Pro vs Con: Returning to Iraq

[Serano]

For those of you not aware, in the past few days there have been a series of disturbing events occurring inside Iraq. The culprit of this latest upheaval is an Al-Qaeda affiliated group called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS). This group was originally born out of the Syrian Civil War and have been growing and training thousands of Jihadist fighters. They have been on a relentless drive through the center of Iraq with their largest prize being the city of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city. Now the insurgents, bolstered by disenfranchised Sunnis, are now only 60 miles away from Baghdad.


So the question we now face is, "What should we do, if anything, to help the Iraqis." I'm going to throw out a quick for and against on going back to Iraq, and I'd like your opinion on the topic as well. I have a lot more I can say for either side of the subject, but I want to know I'm not preaching to the choir.


For Intervention: Lessons from History


To understand why it is so important to intervene in Iraq, the United States needs a wake up call on just who our enemies are. On one of the darkest days in our history, 3000 Americans died. The men who killed them were Al Qaeda. And given the chance, they would cut the heads off of every one of you.


To organize and execute such a grandiose attack, they had to of had assistance from someone. That someone was the Taliban in Afghanistan, who at the time were in control of the country. They provided shelter and resources for Al Qaeda training camps, the very camps which the 9/11 hijackers were trained in. If we allow ISIS to establish a strong hold in Iraq, then we can and should be expecting another 9/11 in our near future.


Against Intervention: Quagmire


After 2 trillion dollars and over 4000 American dead, we find ourselves in the same situation we were seven years ago. For those who don't recall, 2006-2007 were the deadliest, and most violent, years of the Iraq War. This violence was less fueled by foreign insurgents, and more so by a Sunni Population that was being minimized by the Iraqi Government. The only reason the Iraq situation got sorted out, was that the Sunnis in Anbar decided that they were better off with the Iraqi government than thugs from Al Qaeda.


Flash forward to today, and the Sunnis have had enough. It's important to note that all of the gains made by ISIS have been in Sunni territory. The reason this is important, is cause the Shi'a make up about 70% of Iraq's population. As the Sunnis draw closer to closer to Baghdad, they are inevitably meeting tougher and tougher resistances.


There is also the issue of the Iraqi Government. Since Maliki took office, he has been putting his Shi'a buddies into power in government (that was suppose to be a democracy) and kicked out all the Sunnis. What's worse, is that Maliki's closest allies isn't the US... but IRAN. Is this really the government that we want to back?

 

[DeletedAccount]

I'm so glad you provided all of that information because all I know about this is the eavesdropping I've done with the news stories over the years. I remember an NPR story talking about why the Taliban and Al Queda hate us in the first place, aside from their beliefs. I forget whether it was the U.S.A.'s fault or their fault...So, this is not based on who started it.


I am someone who admires Canada. I don't know how they do it, as they have to involve themselves in some things, but, either way, it doesn't seem Canada is hated by many.


I'll reiterate that I am no Political Science major or politics fan, so excuse me if this whole post is pretty hippy-ish. Moving on~


Anyway, what I'm trying to say in relation to Canada is that it doesn't seem they are as obnoxious as the U.S.A. I've heard multiple times how it seems the U.S.A. feels the need to intervene on every single thing. YES we should be involved with the terrorist attack on 9/11, HOWEVER...I would like to believe we have made our point in saying that we did not like this at all and that we will do whatever it takes for it to not happen again. Since then, security has changed drastically, so on and so forth.


But...the reason why we're doing everything it takes for 9/11 not to happen again is so people don't die! And, as you said, 3,000 people died in 9/11, 4,000 soldiers have died in the Iraq War. It's like we accidentally made 9/11 happen again by ourselves! We already retreated, or started retreating, from Iraq - why are we going back??


I think our stereotypical nature of us wanting to butt in on everything is happening here. We've done our duties, killed the man in charge of 9/11, let's go home and protect our country, not invade on someone else's problems. Sure, some may request help from us, but we need to help ourselves before we are able to fully help others. Does that make sense?

