(08-14-2016 01:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 06:34 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  It's a different take than Trump's statement, but I disagree with laying the ISIS blame on Obama and Clinton. Every sensible voice in 2003 was warning Bush/Cheney that removing Saddam for the sake of forcing "democracy" in the Mideast would fail (the WMD lines were garbage), and that a resulting vacuum could result in something awful. And they were right.

So were we supposed to keep troops in that desert, not to mention Afghanistan, for eternity? Decades of nation building and being the de facto police department of Iraq and half of Syria, despite promises of the opposite during Bush's 2000 campaign?

Just joining this convo, maybe this is covered later...

You wanna provide some of those "sensible voices"? Cause theres an awful lot of Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Daschle, Rockefeller and Schumer as well as dozens of others that were right there plowing the same ground.

Maybe you're referring to others, myself and my Navy friend Tom next door who both said "stick to the task at hand, A-hole talibannys in Afghanistan", but I'm guessing not.

Every sensible voice? Then we's got a LOT of in-sensible folks there in DeeCee, But I guess most of us already knew that. One's looking for a promotion.

Actually, I was referring more to those. The skeptical segment of Joe Q. Public, media columnists and various think tanks from the right-leaning and libertarian (Cato, Reason) and from the left, and so forth. And when I say "warning Bush/Cheney", I didn't mean they had a direct line to the White House. But the rational opposing opinions were pretty loud and clear, even if it was the minority.

Being honest, I was on the fence leading up to the Iraq War, and thought Colin Powell, whose opinion I respected and still do, gave a good argument to the UN. Probably more hesitant than pro, I'm not trying to give an impression that I was totally against it from the get-go.

(08-14-2016 01:27 AM)EagleX Wrote:  how long do we stay in iraq?

how long did we stay in japan? we're still there.
how long did we stay in germany? we're still there.
how long did we stay in korea? we're still there.

none of the above drained our strategic resources.

moreover, the strong presence of the us armed forces was key to all of those successful resolutions.

the united states was poised to become the major power in the middle east. as it stands now, the vacuum that BHO has created is being exploited by russia.

you can spiin this any way you want, owl, but my point remains the truth.

And the argument remains whether we still need to be in those places, particularly Germany and Japan, with us being the de facto defense of countries who are affluent enough to fund their own defense. This is an area where I somewhat agree with Trump.

Besides, S Korea, Germany and Japan are unlike the Middle East in that they haven't been in perpetual, sectarian religious-fundamentalist warfare for centuries, and will continue until the next comet hits. They don't hold grudges for generations like they do in the Mideast, so "keeping the peace" in Iraq/Syria/Trashcanistan is a lot more difficult and costly (in terms of blood and money).

(08-14-2016 06:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ISIS was around before Obama went into office. It was called Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were not defeated by the surge. They just reformed. Kill their leaders, and new leaders take their places.

Don't get hung up on names. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," that would be a major mistake. There will always be some group, militant as it needs to be, pushing Sunni interests against Shias, and vice versa. As long as western Iraq and eastern Syria are predominantly Sunni, and as long as the governments in Damascus and Baghdad are Shia, then you will inevitably have an ISIS or an al-Qaeda or whatever to pursue the pro-Sunni agenda. And as long as those organizations exist, Sunnis in other countries will find ways to support them. If revolution does not occur peacefully, it will occur violently.

Any effort to keep Iraq together as a country with its current borders, or to keep Syria together as a country with its current borders, is ultimately doomed to fail. The best we can hope for if you want those countries to stay together is a strong man dictator who can impose his will. Iraq had one of those in Saddam and we killed him. Syria had one of those in Assad, but he seems to losing his grip. Libya had one of those in Qaddafi, but we helped overthrow and kill him. The best answer for most countries in the Middle East is the least objectionable dictator, no matter how much that offends.

The only configuration that can work long term is a Shia Syria along the Mediterranean coast and coastal mountains, a Shia Mesopotamia in what is now southeast Iraq, an independent Kurdistan in what is now northern Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq in what is now western Iraq and eastern Syria. The boundary lines that were drawn arbitrarily at San Remo in 1920 to reflect European politics will simply never reflect the reality that is on the ground.

