• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement...

Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement

  • Total voters
    54
Montecresto said:
Bush had FIVE YEARS to train the Iraqi military, if they're not ready, then they're NOT ready! Think about what's surrounding the Islamic State. A very capable Iranian army, Saudi Arabia with the worlds fourth largest military, the very capable military of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey. Why in the hell are we even talking about intervening/interfering. Those regional powers can and should be forced to deal with their problem.
Click to expand...

We agree.
 
Jack Hays said:
By 2009 Iraq was stabilized and on its way to normalization. The role envisioned for US forces was similar to that played by US forces in South Korea since 1953. Failure to follow through on that vision has contributed mightily to creating the problems today.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the new Iraq government did not seem to excited about the idea else negotiations for our long term occupation would have occured differently. For both Bush 43 and Obama, who wanted entirely different things.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Several problems here. One, even Bush 43 did not obtain all that he wanted in negotiation to ensure long term occupation of Iraq into Obama's time. Especially when it came to immunity concerns. If it were otherwise then Bush 43 would have had plans to stay indefinite with a moderate force (at additional costs despite what Iraq wanted.) Two, Iraq was not all that stabilized the further we went with this weakend Iraq government who themselves excluded so many. They made this mess worse, just as our withdraw created opprotunity for others. Three, Obama campaigned on leaving Iraq so it would be odd to suggest it was likely that McCain would have stayed long term given point one. If Bush 43 could not negotiate for indefinite occupation, how could have McCain? Four, there is no rational way to group all of Al-Assad's opposition into one "local group." Those that make up ISIS are not quite the same as those that make up "moderates" in today's terms, else we would not be talking about arming any of them. Lastly, these "moderates" in Syria have no interest in engaging ISIS. They share a common enemy making our involvement there questionable in who benefits long term. Obama got punked with this whole "line in the sand" nonsense.
Click to expand...

GWB's planners envisioned a long term US military presence. Had that long term presence been sustained we would have had a great deal more leverage to mitigate the negative effects of Maliki's sectarian inclinations. Regardless of what BHO said during his campaign, it was prudent of GWB to leave him the opportunity to do something else (something wiser) if he changed his mind. In early 2012 the moderate opposition were the only forces in the field against Asad in Syria. The extremists only flowed in after the fighting stalemated because the moderates did not have enough weapons to prevail. Had we helped the moderates in 2012 there would be no ISIS today.
 
radcen said:
Do you still feel the same now about our middle east involvement, given the recent events with ISIS and current status of Afghanistan, that you did before?

Think back to your opinion when Bush II first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Think back to when Obama withdrew from Iraq. Think about the current alleged wind down in Afghanistan. Doesn't really matter what your opinion was, just ask yourself if you feel the same now as you did then. And why do you feel the same or differently.

Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

Why would I feel differently? Obama's simply being pragmatic. You can't compare what we're doing now with less than 2K troops in Iraq (all of which are training/support/security personnel, and NOT for combat) to having 140K there like we had under Bush 43. You can't compare the 10K or so that will be remaining in Afghanistan to prop up the regime to the, what was it, 70K or more under Bush 43.

Obama is right to drag the other Arab nations into the fight against ISIS. Let them do the grunt work. That way, when all is said and done, the Arab League will have asserted its authority and (hopefully) restored some semblance of order. If we get them used to conducting air strikes in addition to sending in ground troops, if we can get them used to taking care of their own security, then sooner or later we won't need to be there at all.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL There was nothing stabile about Maliki's tyrannical government. That is why you think we should have stayed against the Iraqi's will I bet. We went to Iraq to free them not put another tyrant in place. They are closer now to stability then when Maliki was anointed by Bush.
Click to expand...

Had we committed to a longer presence we would have had more leverage to mitigate Maliki's negative inclinations.
 
iguanaman said:
Right. Otherwise I would know how much fun suicide bombers are.
Click to expand...

Iraq's population is majority Shia, who were oppressed under Saddam. 100% of that group is glad he's gone. Among the Sunnis the more moderate and cosmopolitan urban population is also glad Saddam is gone, although they support opposition parties.
 
Jack Hays said:
GWB's planners envisioned a long term US military presence. Had that long term presence been sustained we would have had a great deal more leverage to mitigate the negative effects of Maliki's sectarian inclinations. Regardless of what BHO said during his campaign, it was prudent of GWB to leave him the opportunity to do something else (something wiser) if he changed his mind. In early 2012 the moderate opposition were the only forces in the field against Asad in Syria. The extremists only flowed in after the fighting stalemated because the moderates did not have enough weapons to prevail. Had we helped the moderates in 2012 there would be no ISIS today.
Click to expand...

