# ISIS in Iraq



## Dave Connor (Oct 15, 2014)

Probably very few people view the 9/11 attack in the U.S. as the _second_ attack on the World Trade Center but that's exactly what it was. Much the same is the ISIS attack in IRAQ which as with the second 9/11 is far more successful this time around. Back then they were called Al Qaeda in Iraq. If you recall they were successful in linking up with their fellow Sunni's and becoming part of the fabric of that society. The famous surge was a direct response to this problem which was only solved by repeated assurances (as well as a high profile presence of U.S. troops helping in all manner of daily life with food, education, medical treatment and so on) that we would defend them against Al Qaeda. The people had grown weary of the strict control and brutality of these foreign fighters and wanted them out. The strategy worked.

If you've seen the recently circulated clip of George Bush's eerily prophetic prediction of what would happen if we did not leave a residual force in Iraq, you realize there's nothing eerie or particularly insightful about it. He was simply referring to a replay of Al Qaeda's initial incursion into the Sunni areas they had once before conquered. With no residual force, what would deter them this time around? Nothing would and nothing has. They are very close to taking control of that entire country. They are fifteen miles outside of Bagdad currently.

Just pointing out the obvious and what was even obvious to the dim bulb (as many people think) George Bush. Heck it was even obvious to me and I'm just a piano player. I wish our president would have listened to the countless advisors (Clinton, Panetta, the military) pleading with him to leave a residual force there. Today's situation is exactly what they were warning about. As with the second 9/11 attack, things are far worse the second time around.


----------



## AC986 (Oct 16, 2014)

That said Dave, currently and according to reports, the Kurds and Shia forces are driving them back.

Training local inhabitants to defend what they believe to be theirs, is the way forward. The bigger worry so far on this, is Turkey's stance on the Kurds. 

Colonel Lawrence supposedly said, Arabs will never be together.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 16, 2014)

adriancook @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> The bigger worry so far on this, is Turkey's stance on the Kurds.



^^^^
This.

Just last week it was reported that Isis took a Kurdish town on the Syrian/Turkish border. US military experts talked about it not being "strategic". But clearly, the bigger issues are that we don't side with Assad and that our ally, Turkey, doesn't side with the Kurds. It was a case of the enemy of my friend's enemy who is next door to my enemy's frenemy, or something like that. 

In any case, a bunch of innocent people get killed, their property stolen, and ISIS gets a long-term stronghold. Yeah, that long-term stronghold isn't strategic at all...

Now Turkey wants to restrict use of their bases. Apparently, they see the Kurds as the bigger, long-term threat than ISIS.

Colonel Lawrence helps break up the Ottoman Empire. They draw crazy borders. Now we have this. Too bad my time machine is in for repairs...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2014)

Again, Dave, Obama ran on a platform that included getting out of Iraq. They wanted us out. The American public wanted us out - both parties. It was a huge money drain and we were accomplishing nothing. Being there was hurting our prestige around the world - and that is very important, because it's a big part of our power.

What you think is obvious really wasn't. For one, nobody thought the Iraqi army was as weak as it was. And while the "world's policeman" line is missing the selfish reasons we use force 99% of the time, at this point I think it almost applies. Shouldn't other countries in the region be the ones to deal with this?

But the main question is at what point we stop? There's always another reason to go to war, and perpetual war is not a great idea.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 16, 2014)

If we hadn't left, Maliki would still be in power. It was his administration's short-sighted, partisan approach that fed the growth of ISIS in the first place.

Unless you want to go back to the British decision to cram together three former Ottoman provinces that had nothing in common with one another. That was bad too.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 16, 2014)

I know my post is water under the bridge. What I'm trying to say is, let's get ahead of the curve in this region. If we pulled out U.S. troops for their safety but then they have to return to keep from losing the entire country of Iraq then you understand my point.

As far as the Kurds in Iraq, why aren't we arming them with the same heavy weaponry they are facing from ISIS? Much of the weaponry such as the big howitzers and armored vehicles that both the Kurds in the North and the Iraqi's in Bagdad are facing are U.S. made. We should have given the Kurds the ability to strike back with equal force weeks or months ago. Instead we are observing political protocol and bureaucracy and insisting the weapons are funneled through the Iraqi government. Insane! Completely insane! Help this poor people!

The Turkey situation really says it all. Even though they are a NATO ally located where they could do the most good, they are doing nothing because of their ethnic and political leanings. So people are being slaughtered and ISIS is posed for even greater advantage in Syria and therefore in the entire region. we have stepped up the airstrikes but very military expert I have heard has said we are flying a bare minimum of missions which is why ISIS is still taking ground - everywhere.

My original point - we have to start anticipating these things and halt this process of facing far more difficult situations because we don't.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 16, 2014)

Dave Connor @ 16th October 2014 said:


> My original point - we have to start anticipating these things and halt this process of facing far more difficult situations because we don't.



You're right. Based on that premise, the west should never have invaded Iraq in the first place.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 16, 2014)

> "Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16, 2014 10:30 am"]Again, Dave, Obama ran on a platform that included getting out of Iraq. They wanted us out. The American public wanted us out - both parties. It was a huge money drain and we were accomplishing nothing. Being there was hurting our prestige around the world - and that is very important, because it's a big part of our power.



All fair enough Nick, but if just before we left we polled the Iraqi people and asked them how many would like to be slaughtered, beheaded, raped, sold into slavery and completely lose control of their country as a result of us leaving what do you think the results would have been? This has already happened to thousands of Iraqis.

