The Iraq war was a disgrace, but sometimes we forget just how much

[Gromnir]

Learn something every day, today I learned that you cannot compare one politician to another, that's equivalent to comparing them to fictional characters. I'll... give that approach all the consideration it deserves, shall we say.

 

Sorry for giving bad advice too. Clearly an inflatable donut ain't going to cut it.

agree that your donut won't help you much, but you mischaracterized... again. you do that frequent. compare 2 politicians? sure. compare efficacy o' a politician to a hypothetical holder o' the same office without regard to any o' they myriad factors that went into that decision? HA! all those clowns that got doctorates in history wasted their time and effort 'cause we got karnak the magnificent here on the obsidian boards who can not only accurate predict how mitt romney woulda' handled libya regardless o' the fact that mitt were never President and his track record as the governor o' massachusetts would be less than illuminating on making such prognostications, but we don't know 'bout a thousand other important issues that go into making such decisions, but zor knows, balances and finds mccain and romney wanting. 

 

we compare past presidents all the time. is often a silly exercise as it don't prove anything... is a bit like comparing baseball players today to ty cobb or babe ruth. but to compare folks who weren't even elected to the office in question and to believe you can accurate predict how they would made choices in similar situations is asinine.  Gromnir knew a guy in high school that tore his acl. he never made it to the big leagues, but he looked like a sure-fire first round draft pick back in 198_. is 'bout a thousand times easier for Gromnir to make guesses 'bout how our friend would been in pro baseball than it is to predict what kinda foreign policy choices mitt romney woulda' made on (insert random important mideast date here). the factors that go into whether a guy can hit major league pitches or field well is far more limited than the literal hundreds and thousands o' factors that go into a single major foreign policy decision... and each new foreign policy choice is largely the result o previous choices, so predictions be increasingly implausible as one attempts to build a fantasy administration for mitt. 

 

sorry, is mind-boggling that you genuine believe you can believe you could accurate track mccain and romney foreign policy track record for the me. is actual funny that you is that arrogant.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Walsingham]

 

 

It is WAY too early to try and determine Obama's place in history.

 

no disagreement. we were responding to zor's observation 'bout thinking obama has done better than mccain or romney would have. measure obama against the imagined evils of folks who failed to become President? historians rare indulge in such fantasies, and for good reason.  it struck us as more than a bit silly to judge obama based on how he stands up to zor's fantasies o' romney/mccain/other incompetence.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Completely agree. It really is a subject for speculative historical fiction when you get into "what if this happened". Makes for interesting reading sometimes like Newt Gingrich's novel on what the world would be like if the CSA won the US Civil War. Historical analysis really rests on what did happen. There is no way to know what the world would look like if Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, etc would have won. Honestly in terms of foreign policy I believe the difference would really be on of degree rather than something radically different. 9-11 was still going to happen and the events that set in motion would probably have played out the same. With the exception of Iraq I guess.

 

 

I think you're right up to a point. The key weakness of most counter-historical fiction IMO is that it doesn't take account of any feedback. They mostly assume that a player has a given leaning, and if they'd won they wouldn't moderate those leanings pragmatically, or when they saw the consequences. I'm not saying people rae always pragmatic, but I think many are, and pragmatic approaches tend to converge.

[Zoraptor]

we compare past presidents all the time. is often a silly exercise as it don't prove anything... is a bit like comparing baseball players today to ty cobb or babe ruth.

Snigger.

 

Yeah, comparing Obama and McCain, two contemporary and contemporaneous politicians is totally like comparing two baseball players from different times. Or Emperor Palpatine. I do so hope you didn't decide to accuse someone else of...

 

but you mischaracterized... again. you do that frequent.

Oh. Ladies and Gentleman, I present: Irony.

 

See, your problem is that I'm not saying what McCain or Romney- or any other Repub, you may note- would have done things differently and judged them on that, I'm judging them on what they said they'd do. What you are doing is called 'strawmanning', a specific sort of mischaracterisation where you change an opponent's argument to one you find easy to refute so that you can 'win'. To help out I've gone back and posted the full first sentence of what I wrote in the first relevant post.

 

Obama isn't someone I'd normally defend but his actions in the ME have been at least far more reasonable than the alternatives (McCain/ Romney; random Repub rep/sen) would have been if they had the power to do what they've said. Nothing like saying everything would be fine if they were just in charge and could magically bomb all evil doers with unmissable Righteousness Bombs for hypothetical scenarios.