(08-13-2016 06:35 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its the same thing that Trump said.

I don't fully agree with Johnson here in terms of who to ultimately lay blame, but he was far more nuanced in his explanation than Trump's "sarcasm."

If Trump had said something like this quote below, instead of just repeating the MVP and Founder thing over and over, he'd do better in avoiding the hot water he continually finds himself in.

Quote:"It wasn't intentional, but you can't make it up. When they go in and support the opposition in Libya and Syria, and the opposition is aligned with ISIS, and we arm the opposition and they lose those arms to ISIS, unintentionally,"

(08-14-2016 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 06:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ISIS was around before Obama went into office. It was called Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were not defeated by the surge. They just reformed. Kill their leaders, and new leaders take their places.

Don't get hung up on names. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," that would be a major mistake. There will always be some group, militant as it needs to be, pushing Sunni interests against Shias, and vice versa. As long as western Iraq and eastern Syria are predominantly Sunni, and as long as the governments in Damascus and Baghdad are Shia, then you will inevitably have an ISIS or an al-Qaeda or whatever to pursue the pro-Sunni agenda. And as long as those organizations exist, Sunnis in other countries will find ways to support them. If revolution does not occur peacefully, it will occur violently.

Any effort to keep Iraq together as a country with its current borders, or to keep Syria together as a country with its current borders, is ultimately doomed to fail. The best we can hope for if you want those countries to stay together is a strong man dictator who can impose his will.

The only configuration that can work long term is a Shia Syria along the Mediterranean coast and coastal mountains, a Shia Mesopotamia in what is now southeast Iraq, an independent Kurdistan in what is now northern Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq in what is now western Iraq and eastern Syria. The boundary lines that were drawn arbitrarily at San Remo in 1920 to reflect European politics will simply never reflect the reality that is on the ground.

+1
Good stuff, Owl. The boundary reconfiguration concepts need to be promoted more.

(08-14-2016 08:49 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 06:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ISIS was around before Obama went into office. It was called Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were not defeated by the surge. They just reformed. Kill their leaders, and new leaders take their places.

Don't get hung up on names. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," that would be a major mistake. There will always be some group, militant as it needs to be, pushing Sunni interests against Shias, and vice versa. As long as western Iraq and eastern Syria are predominantly Sunni, and as long as the governments in Damascus and Baghdad are Shia, then you will inevitably have an ISIS or an al-Qaeda or whatever to pursue the pro-Sunni agenda. And as long as those organizations exist, Sunnis in other countries will find ways to support them. If revolution does not occur peacefully, it will occur violently.

Any effort to keep Iraq together as a country with its current borders, or to keep Syria together as a country with its current borders, is ultimately doomed to fail. The best we can hope for if you want those countries to stay together is a strong man dictator who can impose his will.

The only configuration that can work long term is a Shia Syria along the Mediterranean coast and coastal mountains, a Shia Mesopotamia in what is now southeast Iraq, an independent Kurdistan in what is now northern Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq in what is now western Iraq and eastern Syria. The boundary lines that were drawn arbitrarily at San Remo in 1920 to reflect European politics will simply never reflect the reality that is on the ground.

+1
Good stuff, Owl. The boundary reconfiguration concepts need to be promoted more.

I used to spout the "two drunk Brits and a protractor" line all the time, but then I realized it was actually a Brit and a Frenchman

(08-14-2016 08:49 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 06:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ISIS was around before Obama went into office. It was called Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were not defeated by the surge. They just reformed. Kill their leaders, and new leaders take their places.