Sure, anyone can argue your logic above but reality has set in. Maliki was _allowed by the U.S._ to assert his agenda. That would be like letting the Emperor of Japan take the reigns of that country after we won the war. You just don't do that - it will never work. Incomprehensibly stupid policy! It doesn't matter what's ideal. Just like it would have been ideal if the Iraqi military didn't flee before ISIS. A fantastic hope and dream but we already knew how shaky those guys were because they had linked with ISIS the first time around and only separated because of the US presence - my original point.

I don't mind noble thinking and honest brokerage in the world political arena but there are reasons why you don't do certain things. Such as leave a conquered fractured country to it's own devices with a hope things will work out and that people aren't butchered and then lose their country to invaders if they don't. You need a policy that guards against that even if noble principles suffer. If not you have what you have today exactly. Is anyone arguing that today's reality in Iraq is a better option than us insisting on staying involved over there until we sniffed out all the Maliki's and other problems that would flourish?


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 16, 2014)

JohnG @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Dave Connor @ 16th October 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > My original point - we have to start anticipating these things and halt this process of facing far more difficult situations because we don't.
> ...



I don't think there's a single soul that thinks that was a good idea in hindsight. We should not have - no question about it.

EDIT: I was for getting Saddam out because I though he was a bloodthirsty war-starting tyrant in the manner of his idol Stalin. Don't forget, he did use chemical weapons on the Kurds - on woman and children. Also we humiliated him in the first Gulf War and was a vengeful guy who had major weapons connections with the Russians (whom he got his huge arsenal from.) So if anyone had the ability to procure a nuclear suitcase bomb to set off in NY or LA this was the guy. But, we will never know about all that and today's alternative is a very real nightmare.


----------



## AC986 (Oct 16, 2014)

No that's right. There were no so called WMD. That was the excuse.

However, when you get two airlines filled with people flown into tall buildings, someone or something needs to be annihilated.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 16, 2014)

Well, the airplane thing was the other excuse for going to war in Iraq and that was as off target as the WMD thing. What's worse is that the people who pushed the war definitely knew that Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11.

BTW, Turkey's reluctance to fight ISIS has had some repercussions. They were on the third ballot to join the UN Security Council. After deciding to let ISIS fight the Kurds for them, they were denied.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 47941.html

Hey, it's something!


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 16, 2014)

The Prez is doing what we asked him to do.
Leave him alone and do not listen to the New York Times or Fox News.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2014)

> I was for getting Saddam out because I though he was a bloodthirsty war-starting tyrant in the manner of his idol Stalin.



The issue was never whether he was horrible, nor was it the reason we invaded.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 16, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> > I was for getting Saddam out because I though he was a bloodthirsty war-starting tyrant in the manner of his idol Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue was never whether he was horrible, nor was it the reason we invaded.



True, but we all found out later that it was the Wolfowitz plan formed years earlier put into practice with 9/11 as an excuse. The American people thought is was to remove a very bad player from the scene. If the American people had their choice now they would probably be okay with every strongman who ruled the Arab countries still being in place. Leaving Assad in place seems to be the present strategy. He will only be helped by stopping ISIS in Syria.


----------



## handz (Oct 16, 2014)

Removing dictators in those countries is the worst we can do, some places are not ready for democracy, we cant import our western mentality to their civilisations and believe it will work. Sadly.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 16, 2014)

I see this as a great opportunity for composers who were scared to write out compositions based on Revelations and Armageddon.
Just start reading the Book Of John and see what an amazing vision he had that seems to be coming true and get inspired.
Guys who have difficulty writing melodic/hypnotic counterpoint can be unafraid of using excessive dissonance as that is what's called for.

Don't let several great crises go to waste.


----------



## AC986 (Oct 17, 2014)

handz @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Removing dictators in those countries is the worst we can do, some places are not ready for democracy, we cant import our western mentality to their civilisations and believe it will work. Sadly.



That's a very good point Handz and unfortunately a truism. 

Take Great Britain for example. We exported democracy all over the entire empire to countries and continents. But only after killing most of the inhabitants. I think the only country on the planet we haven't exported this kind of democracy to is Portugal.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2014)

The only reason countries wouldn't be "ready" for democracy is that their societies are held together by force. People are basically the same everywhere.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 17, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 17 said:


> The only reason countries wouldn't be "ready" for democracy is that their societies are held together by force. People are basically the same everywhere.



Wait, really? Countries with rabidly warring tribal conflicts are eager for democracy rather than a strong- armed takeover by their faction and an imposition of their theocratic or cultural order? Sorry, don't think so.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 20, 2014)

ISIS Promises to fix wealth inequality though, so they really care about the little guy.
Everyone gets the same amount of sand and wives.


----------



## AC986 (Oct 20, 2014)

Mostly sand though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2014)

Right, Larry, but think about the real countries we're talking about: Yugoslavia in the '90s, Sudan/South Sudan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories (held together by elected force)...


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Right, Larry, but think about the real countries we're talking about: Yugoslavia in the '90s, Sudan/South Sudan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories (held together by elected force)...



Sorry Nick, I'm feeling dense..ok...and?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2014)

That's the situation in which democracy is difficult, because the elected parties tend to think winning an election means they get to run roughshod over the losing parties.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> That's the situation in which democracy is difficult, because the elected parties tend to think winning an election means they get to run roughshod over the losing parties.



Right. That's the nature of countries with very long standing internecine cultural/religious conflicts. My point, which I think you agree with, is that broad based power sharing is not something they want or are "ready for", and though I agree that people are essentially the same everywhere in their basic needs, the desire for cultural/religious dominance seems to trump everything else in some of these countries.