The rhetoric does not match the reality of the situation. You can keep saying that Bush 43's "planners envisioned a long term US military presence," but if Maliki's position changed on US troops immunity then it does not matter what those plans were. At that point you are talking about a level of occupation that voids Iraq government authority for law in their nation without such immunity clauses agreed to by all parties. Bush 43 did not hand Obama options, he handed Obama a mess. If he stayed it would be with real conflict against the goals of the Iraq government (and odds are with the various factions not real happy with Maliki in the first place,) but Obama ended up leaving and instability showed itself in short order. But even if all of that did not exist we are still talking about a long term occupation that has a cost, with no real assurance that the situation is stable. You trying to tell me North Korea and South Korea is a stable situation?

Also it is devoid of reality to suggest those that make up ISIS did not exist in "early 2012." They were already there and taking advantage of a long term civil war would be no different if we armed these so called "moderates" to the teeth. I suspect if anything a percentage of those arms would end up in ISIS hands, just as where some of those we handed to Iraq's terrible military ended up. There is no truth to the notion that helping moderates in 2012 would have prevented ISIS today, that is again just rhetoric that does not match the reality that those people were already there. Just waiting for the right time to strike.
 
Jack Hays said:
Iraq's population is majority Shia, who were oppressed under Saddam. 100% of that group is glad he's gone. Among the Sunnis the more moderate and cosmopolitan urban population is also glad Saddam is gone, although they support opposition parties.
Click to expand...

Yet none of this accounts for those who were there and eventually became ISIS. They all did not move in magically in late 2012.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The rhetoric does not match the reality of the situation. You can keep saying that Bush 43's "planners envisioned a long term US military presence," but if Maliki's position changed on US troops immunity then it does not matter what those plans were. At that point you are talking about a level of occupation that voids Iraq government authority for law in their nation without such immunity clauses agreed to by all parties. Bush 43 did not hand Obama options, he handed Obama a mess. If he stayed it would be with real conflict against the goals of the Iraq government (and odds are with the various factions not real happy with Maliki in the first place,) but Obama ended up leaving and instability showed itself in short order. But even if all of that did not exist we are still talking about a long term occupation that has a cost, with no real assurance that the situation is stable. You trying to tell me North Korea and South Korea is a stable situation?

Also it is devoid of reality to suggest those that make up ISIS did not exist in "early 2012." They were already there and taking advantage of a long term civil war would be no different if we armed these so called "moderates" to the teeth. I suspect if anything a percentage of those arms would end up in ISIS hands, just as where some of those we handed to Iraq's terrible military ended up. There is no truth to the notion that helping moderates in 2012 would have prevented ISIS today, that is again just rhetoric that does not match the reality that those people were already there. Just waiting for the right time to strike.
Click to expand...

Had we acted in Syria in 2012 the civil war would have ended that year. There would never have been an ISIS. Had BHO not talked so openly of leaving Iraq completely, and had he not reduced planned US force levels below a worthwhile figure, Maliki would have been easier to deal with.
 
Jack Hays said:
Had we acted in Syria in 2012 the civil war would have ended that year. There would never have been an ISIS. Had BHO not talked so openly of leaving Iraq completely, and had he not reduced planned US force levels below a worthwhile figure, Maliki would have been easier to deal with.
Click to expand...

All rhetoric but with little offered as to why. Sounds too much like a partisan effort to go after Obama, and less like reasoned debate as to why the Middle East is such a mess.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Yet none of this accounts for those who were there and eventually became ISIS. They all did not move in magically in late 2012.
Click to expand...

ISIS is a tiny minority that would never have mobilized were it not for the vacuum in Syria.
 
Jack Hays said:
ISIS is a tiny minority that would never have mobilized were it not for the vacuum in Syria.
Click to expand...

Again, all rhetoric with little offered as to why.
 
OrphanSlug said:
All rhetoric but with little offered as to why. Sounds too much like a partisan effort to go after Obama, and less like reasoned debate as to why the Middle East is such a mess.
Click to expand...

It's all just straightforward history.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's all just straightforward history.
Click to expand...

Not really, the alternative did not happen nor is there evidence that it would have as you suggest. Thus, anti-Obama rhetoric devoid of the history of the region.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Not really, the alternative did not happen nor is there evidence that it would have as you suggest. Thus, anti-Obama rhetoric devoid of the history of the region.
Click to expand...


It's why Clinton, Panetta and Petraeus all pushed for action in Syria in early 2012. They saw both the opportunity and the risk.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's why Clinton, Panetta and Petraeus all pushed for action in Syria in early 2012. They saw both the opportunity and the risk.
Click to expand...

Their eyes were on al-Assad, not who became ISIS. And there *still* is no evidence arms support for "moderates" in early 2012 would have toppled al-Assad's regime or prevented ISIS from forming. Would things be different, of course... but there is no certainty that ISIS would have not existed with such action.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Their eyes were on al-Assad, not who became ISIS. And there *still* is no evidence arms support for "moderates" in early 2012 would have toppled al-Assad's regime or prevented ISIS from forming. Would things be different, of course... but there is no certainty that ISIS would have not existed with such action.
Click to expand...

