Political Roundtable - Part V

[dobrojim]

quick comment re ISIS/Iraq/BHO.

SOFA - you guys know what that is ? Status of Forces agreements.
That is the legal underpinning (btw 2 countries) to having troops in another country.
Bush negotiated the SOFA with Iraq that called for our withdrawl.
Which I'd argue might be the only smart thing he did wrt Iraq while POTUS.
How would all sides have reacted if BHO had attempted to renegotiate the SOFA
or to ignore it in favor of continued occupation?
I'm talking Iraqis, Americans of whatever ideology, everyone.

all you interventionists need to define your success criteria and exit strategy
as well as how your intervention will be both paid for and actually implemented.
I've yet to hear anything approaching something that could be described as pragmatic.
What about your preferred intervention will make it successful in contrast to the
last 60 plus years of US attempted intervention in the region?

but I digress -

I hope everyone had a chance to read the piece on the front page of yesterday's Post about the
young agendered person (biological female). Very educational.

[Induveca]

The U.S. Pulled out of a SOFA renegotiation initiated by Iraq in 2011. US military leaders had been publicly requesting such an extension since late 2010.

http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/ ... e_the_sofa

They were either unable or unwilling to negotiate successfully with Iraq. The Sunnis in particular made their desires for a residual US force well known, as did US military commanders (they recommended 20k residual troops during the renegotiation process). Here is a great article in the Post back in 2011 which provides great insight to this huge blunder....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

And an even better view on the entire SOFA handling by Obama and his administration. Worth a read.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... al-debate/

[dckingsfan]

It also reminds me of the difference between the end of WWI and WWII - where we left troops in Europe and Japan. What followed was many years of relative peace in Europe.

At the end of WWI the isolationists wanted to pull back. Why should we be involved. Pretty much the same stand as Obama. It just never ends well - and we are always inevitably sucked back in.

History has a way of repeating itself...

[Zonkerbl]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

ISIS is Syria and Iraq's problem. We withdrew from Iraq because ME politics are NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS.

Maybe if France and those other bedwetters in the EU would get their act together there wouldn't have been an ISIS problem in the first place?

Sorry, I'm moderate on other things but I think we just have absolutely no business sticking our noses into a situation where anything we do will just make it worse. The ME is the EU's problem - let them solve it. I'm tired of pulling France's fat ass out of the fire and then getting criticized for it. You are RIGHT THERE - YOU FIX IT.

The EU ROASTED US for going into Iraq. Fine - we're out, just like you wanted. Now you deal with the consequences.

I don't think this has anything to do with Obama. Bush rushed us into a war in Iraq that we had absolutely no business starting. Obama was absolutely correct to drag us out. And we should stay out.

[dobrojim]

I repeat

all you interventionists need to define your success criteria and exit strategy
as well as how your intervention will be both paid for and actually implemented.
I've yet to hear anything approaching something that could be described as pragmatic.
What about your preferred intervention will make it successful in contrast to the
last 60 plus years of US attempted intervention in the region?

[Induveca]

I repeat

all you interventionists need to define your success criteria and exit strategy
as well as how your intervention will be both paid for and actually implemented.
I've yet to hear anything approaching something that could be described as pragmatic.
What about your preferred intervention will make it successful in contrast to the
last 60 plus years of US attempted intervention in the region?

It's simple you build a military base, stock it full of 20k troops and remain there. Much like the US has done in Japan, Germany and S. Korea. There is no exit strategy. You take a defined military best practice and run with it. That was the recommendation by top military brass.

Or, alternatively wait until ISIS takes over more of the region, attacks a US ally (Jordan and Kuwait are up next) and we have to send even more troops at a greater cost. But with a few more beheadings and ISIS in Jordan within a few hundred miles of Israel two "allies" will be threatened and forces deployed. Any politician can backtrack in that scenario.

Sadly, the Kurds and Iraq themselves proclaimed "allies" were already abandoned causing this scenario......