I think it was the poll taken in Egypt that screwed with my head. Some large percentage of people thought death was a fitting punishment for leaving the faith. Blew my mind and re- set my thinking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ing-islam/)


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 20, 2014)

As I said before, I am not sure who are the people who stands behind them, who spends the money.....!


----------



## bbunker (Oct 20, 2014)

Larry, the only problem I have with what you're saying is that it implies that WE are ready for democracy. Considering that just within this last administration we've given unlimited candidate-buying power to companies, had a political party shut down the entire government out of spite, and sequestered a military fighting two wars of our own creation, I don't think that we deserve that kind of respect.

And, yes, it's frightening that huge parts of the Muslim world considers beheading an appropriate punishment for leaving the faith. And 46% of Americans believe that the world was created within 10 millennia ago, and advocate only teaching that in schools. Cutting off a budding physicist's reason and an apostate's head are clearly on different scales of severity. But I'd suggest that our own backwardness is only different in degree and dialect.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2014)

bbunker @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Larry, the only problem I have with what you're saying is that it implies that WE are ready for democracy. Considering that just within this last administration we've given unlimited candidate-buying power to companies, had a political party shut down the entire government out of spite, and sequestered a military fighting two wars of our own creation, I don't think that we deserve that kind of respect.
> 
> And, yes, it's frightening that huge parts of the Muslim world considers beheading an appropriate punishment for leaving the faith. And 46% of Americans believe that the world was created within 10 millennia ago, and advocate only teaching that in schools. Cutting off a budding physicist's reason and an apostate's head are clearly on different scales of severity. But I'd suggest that our own backwardness is only different in degree and dialect.



I agree with the inherent disappointment in the messiness and unreason within our democracy, but without going into a long screed, I'd say the difference between deciding that corporations are people and the thought that anyone who leaves Christianity or Judaism deserves death is indeed a question of degrees- a whole lot of them.


----------



## bbunker (Oct 20, 2014)

Good point. I chuckle at myself.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2014)

bbunker @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Good point. I chuckle at myself.



Your point was well taken. It could make for a whole 'nother thread-like, why does our democracy seem so broken?


----------



## bbunker (Oct 20, 2014)

Gosh, wouldn't that be a thread for the ages!

Most of my thoughts on democracy in the middle east are from the small time I spent in Iraq; we had the pleasure of playing for some Iraqi national soldiers who seemed to embody everything that America SHOULD stand for. It was the first time a lot of them had ever heard an actual rock group, and their warm, open-hearted zeal for Freedom, Democracy and Les Pauls was...well, life-changing.

If any group of people has earned democracy, it's those soldiers, and I'd hate to cast their fates aside with a 'They're not ready for it.' They may make some mistakes in their democratic struggles, but they've earned whatever peace and freedom they can carve out in that desert.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 20, 2014)

American improvisation is an art form not to be underestimated.

Even with the most incompetent group of campaign donors/friends/trust fund babies we still manage to function even when another Liberal Trial Lawyer is appointed as an Ebola Czar.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 20, 2014)

There are Iraqi soldiers in ISIS right now that would behead you for playing Rock music which is a little more stringent punishment than what you get in the awful democracy that is the U.S. presently.

Not many people addressed my original point (if at all) that ISIS was entirely predictable since it was the same group returning that had a lot of success the first time around (prior to Maliki.) They have been very busy in Syria for years now. I am far more inclined to criticize our government for it's shortsightedness in leaving an area that was vulnerable from all points of the compass as well as within due to ancient rivalries. 

It begs the question as to what is going to happen next either in that region or somewhere else where our leadership will ignore common sense advise from it's chosen advisors (political and military) and have to play catch up from a far more disadvantaged position.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> There are Iraqi soldiers in ISIS right now that would behead you for playing Rock music which is a little more stringent punishment than what you get in the awful democracy that is the U.S. presently.
> 
> Not many people addressed my original point (if at all) that ISIS was entirely predictable since it was the same group returning that had a lot of success the first time around (prior to Maliki.) They have been very busy in Syria for years now. I am far more inclined to criticize our government for it's shortsightedness in leaving an area that was vulnerable from all points of the compass as well as within due to ancient rivalries.
> 
> It begs the question as to what is going to happen next either in that region or somewhere else where our leadership will ignore common sense advise from it's chosen advisors (political and military) and have to play catch up from a far more disadvantaged position.



I realize it's cherry picking, Dave-but what do you suggest we do about the "within due to ancient rivalries" part? Do we stay forever?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2014)

But it wasn't predictable, Dave. You're using hindsight.

A number of bad things converged to create the power vaccuum.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 20, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> Dave Connor @ Mon Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > There are Iraqi soldiers in ISIS right now that would behead you for playing Rock music which is a little more stringent punishment than what you get in the awful democracy that is the U.S. presently.
> ...



Not cherry picking Larry - the central point in the end. You stay firstly to watch over the fledgeling democracy and insist on an inclusive representative government. You stop Maliki very early on and even replace him (which we just did - again, too slow a response which is a major beef here) until the Sunni's are represented fairly. This inclusion gives the Sunni's a nation to fight for. Maliki took away all that incentive and re-ignited the former tribal hatreds. Don't forget, the Iraqi army fought against a world coalition in Gulf One. Now they don't even have the motivation to fight a band of outlaws, albeit a well organized one. 

All the above is hardly nuanced and even less difficult to understand is that with countless bad players in the region from Iran to Syria, you don't pull out a residual force who's mere presence is going to prevent incursion and influence. It's not fair to the Iraqis! Some bad folks could come around and chop their heads off and take over their towns and threaten their existence. 