The forces that have become the Free Syrian Army were the only opposition forces in the field in early 2012 and they had momentum on their side. Russian and Iranian support to Asad had not yet become important. The window of opportunity closed by early 2013.
 
Objective Voice said:
Iraq: I'm always against forced regime change which was the case with Iraq. Regardless of what you believe was the reason why we went over there - oil, revenge (threat on Bush I's life), WMD, terrorism - removing Iraq's leader no matter how we felt about it and disbanding him military are two decisions I think many people will look back on and regret. A Saddam-less Iraq left a power vacuum. The only stabilizer was the U.S. military...stabilizer, not neutralizer. Our military presence did nothing to stop the violence. Why? Because our presence was part of the problem. Damned if you stay, damned if you go. We couldn't win in Iraq. It's like Coleen Powell said, "You break it, you own it!"

Bottom Line: I didn't support going into Iraq then and I'm not in full support of going back over there now. It's a three-pronged civil war with widespread insurgency run amok! Unless the more moderate Muslim countries get involved with the recognition that their nationAL sovereignty is threatened by this ISIS/ISIL Caliphate-wanna-be Islamist group that's running wild over there, I fear America will get drawn into a fight it really does not want. The threat is real; I'm just not sure if our military needs to get any more involved in this fight than it already is considering we have enemies AND potential back-stabbers all around us. If this thing goes sideways, I can see WW3 ringing out w/the ME as the prize and the U.S.A. caught in the cross-hairs.

Afghanistan: The longer we stay, the harder it gets. We should've killed OBL in the hills of Tora Bora when we had him trapped, packed our tents and left soon after. Instead, we let him slip into Pakistan and that made the warring situation in Afghanistan worse.

Bottom Line: Bring our boys home and let the newly elected Afghan government take control of their own country.

Has my mind changed about either the War in Iraq or the War on Terror in Afghanistan?

We needed to go after AQ and OBL after 9/11, but once we cut off the head of the snake, we should have left.

Iraq...we should have left well enough alone.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan was also forced regime change.
 
Jack Hays said:
The forces that have become the Free Syrian Army were the only opposition forces in the field in early 2012 and they had momentum on their side. Russian and Iranian support to Asad had not yet become important. The window of opportunity closed by early 2013.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely wrong.

Russian support of al-Assad has always been of importance and I would argue is a key reason to the US calling al-Assad a problem, there was little in it for us where as other dictators we do work with and overlook their method of rule. Similar story with Iran, who we have been calling a problem for a very long time.

The truth is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (and eventually ISIS) used to have a different name in the region, which included fighters operating in Syria and Iraq and many other places; that would be al-Qaeda. US Troops and allied Sunni had al-Qaeda fairly well under control around the 2006 surge, but they were never destroyed and that includes taking out Bin Laden. Those still there in 2010 were fundamentally the same looking for opportunity. It was handed to them in the civil war in Syria and the weakness of Iraq's government (the former not our issue, the latter our direct caused issue.) As early as 2011 who became ISIS in Iraq was successful in getting freed prisoners held by the Iraqi government, successful in recruitment and dealing with older experienced soldiers who at one time were under Saddam. In short they rebuilt their strength just in time to take advantage of these conditions already mentioned. As such were in Syria as well operating not in conjunction with the Free Syrian Army but rather in competition, allowing the civil war to alter into a multiple way civil war. Enough so that these so called "moderates" already agreed to not engage ISIS even with our repeated calls to arm these so called "moderates."

But even before Iraq, by principle ISIS is the product of genocide happening in Syria. There was not enough momentum for the Free Syrian Army in 2012 to topple al-Assad and some of the attacks on these people predate that time frame. Facing al-Assad's intelligence services, military, and violent attacks those in opposition became divided and disenfranchised only to soon thereafter become radicalized and militant. Carrying out operations before 2012. At one time these people turned to the world, were ignored, and embraced the idea of Islamic State independence. That could not by design include "moderates" fighting under the Free Syrian Army banner. Just across the border there were other groups disenfranchised in Iraq, by another problem that from their point of view the US created.

Syria is the real reason for this and it predates 2012. The break point, between the now established ISIS and al-Qaeda, occurred because of what is happening in Syria. And why? ISIS wants something they have always wanted, independence from other factions in the same religion. And there is zero evidence that arming the Free Syrian Army would have prevented ISIS operations in Iraq or Syria. al-Assad already made the bed we are living in, which is why Obama got punked so badly by Putin on Syria. It is so bad now that in some ways you could look at al-Qaeda and ISIS in competition with one another when you would think the synergy between the two would produce world wide attacks. But what we really see are the fruits of two terrible trees. Iraq's government weakness and how well al-Assad has handled dealing with the US. The "moderates" there will drag this multiple way civil war in Syria for years. There is no evidence our arming them alone would speed things up... or undo what al-Assad already did to those that became ISIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom