• 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!

Opinion: The Third Iraq War

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
U.S. Naval Institute

Opinion: The Third Iraq War

By: Cmdr. Daniel Dolan

In the Naval War College’s Strategy and Policy course students have an opportunity to critically analyze both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). These two historical case studies are commonly referred to by students and faculty alike as the First Iraq War and the Second Iraq War. Now, before us we see the Third Iraq War unfolding. Despite what some pundits and former administration officials are saying America is still playing an active role in Iraq’s wars.
An overlooked fact is America’s wars in Iraq make the conflict the longest war in U.S. history. Like two geographer friends of mine that like to argue over whether the Amazon or Nile is the longest river on the planet—it all depends on where you start. Most historians would put the date that America’s wars with Iraq began as 8 August 1990 when then President George H.W. Bush gave his famous “line in the sand speech.” It has been 24 years from that line to today.What has America learned in a quarter century of direct, and often kinetic, engagement in the cradle of civilization?

From the military historian’s armchair, watching the news unfold on the situation in Iraq today feels like watch a documentary about Vietnam backwards; in Vietnam America escalated its involvement from a few advisors to heavy conventional operations, but in Iraq we moved from heavy conventional operations to advisors that are reluctant to get too involved in combat operations.

The large conventional operations that typified the first two Iraq wars will not be ours to own this time. Clarifying this point, on June 19, President Obama spoke about the ensuing crisis stating specifically, “American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.”The boots on the ground will be Iraqi soldiers with America providing intelligence, training, assistance, and perhaps a few drone strikes for what can best be described as a full blown sectarian civil war.

In an odd twist, many of the Iraq and Syria Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) forces that we will be helping the Iraqi Army fight are the same militants that just a few months ago many on Capitol Hill were pleading to arm and equip. This however was when these same Sunni militants were in Syria fighting against the Alawite and Shia Syrian government forces. As long as they were fighting Shia forces in Syria they were being promoted by some American leaders as the Sunni militant good guys that needed our support, but now that they have turned their attention against the Shia controlled Iraqi government they the world’s most dangerous terrorists. If you are confused by all of this, don’t worry—you’re not alone. Take it as an indication of just how complex the situation is in Iraq and Syria today..."<

continue -> Opinion: The Third Iraq War | USNI News
 
Nice article.

But the people that should have been helped in Syria were mostly not the present terrorists. They started dribbling in somewhat later. Had the Europeans faced the responsibility they always demand of the US, they would have not only helped the opposition before the terrorists could establish themselves. They would have removed the Assad family immediately after the dictator had begun crushing the demonstrators.
 

Trying to control a situation that would eventually overflow with terrorism, regardless of what you do or who you arm, is a difficult needle to thread.
 
Trying to control a situation that would eventually overflow with terrorism, regardless of what you do or who you arm, is a difficult needle to thread.

And just because something is difficult you don't try? It can be done, you know.
That is a cool excuse. Are you German?
 
And just because something is difficult you don't try?
That is a cool excuse. Are you German?

How do you try? Sometimes pouring arms into a situation only makes things worse.

 
How do you try? Sometimes pouring arms into a ......]

I don't think I said pouring weapons in would have been enough. Actually, that is what happened. The Saudis fed the opposition somewhat indiscriminately, while Russia and Europe had already done so for the dictator.
 
I don't think I said pouring weapons in would have been enough. Actually, that is what happened. The Saudis fed the opposition somewhat indiscriminately, while Russia and Europe had already done so for the dictator.

So what's your solution?
 
The mindset that eradicating one group of terrorists will end terrorism is a logical, rational perspective? Really? Is it possible that the death of one fundamentalist/terrorists group might be the motivation to give birth to another.

bin Laden was indeed a evil dude. But his death didn't end Al Qaeda.

Reminds me of another mindset years ago.

Take down a little communist nation is southern Asia...then all of the rest will get the message and turn into a democracy. Uh huh, yeah..... right.
 

Democracy, human rights and justice can virtually end terrorism.
 
So what's your solution?

It is certainly more difficult and much more expensive to prevent what is now happening than it would have been, had the neighborhood taken their responsibility to be protect seriously.
 
Okay....if you say so. We'll see said the blind man to his deaf brother.

Democracies (including human rights and justice) rarely, if ever, go to war against each other. Terrorism lives not in the heart of human rights but tyranny.
 
Democracies (including human rights and justice) rarely, if ever, go to war against each other. Terrorism lives not in the heart of human rights but tyranny.

Okay.....
 
It is certainly more difficult and much more expensive to prevent what is now happening than it would have been, had the neighborhood taken their responsibility to be protect seriously.

So what pre-emptive measures are you advocating? I really don't understand your point, if you have one. Maybe I'm too German to 'get it'.
 
So what pre-emptive measures are you advocating? I really don't understand your point, if you have one. Maybe I'm too German to 'get it'.

When Assad started killing demonstrators Europe with the other neighbors and UN or without them should have stopped it.
 
When Assad started killing demonstrators Europe with the other neighbors and UN or without them should have stopped it.

If the US can't get UN or Europe support, what should it do? The will to get involved in foreign conflicts has been squandered. Aside from sanctions, the US doesn't have many tools.
 
What if we said, "Hmmm, looks like one group that is INSIDE Iraq (call them ISIS) is dissatisfied with another group INSIDE Iraq (call them the Iraqi government). Until someone attacks a NATO ally, or the UN Security Council adopts a binding resolution, we shall treat this as an internal, civil matter, and not become involved."

How novel would that be?!!
 
If the US can't get UN or Europe support, what should it do? The will to get involved in foreign conflicts has been squandered. Aside from sanctions, the US doesn't have many tools.

It is not for the US to solve everyone's problems. That should be done by the neighbors under the auspices of the UN. The US should help but not shoulder it like it has for so long. You're trying to fob off responsibility on the US is typical of European behavior excepting France and UK, who have taken responsibility a number of times.
 
Democracies (including human rights and justice) rarely, if ever, go to war against each other. Terrorism lives not in the heart of human rights but tyranny.

Then Democracies have incidents like Waco.....and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Using the rationale that Democracies rarely go to war with each other and that there is Justice. How does this stop terrorism?
 
Democracy, human rights and justice can virtually end terrorism.

I don't agree. Some terrorist organizations have goals that have little to do with democracy, seek to deprive people of basic liberties, and strive to impose harsh forms of judgment. Those groups are driven by ideology and identity. I do believe democracy, human rights, and justice would reduce terrorism, but would be largely irrelevant to the ideology/identity-driven groups.
 
I don't agree. Some terrorist organizations have goals that have little to do with democracy, seek to deprive people of basic liberties, and strive to impose harsh forms of judgment.

Notice, I included human rights and justice explicitly.

I do believe democracy, human rights, and justice would reduce terrorism, but would be largely irrelevant to the ideology/identity-driven groups.

Things change.
 

What? Are you accusing me of something? I'm not trying to 'fob off' responsibility on anyone. I'm not from Europe.
 
What? Are you accusing me of something? I'm not trying to 'fob off' responsibility on anyone. I'm not from Europe.

Well then fob off would be wrong. But then, don't take on other countries' responsibility as our's. This is what is happening.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…