You stay longer than we did or you get what we have now: thousands of dead Iraqis and another occupying force for them to deal with far worse then the US. Remember, the residual force was going to be parked out in the desert as a deterrent. Not running the country from the inside but helping it towards autonomy with some tough love for people like Maliki.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 20, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 20 said:


> But it wasn't predictable, Dave. You're using hindsight.
> 
> A number of bad things converged to create the power vaccuum.



I did predict it Nick so I don't know what to tell you. It's hardly a coincidence that the President was warned exactly by countless advisors. Bush is on tape predicting exactly so in fact it was predicted.

Nick, watch the Bush tape where he predicts exactly what has happened like it's bullet points of the future. That's just how predictable it was.

My prediction was based upon history in general and the history of the region: 

A conquered country is a weakened country.
An installed democracy among ancient factions will see one side trying to gain advantage - guaranteed. This alone could cause a disintegration to the point of civil war.
Iran's ambitions are well known and they will at the very least try to influence politically and possibly move militarily eventually.
Al Qaeda had already occupied the North and found sympathetic fellow Sunni's. We and the Iraqi's kicked them out - if we leave they could return.
A civil war is raging in the region in Syria. A local country weakened and unproven as to it's resolve could be taken advantage of very easily by the forces there - the classic 'spill-over'.

Basically, I saw Iraq as a badly weakened country with power vacuums potentially everywhere. Being fully aware that the Taliban won the advantage in weakened Afghanistan (another country we abandoned to their devices immediately after we 'won' against the Soviets there.) So I see it as a basic history lessons adding up to, _Don't leave just yet or you might have something far worse on your hands._ Which we do now.

Please keep in mind that all of the above is: _If you make the colossal mistake of invading a country and trying to impose your western sensibilities on them in the form of a democratic government, don't leave the region prematurely if it results in death and chaos. Wait and try to find some way under the sun you can avoid a massive bloodbath and destabilization of the region_


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

It's funny how people don't seem to want to talk about this but to me it's the crux of the matter and key to the future. Perhaps it's an embarrassment on how behind the US has been in reacting to ISIS. The US military and intelligence had been warning about them for a very long time.

This type of slow response is not anything new though. Churchill was warning against the tide of his government throughout Hitler's rise in the '30's. He was arguing for re-armament and a far more aggressive policy against the Nazis. In fact the British government under Chamberlain never did get it right with the result being Churchill's replacing him. What would have happened if the Nazi's were confronted earlier? ISIS would have been confronted the minute they stepped into Iraq had a residual force been there.

Roosevelt was a model of staying ahead of the curve. He kept the British in the fight with aid and began ramping up military preparedness in the U.S., when the majority of the country was dead set against involvement in another European war. That is a model level of leadership and I don't know why we don't learn that lesson of history. Sure most Americans wanted us out of Iraq but it just wasn't wise in it's timing. We have to do better in anticipating even what might happen and take precautions even if it goes against public opinion as it did with both Churchill and Roosevelt.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 21, 2014)

Dave- we're bad guys if we treat the democratically formed government like puppets, right? Maliki wanted us out and refused to sign the Forces Agreement. We could have overriden him and forced him to sign it probably, but what does that say about democracy? Yet if we leave, we're bad guys to leave them unprepared, though it certainly seems we tried to prepare them.

As to the region, who exactly do you arm in Syria? Do you honestly think you could have predicted who would have been the organized friendlies?

Lots of advisers advocated staying and maybe they were right in this case, but who's to say there wouldn't have been a build up anyway and the same kind of incursive guerilla war that's been killing thiusands in Bahgdad? McCain is on the warpath every other day. Cheney's plan was to leave- never.

It seems you want to re-parse recent history but leave ancient (2003) history behind.
It's all gone badly, and sure, in retrospect it looks like Obama was too eager to get us out of there too fast. And?


----------



## AC986 (Oct 21, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Churchill was warning against the tide of his government throughout Hitler's rise in the '30's. He was arguing for re-armament and a far more aggressive policy against the Nazi's. In fact the British government under Chamberlain never did get it right with the result being Churchill's replacing him. What would have happened if the Nazi's were confronted earlier?



What would have happened if Lord Halifax had been in charge instead of Churchill? 

Who knows? :|


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Dave- we're bad guys if we treat the democratically formed government like puppets, right?


No of course not - that's precisely the point. It's pure ideology to say we want a democracy so now we are going to obey the wishes of a new unproven government. Let's be real here: we had just rolled up their entire country with armies and tanks. Now we're going to play nice and do whatever they tell us? No, as it's completely unrealistic and an experiment at best. The results could be far more disastrous if we don't see things through (the results we have presently.) The goal is that the country becomes an autonomous democracy who's wishes we respect and is completely free from our forces or anyone else's. This is a very basic principle and the reason why countless advisors recommended we not leave there prematurely. That's being good guys. Being bad guys would be leaving the country vulnerable to someone like ISIS or even Iran or even themselves internally. Which is better? - we park ten thousand troops in the desert and thousands of people aren't butchered, raped or left homeless or we leave and the country is taken over by psychopaths? You cannot have a foreign policy based upon political theory that ignores reality.



NYC Composer @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> As to the region, who exactly do you arm in Syria? Do you honestly think you could have predicted who would have been the organized friendlies?



It's precisely the unpredictable nature of the goings-on in Syria that you err on the side of caution in Iraq. I'm not offering a solution there. I'm saying Syria was further reasoning to keep troops nearby. Obama was right about not doing anything in Syria it turns out and I don't think he's gotten enough credit for that. I'm saying he definitely got it wrong in Iraq though.