 

So I don't need a boring in character pre 100 level lecture on US power politics that I know all about already, and everything about how much power they'd have to do stuff is utterly irrelevant; I just need what they've said, and McCain in particular has said some utterly nutty things in an attempt to look decisive and strong. Would he actually invade Iran and bomb Syria and send troops into here there and the other place, who knows. Which is, of course, exactly the point, he can say what he wants to look decisive and strong precisely because he doesn't have to follow through, Obama cannot. Obama gets compared to what they say they would do, not what they would actually do. I'd wish that I'd said that in the first post, but I actually did say that.

[Gromnir]

HA! you complain about strawman? HA!

 

"Obama isn't someone I'd normally defend but his actions in the ME have been at least far more reasonable than the alternatives (McCain/ Romney; random Repub rep/sen) would have been if they had the power to do what they've said. Nothing like saying everything would be fine if they were just in charge and could magically bomb all evil doers with unmissable Righteousness Bombs for hypothetical scenarios."

 

so, show us. mccain or romney saying more military action is needed is, in the grand scheme a very vague thing. saying the rebels in syria or elsewhere is needing more support is also hardly a defined multi-point plan that one may compare to what actual occurred, neither. is also politician speak. they ain't making those choices. they didn't actual have the intel the President had to make those choices. and again, romney or mccain choices would necessarily have been great different simply depending on earlier decisions they had made which mighta completely altered the need to make the decision in question. mccain and romney would likely have faced a different choice when confronting IS today, so saying that based on their commentary today you prefers obama is complete ignoring reality.  yeah, mccain could say that if all thing being equal he would do X in libya, but that is not the same as saying that situation in libya would be better or worse if mccain had been in charge, 'cause situation would Not have been equal, couldn't have been equal for all the reasons we noted above.  lord you is myopic.

 

but yes, find, "Nothing like saying everything would be fine if they were just in charge and could magically bomb all evil doers with unmissable Righteousness Bombs for hypothetical scenarios."

 

for you to complain that you is victimized by strawman or mischaracterization is so utterly hilarious. please, continue.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps 'cause this keeps getting missed, even if you don't like romney or mccain suggested claims o' how they woulda handled a particular choice, that is far different than,  "his actions in the ME have been at least far more reasonable than the alternatives (McCain/ Romney; random Repub rep/sen."

 

you have entered the philip k. **** and harry tutrledove zone.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Castle-Philip-****/dp/0547572484

 

http://www.amazon.com/Balance-Alternate-History-Second-Worldwar/dp/0345388526/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407681919&sr=1-5&keywords=harry+turtledove

 

what your vacuous, revisionist speculations require is ray guns or aliens or magic. that is why turtledove sold more books than pkd. add an antimatter or kinetic bombardment device to your hypothetical, then maybe you will generate interest. y'know, give'em the old razzle-dazzle.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

 

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme.

 

Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes.

 

 

You are not  seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya,  ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point?

 

 

 

Technically you're right since the name change to ISIS wasn't announced until April 2013 but functionally you're wrong.   The expansion of ISI (the precursor to ISIS) occurred as early as December 2011 when it established the Nusra front in Syria (less than a year after the civil war started).  Non-Syrian jihadists began joining ISI/ISIS almost immediately.

 

The details:

 

According to various sources, the Syrian civil war either started on 20 March 2011 in Daraa, after security forces opened fire on the protesting crowd or April 25, when the Syrian Army initiated wide scale attacks in multiple towns resulting in 1000+ deaths.   

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq, and in October, 2002, he formally joined Al Qaeda to create Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq – AQI).   On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi was killed by an American airstrike. He was replaced by Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian.

 

A few months later, in October 2006,  al-Masri united several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions] and on October 13, declared the formation of Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islamiyya (Islamic State of Iraq—ISI).  On Oct. 15, 2006 he named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi its leader.   ISI took Baquba, Iraq, as its capital and swore allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group’s emir. 

 

Al-Nusra front (also the Nusra front or Jabhat al Nusra) was formed in Syria in December 2011 when emir Baghadi sent operative Abu Muhammad al-Julian to Syria.   The group officially announced its creation on 23 January 2012.   That's clearly less than a year after the Civil war started but not by a lot. 

 

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi played a key role in establishing Jabhat al-Nusra. But he considered Abu Mohammed al-Golani, Nusra’s leader, to be his subordinate with a duty to obey him. So Baghdadi announced the dissolution of Jabhat al-Nusra and the integration of its members into ISI, with the new organization being called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham.

 

Golani refused the order, but ISIS appeared on the scene with strength anyway. ISIS quickly announced its areas of operations publicly and took control of wide areas without facing much resistance, benefitting from the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters who defected to ISIS.   Some estimates suggest that about 65% of Jabhat al-Nusra elements quickly declared their allegiance to ISIS. Most of those were non-Syrian jihadists.