Don't get hung up on names. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," that would be a major mistake. There will always be some group, militant as it needs to be, pushing Sunni interests against Shias, and vice versa. As long as western Iraq and eastern Syria are predominantly Sunni, and as long as the governments in Damascus and Baghdad are Shia, then you will inevitably have an ISIS or an al-Qaeda or whatever to pursue the pro-Sunni agenda. And as long as those organizations exist, Sunnis in other countries will find ways to support them. If revolution does not occur peacefully, it will occur violently.
Any effort to keep Iraq together as a country with its current borders, or to keep Syria together as a country with its current borders, is ultimately doomed to fail. The best we can hope for if you want those countries to stay together is a strong man dictator who can impose his will.
The only configuration that can work long term is a Shia Syria along the Mediterranean coast and coastal mountains, a Shia Mesopotamia in what is now southeast Iraq, an independent Kurdistan in what is now northern Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq in what is now western Iraq and eastern Syria. The boundary lines that were drawn arbitrarily at San Remo in 1920 to reflect European politics will simply never reflect the reality that is on the ground.

+1
Good stuff, Owl. The boundary reconfiguration concepts need to be promoted more.

Thanks. I'll go a little bit further, and you may not agree here, but the same principle applies.

The two state solution for Israel works only if additional territory comes into the equation. Within the present footprint of Israel (basically another San Remo decision) there is no way to draw boundaries to create two viable states. The pre-1967 boundaries that have been bandied about leave BOTH Israel and the Palestinians with non-viable states, Israel militarily and the Palestinians economically. The only viable option I see is to create a Palestinian state in their historic homeland, Sinai. Egypt basically needs enough of Sinai to secure both banks of the canal, but is proving itself incapable of effectively administering a larger area. Here's what I would do. Extend Israel's border down to 34E. This starts fairly close to the current border on the Mediterranean side and in the south gives them control of Sharm el-Sheikh, which is important to them militarily.

Give the Palestinians Sinai between 34E and 33E. You end up with something not far from the MFO Truce Zones, with Egypt keeping zone A, Israel getting zone C, and the Palestinians getting zone B, extended down to the Red Sea coast. That's lots of room, with some oil and some tourist diving attractions, so they start to have some economic viability. They need water to make it work. Do some desalinization plants on the coast. Dam up the Wadi al-Arish in a couple of places to make lakes and pump some of the desalinized water up to them to fill them. Move the border with Israel from straight along 34E to conform to the Wadi. You won't get every Palestinian to move but you'll get enough to take a lot of pressure off. And as the area develops, you'll get a lot more.

How do you sell it to Egypt? Number one, thy've lost control of the area now, so it's not like they're losing a lot. They are losing significant oil and turista revenues, so you have to buy them off. They want to do a major power project with the Qattara Depression, so agree to build that for them plus enough additional aid to buy them off. This is getting expensive, but still cheaper than the alternative.

The problem then is the other Arab states. Palestinians have been the pariahs of the Arab world for centuries. They're like lepers. Palestinians cannot enter most Arab countries. Giving them territory is going to offend a lot of Arabs.

So go for the grander compromise which also includes the Tom Clancy plan. Make Jerusalem an international city in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist. Create an international zone that includes the historic parts of the city and extends east to the Jordan, with enough room to put in an international airport. That way Muslims who want to visit can come in by surface or air without having to pass through Israel. Everybody gives something, everybody gets something.

This is a hard sell. But it's the only thing that works. As Sherlock Holmes said (paraphrasing, too lazy to look up exact quote), "When all of the other possibilities are impossible, believe the improbable."

(08-13-2016 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm going to disagree somewhat with Gary on this.

Obama and Clinton enabled--not created--ISIS.

What created ISIS was the decision almost 100 years ago to create Syria with a large Alawite (Shia) population along the Mediterranean coast and a majority Sunni population inland, plus Iraq with a large Sunni minority in a predominantly Shia country. Saddam was kind of the perfect ruler for Iraq--Sunni who could maintain control over the Shia minority. Assad was kind of the converse--Shia who could (at least sorta) maintain control over his Sunni majority. Overthrowing Saddam kind of blew up the Iraq end of that, and trying to make Iraq a democracy in order to stabilize the Middle East led to the Arab Spring (which Obama clearly endorsed) that among other things, clearly upset the apple cart in Syria.

The situation that Obama and Hillary inherited was not good, but give them credit, they and Kerry did their dead level best to make it worse.

Much of the modern problems in the Middle East can be laid at the feet of Great Britain and decisions made for their "glorious empire".

(08-13-2016 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we had partitioned Iraq into the three countries that it should be--Kurdistan in the north, Shia Mesopotamia in the east, and Sunni Iraq in the west--there might have been some chance of things working.

I would have foreseen that would lead to merging of Sunni west Iraq with Sunni east Syria--basically the territory that ISIS controls today. But that might--and I mean might--have occurred in a situation where we had more influence.

Obama knew the situation that he inherited was unstable. But carrying out campaign promises was more important than doing the right thing.

At this point, we have made such a mess of the entire region that the best answer is probably GTFO and let them sort it for themselves.

I agree - especially because of the oil and gas shale revolution in the U.S.

(08-14-2016 08:47 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-13-2016 06:35 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its the same thing that Trump said.

I don't fully agree with Johnson here in terms of who to ultimately lay blame, but he was far more nuanced in his explanation than Trump's "sarcasm."

If Trump had said something like this quote below, instead of just repeating the MVP and Founder thing over and over, he'd do better in avoiding the hot water he continually finds himself in.

Quote:"It wasn't intentional, but you can't make it up. When they go in and support the opposition in Libya and Syria, and the opposition is aligned with ISIS, and we arm the opposition and they lose those arms to ISIS, unintentionally,"

That's some world-class level spin you just provided there.

(08-13-2016 04:13 PM)green Wrote:  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libert...le/2599165
The Libertarian presidential nominee charged the Democratic duo in a MSNBC interview Thursday with "unintentionally" establishing the terrorist group as a result of choosing to pull U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011.
It wasn't intentional, but you can't make it up when they go in and they support the opposition in Libya and Syria and the opposition is aligned with ISIS and we arm the opposition and they lose those arms to ISIS."
-- washington examiner
JOIN BATTLE

Here's the problem. "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world." When you go in and arm ANYONE, you are potentially arming your enemy.

Say we arm A. A and B unite to fight C. Tomorrow, A and C unite to fight B. By Thursday B and C unite to fight A. And next week, A, B, and C all unite to fight us. And we've armed them all.

Obama has pivoted us hugely toward the side of the Shias in the Sunni-Shia war that has gone on for centuries under various names on both sides. He has also pushed us toward Aryan Iran and away from Semitic Israel and Saudi. Those may prove to be intelligent moves--or they may prove not to be. I think more likely not, but that remains to be seen.

(08-14-2016 08:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 06:53 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ISIS was around before Obama went into office. It was called Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were not defeated by the surge. They just reformed. Kill their leaders, and new leaders take their places.

Don't get hung up on names. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," that would be a major mistake. There will always be some group, militant as it needs to be, pushing Sunni interests against Shias, and vice versa. As long as western Iraq and eastern Syria are predominantly Sunni, and as long as the governments in Damascus and Baghdad are Shia, then you will inevitably have an ISIS or an al-Qaeda or whatever to pursue the pro-Sunni agenda. And as long as those organizations exist, Sunnis in other countries will find ways to support them. If revolution does not occur peacefully, it will occur violently.

Any effort to keep Iraq together as a country with its current borders, or to keep Syria together as a country with its current borders, is ultimately doomed to fail. The best we can hope for if you want those countries to stay together is a strong man dictator who can impose his will. Iraq had one of those in Saddam and we killed him. Syria had one of those in Assad, but he seems to losing his grip. Libya had one of those in Qaddafi, but we helped overthrow and kill him. The best answer for most countries in the Middle East is the least objectionable dictator, no matter how much that offends.