NYC Composer @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Lots of advisers advocated staying and maybe they were right in this case, but who's to say there wouldn't have been a build up anyway and the same kind of incursive guerilla war that's been killing thiusands in Bahgdad? McCain is on the warpath every other day. Cheney's plan was to leave- never.


The presence of US ground forces would have deterred any military incursion by anyone including the overflights by Iran to supply their interests in Syria. We pulled out and the flights began. The big cities in Iraq would not have fallen with US air and ground forces a hundred miles away or whatever the distance.



NYC Composer @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> It seems you want to re-parse recent history but leave ancient (2003) history behind.It's all gone badly, and sure, in retrospect it looks like Obama was too eager to get us out of there too fast. And?


 As I've said, I had it wrong when we went into Iraq the 2nd time. This is truly a case of Obama having to clean up after Bush in an impossible task. History has shown repeatedly though that it repeats itself and everyone around the president seemed to know that and advised him accordingly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2014)

> 's funny how people don't seem to want to talk about this



I have no problem talking about it, I just happen to disagree with you. The Iraqi government didn't even want us there! And they especially didn't want those action figure Blackwater mercenaries (Fallujah was all about that).


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> > 's funny how people don't seem to want to talk about this
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem talking about it, I just happen to disagree with you. The Iraqi government didn't even want us there! And they especially didn't want those action figure Blackwater mercenaries (Fallujah was all about that).



I understand your point Nick. Where I disagree is in calling the Maliki regime _the Iraqi government_ since it was not representative of the country at all but the exact opposite of a democracy. Again a failure by our government to oversee that country's transition to a real democracy.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 21, 2014)

Obama prefers regulating a war. It's a Liberal thing.

You know you can't stop the killings, and genocide, but you can slow it down and prop up Kurds and others in the area so the killing can last longer, which serves a certain purpose.

Within years Liberals will regulate the Earths temperature too.
They are skillful regulators, decades of shakedown experience.
You close Coal Plants, watch the weather and wait for a good trend, take the credit, run a few polls.

In 50 years when they realize they have over regulated the weather, it's very easy to open Coal Plants back up, and allow the middle class to spend money again in the private sector, rather than feeding the sons and daughters of wealthy regulators.


----------



## gbar (Oct 21, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> You close Coal Plants, watch the weather and wait for a good trend, take the credit, run a few polls. .



Umm, if we could completely stop burning fossil fuels today (we can't), the planet--all other things being equal-- is going to get warmer for the next 120-150 years. 

Really, you ought to read science journals


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2014)

Is that a profession that global warming isn't caused by man? Or are you saying we're past the point of no return?

Because it's not an all or nothing situation. We could certainly slow down the disruption.


----------



## gbar (Oct 21, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Is that a profession that global warming isn't caused by man? Or are you saying we're past the point of no return?
> 
> Because it's not an all or nothing situation. We could certainly slow down the disruption.



Nope, that's the consensus view about how long it will take to sink the additional CO2 in the atmosphere already and an acknowledgment that we can't even feed everybody without burning more fossil fuels as things stand.

It's certainly not an excuse to not develop energy sources that don't threaten biodiversity and human infrastructure. It's just pretty much facing the fact that the current warming trend will not end in my lifetime even if we could miraculously wean ourselves from dumping billions of tonnes of carbon into the air every year starting tomorrow.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 21, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Is that a profession that global warming isn't caused by man? Or are you saying we're past the point of no return?
> 
> Because it's not an all or nothing situation. We could certainly slow down the disruption.



"Liberals". Because they're phony pro regulation self serving wealthy re-distributors. As opposed to "Conservatives"- who are anti-regulation and pro-business, but ALSO self serving wealthy re-distributors. Two crime families.

Jeez. I shouldn't have to explain it all to you by now, but whatever.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

chimuelo @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Obama prefers regulating a war. It's a Liberal thing.



I think in this case it's more an idealogical thing personal to the President. Roosevelt is the father of modern Liberalism and he was an extraordinary commander in chief whereas LBJ was a very poor one. Also, Obama's advisors in his cabinet such as Panetta and Clinton are liberals who have said they urged the President to leave a residual force in Iraq. It doesn't seem to be a generalized stance based upon a left or right leaning. Obama's ruthless drone campaigns actually shocked a lot of liberals. A residual force was not intended for war but for keeping the peace.


----------



## jleckie (Oct 21, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> It's funny how people don't seem to want to talk about this but to me it's the crux of the matter and key to the future. Perhaps it's an embarrassment on how behind the US has been in reacting to ISIS. The US military and intelligence had been warning about them for a very long time.
> 
> This type of slow response is not anything new though. Churchill was warning against the tide of his government throughout Hitler's rise in the '30's. He was arguing for re-armament and a far more aggressive policy against the Nazis. In fact the British government under Chamberlain never did get it right with the result being Churchill's replacing him. What would have happened if the Nazi's were confronted earlier? ISIS would have been confronted the minute they stepped into Iraq had a residual force been there.
> 
> Roosevelt was a model of staying ahead of the curve. He kept the British in the fight with aid and began ramping up military preparedness in the U.S., when the majority of the country was dead set against involvement in another European war. That is a model level of leadership and I don't know why we don't learn that lesson of history. Sure most Americans wanted us out of Iraq but it just wasn't wise in it's timing. We have to do better in anticipating even what might happen and take precautions even if it goes against public opinion as it did with both Churchill and Roosevelt.



Normally I wouldn't quote an entire post but you hit this so right. No one wants to react to anything these days. We live in a world of apathy. And we live in a world where we are losing faith in our leaders. (for quite possibly good reasons)


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 21, 2014)

Funny. We all seem to be talking about it right here.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 21, 2014)

When you have such a huge ground force in Kuwait, several large air bases and the US's largest overseas Naval Base in the Gulf what is a few thousand troops in Iraq going to achieve?

