it in Parliament it back in 2008 - would US troops have immediately withdrawn? Of course not, they would have either gone without, as they had for the prior 5 years, or they would have just relied upon the approval of the Iraqi cabinet.

The point is, there were options and these options were not exercised by the Administration, I suspect deliberately because Obama just wanted the Iraq war to end. That is, after all, what he campaigned on. History will determine whether ending the war at any cost was a smart decision,

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

So wanting a country's elected legislative body to be on board with an occupation is a bad thing?

I guess you're more a fan of shoving foreign occupation down peoples throats to bring democracy to them. Because that's winning the hearts and minds.....