[nate33]

FWIW, I side with the "isolationist wing" here.

The way I see it, there is absolutely no end game in the Middle East. The problem is that we aren't fighting a nation state with a target-rich environment. We are fighting an ideology that hides behind women and children when convenient, but then comes out and whines about our imperialism when they need sympathy from the "world community".

The fact is, democracies like us aren't built to fight wars like this. We will inevitably take half-measures in an effort to avoid collateral damage, yet we will still stimulate anti-Western hostility in the region and provide a constant source of new recruits for the enemy. Our dollars spent funding and training "moderate Muslims" will either be wasted or end up in the hands of the fanatics. Think about it, when have "moderate Muslims" ever stood up to the fanatic Muslims? The only ones that have are people like Saddam and al-Assad, which is just exchanging the devil that we know for another devil. Ultimately, we will waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and remain at Square 1, with an ideologically hostile enemy who is motivated to continue to oppose us.

The only way to win this thing is to make a brutal ground assault, seize vast swaths of strategic land, then take over the oil fields in order to fund the occupation. We don't have the balls to do such a thing, so there is no point in even discussing it.

I say we pull out entirely. The big problem is that this will allow terrorist organizations to thrive in the region, and they will go on to commit more mischief elsewhere. I think the best approach is to fight terrorism defensively rather than offensively. After pulling out of the Middle East, we should immediately deport all non-citizens who are from any of these fanatic Muslim countries; and halt all future immigration from these countries. We should then tighten our border security (north and south) and maintain a close watch on the mosques in our own country. Some are more fanatic than others, and I'm sure Homeland Security knows which ones are the most troubling.

Get the fanatics out of here and let them fight each other in the Middle East. Either the fighting will continue endlessly (without involving our people and our money) or one side will be victorious and emerge as the Caliphate. At least then, we will have an actual nation-state to oppose, and if push comes to shove, we would finally have a conventional war with conventional targets.

The only problem with my plan is the fate of Israel. I say let them take care of themselves. If they can't hold out without our help, the door is open for them to immigrate here. I'd happily endorse the mass immigration of such a smart, enterprising, and well-educated population.

[dckingsfan]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

[dckingsfan]

Bush rushed us into a war in Iraq that we had absolutely no business starting.

Agreed.

[nate33]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

Because Hitler was strong enough to potentially wage war against us and win. Nobody in the Middle East has that kind of power. They can only be a nuisance. They can't threaten our viability as a nation.

[Zonkerbl]

I think the solution is to pull out of the ME entirely, and then if we ever get hit by a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we should nuke Paris.

[dckingsfan]

I think the solution is to pull out of the ME entirely, and then if we ever get hit by a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we should nuke Paris.

OK, I started laughing... helped you out with green font

[dckingsfan]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

Because Hitler was strong enough to potentially wage war against us and win. Nobody in the Middle East has that kind of power. They can only be a nuisance. They can't threaten our viability as a nation.

I would add one more - the war atrocities... I would say we are on the wrong side of the Rwandan Genocide.

Please note that we still didn't engage with Hitler until Pearl Harbor. Was that a wise move?

[Zonkerbl]

Ugh, don't get me started. We basically waited to see if Russia would win, and only when it became obvious that Russia was going to win we invaded Normandy. By the time we invaded Stalin told us, thanks for nothing. We're going to win anyway but I guess we welcome your help since the number of Russians who have to die will be less.

The stupid thing is the reason Russia became a superpower is the massive jump forward they had to make in industrializing as a result of having to win WWII essentially single handed. If we had invaded a year earlier we could've taken out Hitler and the USSR would've still been a relative backwater. And Russians would've been really, really grateful, instead of really, really resentful.

[dobrojim]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

Really bad analogy.

Every time an intervention is deemed necessary the ones calling for it roll out
the Hitler analogy. The situations are not analogous.