The pres is like a boxing promoter, he'll train you and give you the gloves, shot at a title, etc. As long as you kill each other.
Protecting the Kurds just enough to avoid genocide is a wise move.
In return we get cheaper gas prices thanks to the Saudis ramping up production.
This also kills Putins lifeline simultaneously.

I think saying you have no strategy and NO BOOTS on the ground is working out great.
Let the man finish the game at least.
We can always get a GOP candidate to fight until the last drop of your blood in 2016.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 21, 2014)

Ok, screw the past, which we can't re-address. Let's talk about the present and the future.

You have, by some chance of fate, become President of the United States on 21 October, 2014. How do you address the issues that trouble you on 22 October?


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

Stopping ISIS in Kobani and Bagdad is the key right now. Most other problems such as their major land holdings they have in Iraq are going to require a truly democratic Iraq where the moderate Sunni's are willing to fight the radicals in their traditional lands and kick them out - again. Problem is that very qualified Iraqi military leaders from the old Republican Guard are currently leading the attack on Bagdad, a town they know inside and out.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 21, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Stopping ISIS in Kobani and Bagdad is the key right now. Most other problems such as their major land holdings they have in Iraq are going to require a truly democratic Iraq where the moderate Sunni's are willing to fight the radicals in their traditional lands and kick them out - again. Problem is that very qualified Iraqi military leaders from the old Republican Guard are currently leading the attack on Bagdad, a town they know inside and out.



Okay, and how would you accomplish that in practical terms?

In other words, what are you willing to give to accomplish that? Is it worth the lives of a thousand American soldiers and a few billion dollars? If you can't get Europeans and Middle Eastern nations on board, would you go at it unilaterally? I think there are clearly very hard practical decisions here and, perhaps sadly, a great deal of political nuance as well. I'm interested in opinions about action, real action, going forward.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

How would I solve the present situation? My entire point has been that you don't have to be a gifted military strategist to know that all hell could break loose by leaving that powder keg of a region prematurely. Once that hell has broken loose then you need the finest military and political minds on the planet of which I am decidedly not one.

I have only pointed out ISIS's latest movements which includes mortar fire on Bagdad airport which is a horrendous development. I have heard that it is unlikely they can take that city but those guys are full of surprises. The Kurds are holding their own in Kobani but what do I know? I want the guys who do know to figure out what to do and do it quickly. I'm hoping we aren't so far behind the eight ball that ISIS once again accomplished their military and philosophical goals.

Your question about American blood and treasure is once again the heart of the matter Larry which you are very good at getting at it seems to me. As I said I am hardly an expert. No doubt there are contingency plans for dramatic gains made by ISIS including US troops on the ground. Nobody wants that including me so what are we in for here? My guess is that the US is hoping for a stalemate on the ground by backing the Kurds and continued air strikes. The poor Iraqi people though have lost their country and we are to blame twice now: for wrongly going in and wrongly getting out.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 21, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> How would I solve the present situation? My entire point has been that you don't have to be a gifted military strategist to know that all hell could break loose by leaving that powder keg of a region prematurely. Once that hell has broken loose then you need the finest military and political minds on the planet of which I am decidedly not one.
> 
> I have only pointed out ISIS's latest movements which includes mortar fire on Bagdad airport which is a horrendous development. I have heard that it is unlikely they can take that city but those guys are full of surprises. The Kurds are holding their own in Kobani but what do I know? I want the guys who do know to figure out what to do and do it quickly. I'm hoping we aren't so far behind the eight ball that ISIS once again accomplished their military and philosophical goals.
> 
> Your question about American blood and treasure is once again the heart of the matter Larry which you are very good at getting at it seems to me. As I said I am hardly an expert. No doubt there are contingency plans for dramatic gains made by ISIS including US troops on the ground. Nobody wants that including me so what are we in for here? My guess is that the US is hoping for a stalemate on the ground by backing the Kurds and continued air strikes. The poor Iraqi people though have lost their country and we are to blame twice now: for wrongly going in and wrongly getting out.



I agree with you on the history of this thing, Dave. We have fcked it up over and over for many years.

I think the general "you broke it, you bought it" feeling in the world may be part of the problem going forward. If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, even Iran (hilarious) want to join us and Europe in defeating this beast from a humanitarian point of view, I could see us participating, even leading. If some of those countries see this is an existential threat, then they should put serious skin in the game, not a hundred soldiers and a few planes-serious forces, armaments and money.

Unilaterally? No way, in my view. These people have declared themselves a state. As a state, they are guilty of horrible war crimes. Either the world rises up against a rogue state or it doesn't....or decides as I believe that they are a bloody band of pirates who need to be confronted....or not.

In the end, I have a feeling that Turkey will be the key to this thing.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2014)

Apologies moderators for hitting the Report button accidentally.

I think everyone has looked to Turkey to be a force for good but they are extremely reluctant to do anything that helps the Kurds. Then again the reluctance to wage war on the ground against ISIS is uniform throughout the West and Middle East. I know some people think we should just let them all kill each other over there but that's hardly an answer. Maybe things will have to get far worse before they get better.


----------



## AC986 (Oct 22, 2014)

jleckie @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Normally I wouldn't quote an entire post but you hit this so right. No one wants to react to anything these days. We live in a world of apathy. And we live in a world where we are losing faith in our leaders. (for quite possibly good reasons)



What leaders? We have people here at the moment that couldn't lead anyone out of a paper bag. We have a Home Secretary that has completely lost control of this countries inhabitants. We're borderline out of control atm. This has been foisted on indigenous British people.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 22, 2014)

This thread sounds like a Senate race.

I promise that all minority composers will get free East/West PLAY Orchestral Instruments...
All contestants in Composer auditions will get participation Instruments, similar to Native Instruments quality...
And finally put an end to this Male only war on women in Hollywood Film Scoring...

A fair wage for all Composer assistants, and no longer will these assistants be responsible for the costs of gas on coffee runs to Starbucks....

And the assistants to the assistants will get recognition in the credits at the end of each movie....

I will also protect the names of the Saudi Investors when anti-fracking documentaries are released.

This I swear by if I am re elected.

The Honorable Chimuelo Pendajo


----------



## gbar (Oct 22, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> My guess is that the US is hoping for a stalemate on the ground by backing the Kurds and continued air strikes. The poor Iraqi people though have lost their country and we are to blame twice now: for wrongly going in and wrongly getting out.



Our Ally, Turkey, has been shelling the Kurds. You see, Turkey spent 40 years fighting PKK separatists. The US, on the other hand, likes to view the Kurdish region as the one bright, shining spot where the Bush Administration strategy "worked" because they have embraced Western trade and modernization. Turkey views the success of the Kurdish region of Iraq as a possible threat to its territorial integrity since it would like to avoid ceding Kurdish-populated areas of Turkey, so they are itching for a fight, any slight provokes them to flex their military muscle.

This is just one of the many.... umm... let's call them..."complexities" that people living many thousands of miles away who do not understand the different peoples and governments in the region will never anticipate as they sit in front of their laptops and tablets typing colonial pronouncements about the geopolitical future of the region during the commercial break until they go back to watching "Big Bang Theory" or whatever.

And for the record, we did not leave "prematurely". We left on the date negotiated in a treaty by the Bush Administration even though the subsequent Obama Administration tried to get the new Iraqi Government to agree to an extension (They didn't agree. They wanted us gone. Now they want us back--sort of--they like bombing support, but they don't want a full scale occupation even though their "army" which we spent billions of dollars training appears to have largely "dissolved"). 

The British spent a while in Iraq (look it up) because the British Navy needed oil, and T.E. Lawrence et al had dreams of democratic republics there. Didn't work out. More importantly, even when democratic republics have taken hold, if they in any way threatened world oil supplies or created alliances with rivals, they had a funny way of being overthrown in coups and having leaders assassinated.

Good luck solving "the problems" in the region by typing here.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 22, 2014)

gbar @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Dave Connor @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is that the US is hoping for a stalemate on the ground by backing the Kurds and continued air strikes. The poor Iraqi people though have lost their country and we are to blame twice now: for wrongly going in and wrongly getting out.
> ...



Good luck giving ironic instructionals here  Why bother posting if you think bandying around opinions with some fairly intelligent people is a waste of your valuable time?


----------



## gbar (Oct 22, 2014)

NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Good luck giving ironic instructionals here  Why bother posting if you think bandying around opinions with some fairly intelligent people is a waste of your valuable time?



The point, if you want to believe I have one, is that the geopolitics of the region, the local politics of the region, and even the rival objectives of subcultures within the region is "dizzying" (for lack of a better word). Wheels within wheels, flexible alliances with different objectives, and amidst it all for much of the world, "The Spice must flow" to borrow a metaphor from Frank Herbert.

Take the recent plunge in oil prices, for example. How is it in Saudi Arabia's interest to see lower oil prices? To put pressure on Damascus and Russia? How does this affect our new cold war with Russia?

What of their (and UAEs) infamous rivalry with Iran? What are the Turks doing bombing the people fighting ISIL? Locally, why have large swaths of the Iraqi army "evaporated"? Who has been pouring money in to fund ISIL above and beyond what they have seized and how is ISIL able to sell Syrian oil? What role, if any, do tribal ties play in the failure of the new Iraqi Government to date? What role did perceived corruption within that government play in fueling tribal divisions? What role did the dissatisfaction of former Iraqi military leaders play?

And that's just a few points to consider. I am sitting here on a laptop 8,000 miles away typing between sips of my morning coffee. I'm not likely to express how complicated it is and how different objectives of different parties (and sometimes even our own objectives geopolitically) might be at cross-purpose with one another. I am only dimly aware that--to borrow a term from 1990s Dick Cheney-- it is kind of a quagmire and will probably continue to be so long as so many actors have so many different objectives at odds with one another, and the means chosen to attain some of those objectives are through military conflict and economic cold war tactics.

I don't see any way this can be tied up neatly and succinctly with a bow. It's going to be messy and not "solved" any time soon.

I am sure there are politicians who will provide soundbites to make it all sound simple, but that's what politicians often do to achieve objectives of their own--again at cross-purpose with other objectives, so even local politics in the West is a morass :(


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2014)

gbar @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> And for the record, we did not leave "prematurely". We left on the date negotiated in a treaty by the Bush Administration even though the subsequent Obama Administration tried to get the new Iraqi Government to agree to an extension (They didn't agree. They wanted us gone. Now they want us back--sort of--they like bombing support, but they don't want a full scale occupation even though their "army" which we spent billions of dollars training appears to have largely "dissolved").



It's more important to keep an agreement to honor a nation and it's people (who we recently invaded and conquered) than it is to keep them from being invaded and conquered again? The difference being that they will be butchered, persecuted and kept servile against their will by a force that will not only never leave but never make any sort of agreement with them. It will be as it has been lately - obey us or die. You don't think that leaving before we can guarantee they will not be subject to this nightmare is "premature?" Better to have a tidy appointment book is what you value most then?