 

[Lady Sabine]

We're killing people to prove that killing people is wrong and getting Americans killed because we're mad that Americans were killed. We were mad that we had to rebuild, so we leveled somebody else's infrastructure.


I'm not opposed to an eye for an eye on principle, but this is an exercise in futility.


America should give up on fighting real wars. We don't have a great track record for setting third world countries on the "right" (pun intended) path. The wars we win are the culture wars. It would be cheaper and more effective to just inundate the entire Islamic world with propaganda, fast food, and pop culture. Look at how social media became the bugles and war drums for Arab Spring- or just go straight for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll_and_the_fall_of_communism


Cultural wars are cheaper, easier, and more permanent.

 

[Hunnyhelp]

America has the world's largest military, therefore is the strongest. Also there are other ways to fight a war. Honestly I think leaving now would be stupid, we already lost 4,000 soldiers and if we leave that is all more nothing. First of all we have drones now, unmanned drones. We could use theese and supply weapons to Iraq. We could easily destroy theese invading Al-Qaeda (which by the way are more extremist than the Taliban), from destroying the democracy we spent so much lives in installing. Yes there might be some problems, but name a perfect 100% democracy for me. I should also mention the oil reserves, if we are not going to do it for the almost destroyed goverment that cost so many lives to install. Then we have to do it because of the oil reserves there, besides don't we need people who actually like us pumping our oil. Lastly I would like to address the Taliban is a group, a terrorist group. Think about what would happen if the Al-Qaeda had their own country.

 

[Harbinger]

We have been spending over 1.9 trillion dollars in the war against Iraq. If we go back in there and try to stop Al-Qaeda they are going to keep coming back. If you try to kill the head of major terrorist or crime group, you don't stop it completely because there is someone below that guy to take his place. If we go in there and try to stop them, they will come back after we leave again and do the same thing.

 

[Hunnyhelp]

We have been spending over 1.9 trillion dollars in the war against Iraq. If we go back in there and try to stop Al-Qaeda they are going to keep coming back. If you try to kill the head of major terrorist or crime group, you don't stop it completely because there is someone below that guy to take his place. If we go in there and try to stop them, they will come back after we leave again and do the same thing.

Which is why we shouldn't have left, we almost had their numbers gone or thin enough the goverment could taken care of them, but then Obama just decided to suddenly bring back all the troops instead of finishing the job.

 

[Lady Sabine]

Which is why we shouldn't have left, we almost had their numbers gone or thin enough the goverment could taken care of them, but then Obama just decided to suddenly bring back all the troops instead of finishing the job.

Can you find an actual, reliable source showing that we had them close to defeat? Why would Obama purposefully sabotage a nearly-completed mission? He's not some comic book villain cackling and tapping his fingers while he plots the downfall of everyone else's good intentions...

 

[Serano]

@Lady Sabine[/URL] @Harbinger


First some house keeping before I make my point:


OptimisticFire:


Fun Fact: Canada is actually in the Guinness World Record Book for being involved in more UN Actions than any other country. Not number of men mind you, but number of individual missions. So if anyone needs to keep out of people's business, if be you guys.... just kidding. In seriousness, I get what you're saying and it's a little different when your perceived and as the world's lone superpower. There is some obligation in, unfortunately, getting involved to ensure that things keep normal and running smoothly. If not, well you see what happens to gas prices any time the middle east decides to embrace chaos, right?.


Lady Sabine:


While you do have a point in talking about culture, the fact is that these societies are stuck a hundred and more years in the post. I say more, because technologically speaking this is literally the case in much of the middle east. I say more so, because at least Christianity stopped amongst themselves 400 years ago and changed to fight over more important things like gold and oil (yuck yuck yuck).


Oh, and you thinking that Communism fell because of Rock music is just...

Harbinger:


HOW WAS HARBINGER NOT TAKEN UNTIL MARCH OF THIS YEAR! Good on you sir.


To the main course:


Let me ask you a hypothetical: If ISIS was to succeed in creating a Caliphate (or Islamic country), and they then planned and trained troops that was used int he next 9/11, wouldn't we look black and say that we should of done more to prevent them coming to power? We were, unknowingly, faced with this same problem thirty years ago in Afghanistan.


