The air campaign has been very timid.
Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to go into Iraq in the first place back in 2003.
In retrospect Saddam Hussein would have managed Iraq a million times better.
Saddam Hussein was an unstable megalomaniac and a constant threat to the whole region.
While true it is far less likely that ISIS, or someone like them, would organize under a ruler like Saddam. Again as we have discussed many times before, consider the aptitude of the people we are talking about here in adopting western governmental and social ideologies in concert with the various splinters of the same religion they all follow. I would argue well that the region is far more unstable today than it was then simply because of the small messes we have left all over the region from what we do best. Exchange one set of problematic governments for a new set of problematic governments. And do not discount that ISIS is a product of opportunity, not strength. If the Syrian government had been stronger and Saddam was still around, we would not be having this discussion. We would be talking about the impacts of brutal dictators in the region.
Jihadi terrorism long predates Saddam Hussein and developed independent of him. Saddam waged war on his neighbours and posed a continuing threat. In that he is very different from the Assad-regime in Syria. Assad and co are every bit as brutal as Saddam, but they are brutal domestically and cautious internationally.
I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy here, just pointing out the picture of Iraq then and now. Looking back it stands to reason that invading Iraq was not such a bright idea, the lasting effects will be something the next several Presidents will have to deal with. We are already up to 4 Presidents in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another, and as of late Iraq is in far worse shape today.
The alternative to removing Saddam Hussein was a couple of decades more of occasional bombing of Iraq and a continuing threat to the region. It would have been better if he could have been removed by an internal uprising and/or coup but this was tried and failed.
It still comes down to the next one in charge. In this case Iraq ended up in the hands of a very weak government over a weak enough military that a significant portion of the nation is no longer under their control in any sense. That is the point we have to evaluate, we have no choice. Ramadi is what, all of 60 miles away from Baghdad.
How can we ignore all the failures of the current Iraqi government?
I'm not trying to say that Saddam was a good guy here, just pointing out the picture of Iraq then and now. Looking back it stands to reason that invading Iraq was not such a bright idea, the lasting effects will be something the next several Presidents will have to deal with. We are already up to 4 Presidents in a row to drop a bomb on Iraq for one reason or another, and as of late Iraq is in far worse shape today.
I certainly wouldn't say we should ignore the (many) failings of the current Iraqi government. Iraq has ceased to exist as a country and it is time to recognize this, for example by recognizing the right of the Kurds to form their own state (right now they are the most stable part of the country, another one of the benefits of the US intervention in Iraq).
The intelligence communities consensus 2006 NIE concluded that the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe. I doubt that by pointing that out that they were declaring that Saddam Hussein was a good guy.
That is not really what I was getting at, really look at what we are saying in this thread.
I am going to ask you to clarify, as it sounds like you may be saying the instability in Iraq is a problem but the benefit of the Kurds being closer to forming their own State makes this worthwhile.
That is not really what I was getting at, really look at what we are saying in this thread.
No, that is not what I'm saying.
What i'm saying is that the current Iraqi government is a shambles and that it is a mistake to cling to Iraq as a single functioning state, because it isn't.
I am also saying that one of the conclusions to be drawn from this is that it is time to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Kurds, who have established a functioning (but unrecognized) state inside Iraq.
And I am also saying that the fact that at least the Kurds were able to do this was one of the benefits of the US intervention in Iraq. (There were many others)
Then my follow up question has to be what would be your policy suggestion for all of Iraq? Because at this point, regardless of Kurdish Independence, all that is left is to either watch the implosion eventually complete where the current Iraqi government completely fails, or agree to the "South Korea" model of permanent military occupation.
Seeing as how our inept federal government wants to overthrow both governments. I would say that it doesn't matter what type of government you are, if you're stable in the middle east chances are our government wants to topple you. Except Israel.Jihadi terrorism long predates Saddam Hussein and developed independent of him. Saddam waged war on his neighbours and posed a continuing threat. In that he is very different from the Assad-regime in Syria. Assad and co are every bit as brutal as Saddam, but they are brutal domestically and cautious internationally.
Yet another example of how terrible of an idea it was to go into Iraq in the first place back in 2003.
While true it is far less likely that ISIS, or someone like them, would organize under a ruler like Saddam. Again as we have discussed many times before, consider the aptitude of the people we are talking about here in adopting western governmental and social ideologies in concert with the various splinters of the same religion they all follow. I would argue well that the region is far more unstable today than it was then simply because of the small messes we have left all over the region from what we do best. Exchange one set of problematic governments for a new set of problematic governments. And do not discount that ISIS is a product of opportunity, not strength. If the Syrian government had been stronger and Saddam was still around, we would not be having this discussion. We would be talking about the impacts of brutal dictators in the region.
Yeah, if only we had known that the next President would be such a horrible CIC.