As far as typing away on what may be my first political thread in a decade or so I think you would have to admit: when musicians at their computers are anticipating the results of disastrous foreign policy decisions better than world leaders, there just may a problem somewhere in those upper ranks. To blame the musicians in this case seem to be a wholly misplaced criticism.


----------



## gbar (Oct 22, 2014)

Dave Connor @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> s more important to keep an agreement to honor a nation and it's people (who we recently invaded and conquered) than it is to keep them from being invaded and conquered again? The difference being that they will be butchered, persecuted and kept servile against their will by a force that will not only never leave but never make any sort of agreement with them. It will be as it has been -.




Who is 'them' and 'they'? The principal fighting forces against IS, with strong ties to the Iraqi Government (albeit not always under direct command and control) in Baghdad are various Shiite Brigades (some of which we fought against not so long ago) , and if you toodle around Baghdad these days, you'll see a lot of posters of t Ayatollah Khomeini, "Father of the Revolution". The Brigades want us to supply them with arms and ammunition as Iran is already doing. 

It's complicated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2014)

Excellent posts, gbar.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Excellent posts, gbar.



I have found his points so common and well known I haven't talked about them for the most part. That's what I was referring to when I said people didn't seem to want to talk about the points I was making. 

I don't know if anyone has addressed my original premise that the ISIS incursion is their second attack on Iraq under a different name and therefore entirely predictable. That is why I have invoked the lessons of history and that discerning leadership is going to anticipate that kind of thing and act accordingly. As for the Turks not liking the Kurds and a heavy Shia influence in the south of Iraq and the complexity of the entire scenario in the region (gbar's points) these are very well known factors.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2014)

He's making them very well, and to be frank, Dave, your view isn't unique either. Hawks say the same thing about every situation.

You feel we should have an occupying force in Iraq, and that would have prevented the power vacuum ISIS is filling. Other people see the situation as having more moving parts, and cite additional reasons we shouldn't.

To me the big picture is what the late Chalmers Johnson wrote about in the "Blowback" series of books about our empire, how it's going to be the death of us.

But about Iraq, do you blame them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/us/bl ... .html?_r=0


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2014)

(I'm not calling you a hawk, by the way, just saying that the usual hawkish suspects share your opinion in this case.)


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 22, 2014)

gbar @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Good luck giving ironic instructionals here  Why bother posting if you think bandying around opinions with some fairly intelligent people is a waste of your valuable time?
> ...



I agree that the region is a clusterfck and that the situations are volatile, fluid and complex, with internecine and traditional rivalries flaring up all over. I'm not naive enough to think a discussion group "solves" anything. That said, I think it's counterproductive and a bit disingenuous to add to a conversation and simultaneously deride it- again, if you don't want to further it, why post? The answer is clear- you have a perspective that you want to share. It adds to the convo, so, all good.

I think it's obvious that if Cheney had his druthers, we never would have left Iraq. We would have planted the flag and used it as a base of operations forever. We haven't exactly exited Afghanistan either. Obama has big Pakistan worries, and I think his view is that we need to be looking them over from close range.

I like the Dune analogy. Yep, oil's always in there, in ISIS's case as a major flow of revenue, which brings up the question: are they ideologically driven or just the new crime family in town, taking their cut of the "spice" trade? Again, not simple.

Back to the Turks. It will be interesting to see who they see as the more existential threat, Kurds or ISIS. That should become clear pretty soon- I don't think ISIS will avoid incursions into Turkey.

On a personal note, my son in the military recently returned from a 9 month tour in Kabul, so my thoughts between sips of coffee from thousands of miles away aren't as purely theoretical to me. I like take in a lot of information.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> He's making them very well, and to be frank, Dave, your view isn't unique either. Hawks say the same thing about every situation.
> 
> You feel we should have an occupying force in Iraq, and that would have prevented the power vacuum ISIS is filling. Other people see the situation as having more moving parts, and cite additional reasons we shouldn't.
> 
> ...


I haven't heard a historic viewpoint imposed on the present scenario very much Nick, I have heard the countless reports of the multilayered problems there. Of course if you specifically apply the history of the region we're talking about to itself then as you advocated long ago, you don't go in there. Democracy is not wanted. 

If once you're in and have applied military force to be followed by political solutions then you don't leave before you are assured that both the new military and political orders are sound and in tact. I see both the historic reasons for staying out and historic reasons for getting out very carefully as benign objective principles and not ideologically driven.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2014)

The front page of the LA Times says that the Iraqi government is upset with the pace of our bombing campaign there. We're not dropping enough bombs often enough in their cities. The ISIS occupied cities of course. History repeating itself but now at a complete loss of advantage for both the US and Iraq. So much for Darwin's theory.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2014)

Dave, we had to leave at some point. And there's no guarantee that an American occupying force would have prevented this from happening - any more than the revolutions all through the region would have been prevented by an occupying force.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2014)

I'm glad your son is home safely, Larry.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Dave, we had to leave at some point. And there's no guarantee that an American occupying force would have prevented this from happening - any more than the revolutions all through the region would have been prevented by an occupying force.


Yes we did have to leave at some point and the sooner the better ideally. Way too many voices said it was too soon and the president should have heeded his own people's advice. Very few forces in the world are going to march on American guarded territory and if they did they wouldn't have the unimpeded progress ISIS has had. 

But you may very well be right about the ultimate future there without an American presence. It could have very well disintegrated someday into the wild west we have today. I wouldn't want to see that happen on my watch though if I were president.

At the heart of all my comments is the slaughter of thousands of innocent people.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2014)

Unfortunately that's the history of that region. It's been going on for a very long time.


----------