Back in 1980 or 1981, old Soviet Union marched troops into Afghanistan at the behest of the local government who were themselves fighting religious insurgents. The US, as did the rest of the world, denounced this act as an abuse of power. So, we decided we were going to back the rebel fighters who were fighting the Soviets.


This is where things get interesting. You see those "freedom fighters", were called the Mujahadeen. And probably the most famous of their fighters was none other than Osama Bin Laden. Anyways, after the Soviets left with their tales tucked between their legs, the US stop supporting, and caring, about Afghanistan.


The country quickly fell into another decade long war as different factions vied for power. In the end, it was the Taliban who controlled most of Afghanistan and the ones who gave shelter to Al Qaeda. One could argue that this was the first misstep when it came to preventing 9/11. Had we of continued to exert influence in Afghanistan with the contacts we had, given aid to the country that desperately needed it, the world might of been a very different place.


So I ask the question again: Can the US (or any western country) truly feel safe, knowing that the next 9/11 attack is being planned inside ISIS territory?

 

[The Oathkeeper]

I like to not ramble about this much and keep my words brief, as I'm still studying the subject as it goes along.


From America's standpoint, as with a lot of scenarios with the Middle East, we are caught in a rock and a hard place. The banners of war have been risen countless times in the Middle East (as with other parts of the world obviously), stretching as far back to the times that are barely able to be recorded to the present day. Empires have risen and fallen on this particular location, crusades lasting for hundreds of years have endured, and the clashing of cultures and religions still have their impact to this very day. So, here was stand, witnessing before us a civil war breaking out in the very lands we vainly tried to introduce democracy, the oppression of Sunnis sparking a civil war between brothers honoring the same faith but under much different sects and practices. In a twisted way, I personally see the entire scenario reminiscent only vaguely of the days during the Reformation, particularly the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years War. Of course, this is just me being a history buff, but anyways...


I do not see a clear positive nor negative to whatever actions we do forward. With every enemy we proclaim is dead, another one will simply rise up and take the reins. But, watching idly could also lead to a much bigger threat on the horizon. As stated, I'm still studying the subject more indepth as it develops to further grasp the true politics and natures of the ISIS, Iraqi Government, and Iran's involvement, but so far, the future does appear bleak and grim. My only wishes at the moment go out to the civilians caught up in this mess of oppression, politics, religion, and war that have plagued the Middle East for centuries, and those threatened by the looming sounds of war approaching them in the Iraq.

 

[Lady Sabine]

Lady Sabine:


While you do have a point in talking about culture, the fact is that these societies are stuck a hundred and more years in the post. I say more, because technologically speaking this is literally the case in much of the middle east. I say more so, because at least Christianity stopped amongst themselves 400 years ago and changed to fight over more important things like gold and oil (yuck yuck yuck).


Oh, and you thinking that Communism fell because of Rock music is just...

Excuse me, I thought this was intended for intelligent discussion and debate? If this is going to descend into a bunch of mockery, ethnocentrism, and religious shit-throwing, you can count me out right now. :/

 

[Serano]

[QUOTE="Lady Sabine]

Excuse me, I thought this was intended for intelligent discussion and debate? If this is going to descend into a bunch of mockery, ethnocentrism, and religious shit-throwing, you can count me out right now. :/

[/QUOTE]
Oh you are right I suppose, the comment about rock and roll and being priceless was tasteless considering the discussion. That being said, you really can't get away from some religious shit-throwing in this instance as that's what this boils down to. The Islamic version of Catholic and Protestants continuing to beat each other senseless. And in this case, Western Society is much farther along then that of Middle East. After all, you have the right to vote yes? That isn't a right that many women in the Arab world enjoy. Hell, you can't walk down a street without being escorted by a man. 