 

In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced AQI’s operations in Syria and the group’s name change to ISIS; he reiterated the claim that AQI/ISI created the Al Nusra Front in Syria. Al-Baghdadi further stated that the two groups were on the verge of merging.  Al-Julani agreed that AQI/ISI had aided al-Nusra from the beginning, but rejected the merger and renewed his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri disputed this claim as well and officially annulled the merger, dictating that ISIS should limit its operations to Iraq.  On June 29, 2014, ISIS again changed its name to simply the “Islamic State" or IS.

 

 Loyalty to al-Qaeda may be the common denominator between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. ISIS has been under al-Qaeda’s banner since ISI was founded and inspired by the approach of Zarqawi, and from the jihadist doctrine stipulating “the loyalty of the branch is from the loyalty of the main [organization].” Therefore, ISIS’s loyalty is to al-Qaeda as long as [iSIS’s] emir Baghdadi “didn’t invalidate the allegiance” in an open manner. It should be noted that Baghdadi had refused to implement the decision of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri to dissolve ISIS while maintaining Jabhat al-Nusra and ISI intact. 

 

http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1

 

http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/493

 

 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#ixzz39w0GZag4

 

PS:  I'll take my shots at Obama in another post. 

 

 

 

This is a good post and I appreciate the way you always provide technical details around your perspective, but it doesn't fundamentally change my point that the Syrian conflict is the main reason ISIS exists in its current form and structure

 

I'll respond properly tomorrow, I just landed from the UK and I am busy doing some other things before work tomorrow

[HoonDing]

Anno 2014, we have this ISIS scum going around beheading children and burying women alive.

 

Fitting that in Muslim reckoning it's still 1382.

[Agiel]

Vice News footage had an interview with an IS fighter saying something to the effect of "Stop being cowards by sending your drones at us."

 

My eternal answer to that proposition is "If you stop hiding behind the skirts of women and children then you will find that the American infantrymen will more than gladly oblige your request, and you shall find that they're more than able to mow you down all the same."

[Malcador]

Yeah but people won't like the body bags that come back.

[BruceVC]

Yeah but people won't like the body bags that come back.

 

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons

[Fighter]

Vice News footage had an interview with an IS fighter saying something to the effect of "Stop being cowards by sending your drones at us."

 

My eternal answer to that proposition is "If you stop hiding behind the skirts of women and children then you will find that the American infantrymen will more than gladly oblige your request, and you shall find that they're more than able to mow you down all the same."

 

That's silly. As if an actual equal fight would happen in a modern war. American infantrymen would call air strikes and artillery strikes and use all the equipment their enemy doesn't have the first chance they get. Same as any infantry.

 

Lets face it. Give any infantry same equipment, same numbers, same meagre provisions and same living conditions as say the Taliban and send them into Afghanistan. I think the bravado about how great and tough they are will end very very quickly.

[Malcador]

 

 

Yeah but people won't like the body bags that come back.

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons

Welll oorah thumping aside they probably should confront them with troops. Best way of solving the problem. Well other than arming the Kurds and others and then hoping they don't take those guns on some other adventure.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yeah but people won't like the body bags that come back.

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons

Welll oorah thumping aside they probably should confront them with troops. Best way of solving the problem. Well other than arming the Kurds and others and then hoping they don't take those guns on some other adventure.

 

 

But the USA aren't in a position to just send  in ground troops, there are major political and logistical concerns that have to be addressed first. And the airstrike was used to prevent the massacre of the Yazidis which would have happened in a day or 2. So even though ground troops may make more sense the airstrike was the quickest option to slowdown ISIS

[obyknven]

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons

 

Lol, waste so much resources against so weak enemy is so strategic   Do you known what during Nato bombings of Yugoslavia per two  months NATO completely put out all European ammo storages but reach nothing? Only  betrayal  of Serbian government save them from shameful cancel of operation.  You try justify low combat ability of NATO ground forces by argument  "we can nuke them frm orbit", but this is laughable if your enemies  is just bunch of retarded fanatics (at least such not best ever warriors as Syrians and Kurds constantly beat them).

Though if Nato begin aerial war (much more cost, much more errors cause civilians deaths - more  recruits  for ISIS) against these guerilla fighter it's even better. As Che Guevara say "We need more Vietnam's for US".  Victory upon fat Hegemon become close every day. It's even become a bit boring, enemy too weak and shameful for honorable victory upon him.

[Leferd]

Making some headway in freeing the Yazidis from the mountain, but many thousands still under siege.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/exodus-from-the-mountain-yazidis-flood-into-iraq-following-us-airstrikes/2014/08/10/f8349f2a-04da-4d60-98ef-85fe66c82002_story.html?tid=sm_fb

[Leferd]

 

 

 

Yeah but people won't like the body bags that come back.

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons

Welll oorah thumping aside they probably should confront them with troops. Best way of solving the problem. Well other than arming the Kurds and others and then hoping they don't take those guns on some other adventure.

The Kurds are not the mujhadeen; connected with any ties to ideological extremism. They've essentially been an American quasi-protectorate and reliable allies for over 20 years.

 

Since the first Gulf War, they've self-governed a stable and secure state for themselves while protecting other Iraqi minorities in the region including ethnic Assyrians, Yazidis, and Christians.

 

They are also the only group in the region organized and willing enough to take in ISIS head on, as they themselves are under attack. The Iraqi government are too much in shambles to fight if the ISIS threat.

 

This is simply not a standard case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Kurds are legitimate US allies.

 

*edit*

 

New Iraqi government? Potential coup d'état?

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/world/middleeast/iraq.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0&referrer=

Edited August 11, 2014 by Leferd

[obyknven]

This is simply not a standard case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Kurds are legitimate US allies.

 

US arm PKK  and protect them from enemies lol. We has nothing against it (As Lenin say about US capitalists - useful idiots so useful).

[Walsingham]

 

You try justify low combat ability of NATO ground forces by argument  "we can nuke them frm orbit", but this is laughable if your enemies  is just bunch of retarded fanatics (at least such not best ever warriors as Syrians and Kurds constantly beat them).

 

 

 

Leaving aside your slightly pathetic attempts to sound foreign by leaving out prepositions, I have to ask if you have ever actually met any kurds. Or is this more meandering racism at work?

[obyknven]

 

 

You try justify low combat ability of NATO ground forces by argument  "we can nuke them frm orbit", but this is laughable if your enemies  is just bunch of retarded fanatics (at least such not best ever warriors as Syrians and Kurds constantly beat them).

 

 

 

Leaving aside your slightly pathetic attempts to sound foreign by leaving out prepositions, I have to ask if you have ever actually met any kurds. Or is this more meandering racism at work?

 

Do you seriously do want compare combat ability of Kurdish militia (or Syrian army) with combat ability of NATO/world hegemon? If so it's meant West become really weak and can't pretend to world dominance more (Though last time when West win war is WW2, after this time they have only failures, i too slow and forget what even lightly equipped paramilitary groups are serious enemies for the West). In present times West constantly use terror tactics against civilains instead of fight against enemy armies (Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Iraq etc) because of this.

[Walsingham]

BREAK BREAK

 

Troops may have been involved in a fracas as the Iraqi President calls for a new PM to replace Maliki.

[BruceVC]

 

 

You try justify low combat ability of NATO ground forces by argument  "we can nuke them frm orbit", but this is laughable if your enemies  is just bunch of retarded fanatics (at least such not best ever warriors as Syrians and Kurds constantly beat them).

 

 

 

Leaving aside your slightly pathetic attempts to sound foreign by leaving out prepositions, I have to ask if you have ever actually met any kurds. Or is this more meandering racism at work?

 

Don't take the bait Walsie, this is what Oby wants

[Leferd]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11024987/Mount-Sinjar-Iraqs-mountain-of-death.html

 

Excellent reporting from the ground. Can't stress enough how dire the situation is on Mt. Sinjar.

 

These people don't have too much time left before we may start to see mass deaths in the tens of thousand due it dehydration, exposure, and starvation, let alone extermination by force.

 

Of course, this hits a little close to home as I have in-laws who have relatives in northern Iraq who are Assyrian Christians...

[Walsingham]

Don't take the bait Walsie, this is what Oby wants

 

 

 

If what oby wants is to be called a timewasting bigoted incompetent then oby has got even more problems than I originally suspected.

[BruceVC]

 

Don't take the bait Walsie, this is what Oby wants

 

 

 

If what oby wants is to be called a timewasting bigoted incompetent then oby has got even more problems than I originally suspected.

 

 

I have no idea what motivates Oby or what his forum objectives are , he may really be Russian? But its pointless trying to have  a real debate with him because he doesn't respect the principle of debating etiquette. So if you try to engage with him on a serious level you will just end up getting annoyed...and for what? There are loads of other people who enjoy having mature debates on these forums. And this is not the same thing as someone agreeing with you or a person "winning" a debate. For me its just about the exchange of different perspectives

[HoonDing]

Oby is Polish. True Polish.

 

[Walsingham]

I could kind of take it when we had random racists wandering through here because they'd say about three things, get shouted at, and clear off. The pattern has been consistent ever since I joined years ago.

 

oby doesn't clear off because oby is a bloody alt. and that alt is the tramp publicly urinating in the art gallery.

 

The only people pandering to and encouraging oby are the mods for letting the halfwit behind the alt play games with the forum rules.