[dobrojim]

I repeat

all you interventionists need to define your success criteria and exit strategy
as well as how your intervention will be both paid for and actually implemented.
I've yet to hear anything approaching something that could be described as pragmatic.
What about your preferred intervention will make it successful in contrast to the
last 60 plus years of US attempted intervention in the region?

It's simple you build a military base, stock it full of 20k troops and remain there. Much like the US has done in Japan, Germany and S. Korea. There is no exit strategy. You take a defined military best practice and run with it. That was the recommendation by top military brass.

Or, alternatively wait until ISIS takes over more of the region, attacks a US ally (Jordan and Kuwait are up next) and we have to send even more troops at a greater cost. But with a few more beheadings and ISIS in Jordan within a few hundred miles of Israel two "allies" will be threatened and forces deployed. Any politician can backtrack in that scenario.

Sadly, the Kurds and Iraq themselves proclaimed "allies" were already abandoned causing this scenario......

You ignored the last question....what is it about your proposed intervention that is
different qualitatively from previous interventions and that gives us some reasonable
expectation that 1) it will actually produce the desired outcome and 2) won't
bankrupt us in the process.

I will point out that a significant portion of what motivated OBL was the presence of
US troops in Saudi Arabia. That led directly to 911.

[nate33]

You ignored the last question....what is it about your proposed intervention that is
different qualitatively from previous interventions and that gives us some reasonable
expectation that 1) it will actually produce the desired outcome and 2) won't
bankrupt us in the process.

I will point out that a significant portion what motivated OBL was the presence of
US troops in Saudi Arabia. That led directly to 911.

I know I should just use the "And 1" button, but this needed to be repeated for emphasis. All the war mongers on both sides of the political aisle steadfastly fail to address this point. They merely conclude that "we've got to do something" even though there is no track record whatsoever that suggests that "something" is better than "nothing". If "something" is going to cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, while making no headway, I'm not interested.

[Zonkerbl]

Why is ISIS Obama's problem?

Why was Hitler a US problem?

By Godwin's law, you automatically lose this argument.

[Zonkerbl]

I repeat

all you interventionists need to define your success criteria and exit strategy
as well as how your intervention will be both paid for and actually implemented.
I've yet to hear anything approaching something that could be described as pragmatic.
What about your preferred intervention will make it successful in contrast to the
last 60 plus years of US attempted intervention in the region?

It's simple you build a military base, stock it full of 20k troops and remain there. Much like the US has done in Japan, Germany and S. Korea. There is no exit strategy. You take a defined military best practice and run with it. That was the recommendation by top military brass.

Or, alternatively wait until ISIS takes over more of the region, attacks a US ally (Jordan and Kuwait are up next) and we have to send even more troops at a greater cost. But with a few more beheadings and ISIS in Jordan within a few hundred miles of Israel two "allies" will be threatened and forces deployed. Any politician can backtrack in that scenario.

Sadly, the Kurds and Iraq themselves proclaimed "allies" were already abandoned causing this scenario......

You ignored the last question....what is it about your proposed intervention that is
different qualitatively from previous interventions and that gives us some reasonable
expectation that 1) it will actually produce the desired outcome and 2) won't
bankrupt us in the process.

I will point out that a significant portion what motivated OBL was the presence of
US troops in Saudi Arabia. That led directly to 911.

I understood the whole post was in an implied green font.

[Induveca]

Nate, the main issue is there is no other option for the U.S. With ISIS advancing on Syria, that puts them a few hundred miles from the borders of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both are extremely close allies.

Israel, in particular any US politician will bend over backwards to assist. Promises of immediate support in case of war, along with billions of dollars have gone to Israel from the U.S. Treasury for decades.

If you are looking for why the why outcome would be different, look at Bush Sr's gulf war. It castrated Hussein permanently. Sadly, Bush Jr. invaded for a fabricated reason and the results were horrific.