The only configuration that can work long term is a Shia Syria along the Mediterranean coast and coastal mountains, a Shia Mesopotamia in what is now southeast Iraq, an independent Kurdistan in what is now northern Iraq, and a Sunni Iraq in what is now western Iraq and eastern Syria. The boundary lines that were drawn arbitrarily at San Remo in 1920 to reflect European politics will simply never reflect the reality that is on the ground.

the solution to poorly drawn, arbitrary borders (if that's the problem at all, which is far from proven) is probably not more arbitrary borders. I'm sure the guys that drew the current screwed up borders were probably as confident then as you are now that they were solving the problem.

these areas aren't 100% pure. you're probably condemning whatever Christians that you're stranding in Fuckedupistan to permanent persecution -- not that they aren't suffering through that right now, but it seems to be a given in your redrawn middle east.

and you seem to simply assumes that sunni and shia countries won't go to war with each other simply because they have shiny new borders. that's already been proven to be false.

I just don't see this grand plan changing anything.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hezbollah...d=41374713

Hezbollah Leader Echoes Trump That Obama, Clinton Founded ISIS
-- abcnews

TERROR INCORPORATED

(08-14-2016 02:23 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the solution to poorly drawn, arbitrary borders (if that's the problem at all, which is far from proven) is probably not more arbitrary borders. I'm sure the guys that drew the current screwed up borders were probably as confident then as you are now that they were solving the problem.

I don't think any truly well informed person doubts that poorly drawn borders are a major problem. How could they possibly not be a problem? And no, it's pretty well documented (Google San Remo 1920 for starters) that the guys who drew the current borders gave not a damn about the problem. This is an attempt to replace arbitrarily drawn borders with borders that come about as close as reasonably possible to reflecting reality as it currently exists on the ground.

Quote:these areas aren't 100% pure. you're probably condemning whatever Christians that you're stranding in Fuckedupistan to permanent persecution -- not that they aren't suffering through that right now, but it seems to be a given in your redrawn middle east.

No they aren't pure. But they're pretty heavily stacked in favor of the indicated groups. If your criterion is going to be that Christian persecution has to stop, there is nothing that'll achieve that. That's a given no matter what you do, and there's no way to prevent it.

Quote:and you seem to simply assumes that sunni and shia countries won't go to war with each other simply because they have shiny new borders. that's already been proven to be false.

No, I don't assume anything. What I expect is that if the borders create more nearly homogeneous countries, the amount of internal strife will decline, and I think that is a reasonable expectation. And no, it has not been proved that more appropriate borders won't work, because they have never been tried.

Quote:I just don't see this grand plan changing anything.

No guarantee that it will, but it has a better chance than what we have now. Nothing is perfect, but this at least has a chance. When you know that what you have cannot possibly work, it is unreasonable to demand perfection before agreeing to change. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," nothing can be guaranteed, but putting brothers together and separating cousins is at least a plan.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, what is your deal anyway? What is your stake in the outcome, if any? What do you think is a reasonable approach? If all you're going to do is complain, then you should be willing and able to come up with something better. What is it?

(08-14-2016 06:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 01:27 AM)EagleX Wrote:  how long do we stay in iraq?
how long did we stay in japan? we're still there.
how long did we stay in germany? we're still there.
how long did we stay in korea? we're still there.
none of the above drained our strategic resources.

That's debatable. The numbers that we maintain in those places have certainly complicated the sending of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and the resulting percentage of time spent deployed somewhere has impacted retention and morale. Every additional demand at the margin affects us somewhere.

Quote:moreover, the strong presence of the us armed forces was key to all of those successful resolutions.

But this misses my point. Those situations worked because we were protecting people who wanted that protection. How would it work if instead we were using our bases in Germany to support Russian rule in the area? How did Russian basing rights in East Germany work out? That's closer to the situation we would be in if we tried to stifle ISIS with bases and forces.

Quote:the united states was poised to become the major power in the middle east.

Do we want to be that? Is that the highest and best use of our military force? I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm saying those questions need to be asked.

Quote:as it stands now, the vacuum that BHO has created is being exploited by russia.

No question.

Quote:you can spiin this any way you want, owl, but my point remains the truth.

Nobody is spinning anything. I'm just pointing out realities. We can force the world to accept US domination and dominion. Is that what we want to do?

What about my principles laid out above?

Sunnis rule Sunnis.
Shias rule Shias.
Semites govern Semites.
Aryans govern Aryans.
Don't create a country that cannot survive.