[QUOTE="The Oathkeeper]I like to not ramble and keep my words brief, as I'm still studying the subject as it goes along.
From America's standpoint, as with a lot of scenarios with the Middle East, we are caught in a rock and a hard place. The banners of war have been risen countless times in the Middle East, stretching as far back to the times that are barely able to be recorded to the present day. Empires have risen and fallen on this particular location, crusades lasting for hundreds of years have endured, and the clashing of cultures and religions still have their impact to this very day. So, here was stand, witnessing before us a civil war breaking out in the very lands we vainly tried to introduce democracy, the oppression of Sunnis sparking a civil war between brothers honoring the same faith but under much different sects and practices. In a twisted way, I personally see the entire scenario reminiscent only vaguely of the days during the Reformation, particularly the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years War. Of course, this is just me being a history buff, but anyways...


I do not see a clear positive nor negative to whatever actions we do forward. With every enemy we proclaim is dead, another one will simply rise up and take the reins. But, watching idly could also lead to a much bigger threat on the horizon. As stated, I'm still studying the subject as it develops, but so far, the future does appear bleak and grim. My only wishes at the moment go out to the civilians caught up in this mess of oppression, politics, religion, and war that have plagued the Middle East for centuries, and those threatened by the looming sounds of war approaching them in the Iraq.

[/QUOTE]
Well said. And by the way, I agree that it is very much like the days of Reformation in the middle east. And while Christianity put that behind us in the Treaty of Westphalia 400 or so years ago, Islam has continued to wage sectarian war against one another. I wonder why that is? I suppose it may have to do that in the middle east's history, we never really saw an age of enlightenment that we did in Europe. A lot of the achievements credited to them like the way we count numbers, were established before Islam came to power in the region.


I didn't mention this in my earlier pieces, but one of the more interesting outcomes that could happened, is American warplanes supporting Iranian troops. You see, at this point in time, Iran is a closer ally to Maliki than the US is. It's no wonder since that was where he was in exile for several years. As a matter of fact, there are already Iranian Quds troops in Baghdad preparing the defenses for the inevitable battle. Again the whole reason for this boils down to the fact that Iran is Shia and so is Maliki.

 

[Lady Sabine]

Oh you are right I suppose, the comment about rock and roll and being priceless was tasteless considering the discussion. That being said, you really can't get away from some religious shit-throwing in this instance as that's what this boils down to. The Islamic version of Catholic and Protestants continuing to beat each other senseless. And in this case, Western Society is much farther along then that of Middle East for the large part. After all, you have the right to vote yes? That isn't a right that many women in the Arab world enjoy. Hell, you can't walk down a street without being escorted by a man.

Oh, yeah. This is definitely where I bow out.


I sincerely hope that you're still young and have an excuse for being this ignorant and ethnocentrist. But, honestly, I think these issues are flying right over your head- you can see them going by, but you don't really know what it's all about yet. You have knowledge but no perspective or wisdom and you're making a serious ass of yourself. Please don't attempt a "discussion" like this in front of an educated and worldly crowd, for your own sake.

 

[Serano]

[QUOTE="Lady Sabine]Oh, yeah. This is definitely where I bow out.
I sincerely hope that you're still young and have an excuse for being this ignorant and ethnocentrist. But, honestly, I think these issues are flying right over your head- you can see them going by, but you don't really know what it's all about yet. You have knowledge but no perspective or wisdom and you're making a serious ass of yourself. Please don't attempt a "discussion" like this in front of an educated and worldly crowd, for your own sake.

[/QUOTE]
You know it's interesting that you want to morally equate countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia to those in the west. I say it's interesting because if your word counts for nothing to barbaric societies like Iran. For example, three men could rape you, and then accuse you of "adultery", then you would end up being stoned for it. Don't believe me? They made a movie on it and here's a story about it: That sort of thing would NEVER happen to any woman in ANY western country.


Or how about the ability to choose who you want to spend the rest of your life with? Do that and you're liable to get stoned for that as well. The husband of Farzana Parveen, the Pakistani woman stoned to death for refusing to participate in an arranged marriage, told CNN he killed his first wife so he could marry Parveen. When's the last time you heard of an Arranged marriage in the west hmm?