You haven't commented on those.

How about we just kill em all and take the oil?

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-14-2016 07:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2016 02:23 PM)EagleX Wrote:  the solution to poorly drawn, arbitrary borders (if that's the problem at all, which is far from proven) is probably not more arbitrary borders. I'm sure the guys that drew the current screwed up borders were probably as confident then as you are now that they were solving the problem.

I don't think any truly well informed person doubts that poorly drawn borders are a major problem. How could they possibly not be a problem? And no, it's pretty well documented (Google San Remo 1920 for starters) that the guys who drew the current borders gave not a damn about the problem. This is an attempt to replace arbitrarily drawn borders with borders that come about as close as reasonably possible to reflecting reality as it currently exists on the ground.

Quote:these areas aren't 100% pure. you're probably condemning whatever Christians that you're stranding in Fuckedupistan to permanent persecution -- not that they aren't suffering through that right now, but it seems to be a given in your redrawn middle east.

No they aren't pure. But they're pretty heavily stacked in favor of the indicated groups. If your criterion is going to be that Christian persecution has to stop, there is nothing that'll achieve that. That's a given no matter what you do, and there's no way to prevent it.

Quote:and you seem to simply assumes that sunni and shia countries won't go to war with each other simply because they have shiny new borders. that's already been proven to be false.

No, I don't assume anything. What I expect is that if the borders create more nearly homogeneous countries, the amount of internal strife will decline, and I think that is a reasonable expectation. And no, it has not been proved that more appropriate borders won't work, because they have never been tried.

Quote:I just don't see this grand plan changing anything.

No guarantee that it will, but it has a better chance than what we have now. Nothing is perfect, but this at least has a chance. When you know that what you have cannot possibly work, it is unreasonable to demand perfection before agreeing to change. In the land of, "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world," nothing can be guaranteed, but putting brothers together and separating cousins is at least a plan.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, what is your deal anyway? What is your stake in the outcome, if any? What do you think is a reasonable approach? If all you're going to do is complain, then you should be willing and able to come up with something better. What is it?

I've obviously annoyed you. that certainly wasn't my intention. this subject grates on my nerves.

so, anyway, my "deal" is that this was pretty well handled as well as was humanly possible in 2009, until the strutting, ignorant obamites pulled the ejection seat handle, and now it's probably unsolvable. if it took 30,000 guys stationed there until the sun burned out, then so be it. that was cooked into the pudding when we launched the invasion. I was surprised that people were surprised that that would be required. what did people think was going to happen after an invasion? now, it would take another full out ground invasion, and I don't even want to do that. but it was morally vile of the obamites to do what they did, and when the subject comes up, all I hear is that george bush sucks. that's just intellectually lazy, it's revisionist, and it's just wrong.

and before you say that what we had on 2009 was unsustainable, let me just point out that, thanks to BHO and Vice President GaffBot, that is now unproven and unproveable. the worms were back in the can, ISIS simply didn't exist, and maliki would have continued to do whatever the hell we told him to do until someone sane came along.

another couple of points that always get lost along the way; iraq didn't start out as nationbuilding. it started out as "whack the terrorists, and destroy a state sponsor of terrorism", but it was impossible to do the one without the other. regime change was the US policy in iraq since The Clenis was staining the oval office, and the entire world was positive that there were WMDs in iraq. the same intelligence community that was surprised when the soviet union collapsed (FFS) had that one wrong, too.

I'm not sure I even understand your question about my "stake" in the outcome, other than a world with one less conflict is safer than one with one more, and no one is completely safe as long as ISIS exists.

and, generally, I don't think drawing different circles around the same groups of hate filled, atavistic creepjobs is going to accomplish anything other than creating slightly different groups of aggrieved and persecuted minorities, and moving the battle lines. there is no way that turkey would tolerate a kurdish state on it's border, by the way. I don't think it's possible to fix this problem -- including your plan about redrawing maps -- without 25 or 30 thousand guys stationed in the country for an unbelievably long period of time, and acting as a deterrent. so, ultimately, my goal here isn't so much to "fix the middle east", which is a mindbogglingly complicated thought, as it is to correct the record.

(08-15-2016 09:06 AM)EagleX Wrote:  I've obviously annoyed you. that certainly wasn't my intention. this subject grates on my nerves.

Grates on mine as well, obviously. We have made an endless succession of wrong moves because we lack understanding of what we are dealing with.

Quote:so, anyway, my "deal" is that this was pretty well handled as well as was humanly possible in 2009, until the strutting, ignorant obamites pulled the ejection seat handle, and now it's probably unsolvable. if it took 30,000 guys stationed there until the sun burned out, then so be it. that was cooked into the pudding when we launched the invasion. I was surprised that people were surprised that that would be required. what did people think was going to happen after an invasion? now, it would take another full out ground invasion, and I don't even want to do that. but it was morally vile of the obamites to do what they did, and when the subject comes up, all I hear is that george bush sucks. that's just intellectually lazy, it's revisionist, and it's just wrong.

I disagree that was handled well up through 2009. I agree that virtually everything that the Obama regime has done since is absolutely crazy and has made things worse. Any administration which thinks that a jobs program for ISIS is the solution to the problem is absolutely nuts. What we've had is an administration filled with evangelical Christians, followed by an administration filled with secular humanists, and neither group is intellectually capable of comprehending the thought processes of either Sunni or Shia Muslims. We're trying to manage as if those people thought like us, and the reality is that those people don't think like us.

Quote:and before you say that what we had on 2009 was unsustainable, let me just point out that, thanks to BHO and Vice President GaffBot, that is now unproven and unproveable. the worms were back in the can, ISIS simply didn't exist, and maliki would have continued to do whatever the hell we told him to do until someone sane came along.

What we had in 2009 was unsustainable unless we were willing to keep 30-50,000 troops on the ground there in perpetuity to maintain some very modest semblance of order. I think that's too high a price to pay in perpetuity. What should have happened was some sort of effort to get things to a sustainable place, and then GTFO. Bush was prepared to stay there, so the effort to get a sustainable outcome didn't matter. Obama was going to cut and run no matter what, so a sustainable outcome did not matter to him either. Now we are all learning the cost of that oversight.

Quote:another couple of points that always get lost along the way; iraq didn't start out as nationbuilding. it started out as "whack the terrorists, and destroy a state sponsor of terrorism", but it was impossible to do the one without the other. regime change was the US policy in iraq since The Clenis was staining the oval office, and the entire world was positive that there were WMDs in iraq. the same intelligence community that was surprised when the soviet union collapsed (FFS) had that one wrong, too.

I'm pretty sure Iraq was about nation building from the get-go, although i agree that's not the way it was sold to the American people. Why do I say this? When I took my counter-insurgency training almost 50 years ago--and I don't think this has changed--one of the things you did in trying to overthrow a ruthless dictator was to destroy all his signs of power. Dictators maintain their hold over people by convincing those people that they are invincible and inevitable. Blowing up all their palaces and statues and monuments and the like sends a dagger to the heart of the invincibility and inevitability arguments. But we didn't do that. Somebody, I think it was Geraldo Rivera, went over right after the fall of Baghdad and did a short piece touring Saddam's palaces and describing the opulent lifestyle. His point was how Saddam had screwed his people. My takeaway was WTF are those buildings doing still standing? The answer became obvious when Bremer and the others sent over to lead the occupation took over those palaces and moved in and set up shop. We obviously left them standing for precisely that purpose.

Agree with everything starting with "regime change."

Quote:I'm not sure I even understand your question about my "stake" in the outcome, other than a world with one less conflict is safer than one with one more, and no one is completely safe as long as ISIS exists.

That is my goal too. ISIS its going to exist in some form as long as Sunnis are subject to Shia rule, and terrorism is going to be a primary MO. We can't put enough troops in there to stop that. We can only make those troops targets of the terrorism. I would go further and say further that my goal is to involve the US directly in as few conflicts as possible, particularly ones where we have no stake. If conflict is inevitable but we don't have a stake in the outcome, we stay out.

Quote:and, generally, I don't think drawing different circles around the same groups of hate filled, atavistic creepjobs is going to accomplish anything other than creating slightly different groups of aggrieved and persecuted minorities, and moving the battle lines. there is no way that turkey would tolerate a kurdish state on it's border, by the way. I don't think it's possible to fix this problem -- including your plan about redrawing maps -- without 25 or 30 thousand guys stationed in the country for an unbelievably long period of time, and acting as a deterrent. so, ultimately, my goal here isn't so much to "fix the middle east", which is a mindbogglingly complicated thought, as it is to correct the record.

The way to get Turkey to accept a Kurdish state was there in 2003. Turkey wanted into EU in the biggest way. Give Schlumberger the Halliburton contract for Kurdistan and tell France to tell Turkey that acceptance of Kurdistan is the price of EU membership. Give France the peacekeeping role in Kurdistan, one more problem off our plate. Turkey's real problem is the Kurds within its own borders. Make Kurdistan big enough to hold a few hundred thousand more Kurds, and let the Kurds in Turkey repatriate. Same for Syria.

The disagreement that I have with your statement is that my proposal is not simply "drawing different circles around the same groups of hate filled, atavistic creep jobs." It's redrawing the circles to reflect the realty of the groups, and to separate the groups from each other. The situation would require troops along borders until things settled out, probably an excellent exercise for blue helmets. I would expect Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere to repatriate themselves to Kurdistan, Sunnis to repatriate themselves to Sunni Iraq, Shias to repatriate themselves to Shia Mesopotamia or Alawite Syria, all in significant numbers. Sunni Iraq, by the way, is not going to have much going for it economically in the early going--very little oil or water. I would expect a lot of economic aid from the Saudis to make it work.

The Sunnis of western Iraq and eastern Syria are no longer going to accept Shia rule. They will resort to terrorism if that is their only option. Right now, it is.

what makes the newly aggrieved and persecuted any less deserving of a peaceful, violence free life than the formerly aggrieved and persecuted? who are we to decide which ethnic/religious/gender/what-have-you groups are to be slaughtered, and which are to be saved?

-- and that's assuming that redrawing boundaries really fixes anything. I don't think the borders are the problem, I think the problem is that muslims haven't progressed a single moment beyond their heyday in the 12th century. I would call it a voodoo religion, but it's probably insulting to those who practice voodoo.

I don't think the shias/sunnis/what-have-you will resort to terrorism unless they are placated by throwing them some sort of bone. I think terrorism is simply what they do unless there is, say, a dictator suppressing their terrorist impulse. I think it's their natural condition. the only thing that's going to fix that is (maybe) another 1,000 years of bloodshed, or those 25,000 guys armed guys that we've been talking about.

(08-15-2016 01:21 PM)EagleX Wrote:  what makes the newly aggrieved and persecuted any less deserving of a peaceful, violence free life than the formerly aggrieved and persecuted? who are we to decide which ethnic/religious/gender/what-have-you groups are to be slaughtered, and which are to be saved?

-- and that's assuming that redrawing boundaries really fixes anything. I don't think the borders are the problem, I think the problem is that muslims haven't progressed a single moment beyond their heyday in the 12th century. I would call it a voodoo religion, but it's probably insulting to those who practice voodoo.

I don't think the shias/sunnis/what-have-you will resort to terrorism unless they are placated by throwing them some sort of bone. I think terrorism is simply what they do unless there is, say, a dictator suppressing their terrorist impulse. I think it's their natural condition. the only thing that's going to fix that is (maybe) another 1,000 years of bloodshed, or those 25,000 guys armed guys that we've been talking about.

I don't think those 25,000 armed guys are going to prevent it. And I don't view Muslims as negatively as you do, perhaps because I've spent a fair bit of time in the Arab world including Navy, work, and pleasure trips.

I also get the idea that you think of Muslims as some essentially monolithic group, whereas I see significant differences between Sunnis and Shias, and between Semites and Aryans.