I could give you more examples, but the fact is you have shown that all you want to do is stick your head into the sand and pretend that we're all same. You're naive. It was others like you who fooled a lot of people into thinking we could setup a working democracy in that place. . So you go ahead and hum real loudly, as the adults will continue the conversation

 

[theorph99]

You guys might want to tone down the insults at each other.


Remember this area is for DEBATING not AGURING.


@Aeradom @Lady Sabine

 

[Serano]

[QUOTE="Jon_14]You guys might want to tone down the insults at each other.

[/QUOTE]
Very well, though I think she stopped paying attention anyways. Funny thing is she was right in her original posting. We're going to get a lot more headway by means of culture than with bullets and bombs. However, just like you can't grow a watermelon if you don't water and take care of it, that culture can only spread as far as the technology and the society will allow it. And as long as Islam is a major part of how they govern themselves, that just won't be the case. Look at the recent examples of "Democracy" in the middle east; you have Iraq's government that has done horrible thing to their rival religion, Egypt's military put the country into martial law because of the radical government the "people" put in, and Lybia still doesn't have a functioning government. So all the fluster of how great the Arab Spring was, the results just aren't there.

 

[Holo]

My opinion on it is this. We are not the world's police we are america not S.H.I.E.L.D or the Justice League so why is it every time a war breaks out we have to try to Superman our way into everything. Plus people keep trying to use this to blame Obama for not leaving troops in Iraq even though Bush signed the papers saying that we wouldn't leave troops there. On top of that just because we do war the best doesn't mean that we need to be in wars all the time.


Let's get ready to ROLEPLAY!

 

[Serano]

My opinion on it is this. We are not the world's police we are america not S.H.I.E.L.D or the Justice League so why is it every time a war breaks out we have to try to Superman our way into everything.

In truth, I agree with that in most cases. But there are situations where our national security is threatened where we must out in our own self-interest yes?

Plus people keep trying to use this to blame Obama for not leaving troops in Iraq even though Bush signed the papers saying that we wouldn't leave troops there.

This statement is only half way true. Yes, Bush did sign the original agreement and the pull of Iraq followed the deadline that was set out in said agreement. Where it starts to get murky is when we talk about Obama's half-hearted effort to leave troops behind. There were two key issues involved in that discussion; number of troops and the issue of trying Americans. Had we of gone with the initial assessment of 20,000, the Iraqis would of stomached the ability not to prosecute. Obama was only willing to go with 4000, and for that, it wasn't worth the political consequences to Maliki.

 

[Holo]

Yes but at some point the line in the sand cannot be crossed. On top of that had Maliki been decent to ALL of his people he wouldn't have this issue.

 

[Mitheral]

The answer isn't a simple Yes / No. Rather it is a one of Necessity vs Cost.


Yes. We need to go back in. Most of you are simply too young to comprehend why. By that I mean you haven't watch decades of cycles of actions in the Middle East. As someone who's been evacuated out of a country where everyone was friendly one year and violently hateful the next, I kinda have an idea what the region was like. The first day I arrived in the Middle East a bunch of kids waved and said a local word - which I smiled, waved back and repeated. i thought I was saying "Hello." Little did I know but it was my first naughty word in their language.


That is the sort of hatred that endures in the Middle East. They will smile, make deals, offer peace, and agree to anything .. then turn around and try to kill you. As much as I love the area, it does not return the sentiment.


Yes, we need to go back in ... but not just Iraq, but Syria and Iran as well. They need to be hit HARD ... knock out ALL the refineries. Knock them back into the Stone Age. Screw trying to make nice. Grab them by the balls and pull. Their hearts and minds will follow. (Okay .. that last part was a quote.) Forget trying to win them. Beat them into the ground. Start with military targets and when those are gone, let them beg for peace. Forbid the development of a military for 100 years.


No, we can't afford it. We piddled around and played nice clean war. War is an ugly business and should be fought that way. We need to drop a nuke on that 2nd largest city - and at least one major target in Syria. Then ask them if they want to stop ... or get serious. Cheaper that way. FAE bomb the refineries ...yeah ... melt them to bedrock.