Can US save Iraq ?

If that's not account ban-able I don't know what is any more....

Well he is the one in office making the decisions and has been for the past 6 years. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

EXACTLY THIS.

many more people need to stop going at eachothers throats about "get involved" or "dont get involved" and focus on this particular issue. These problems will happen until the people who actually live there sort themselves out. It may by cynical to say but i firmly believe that if these people want to fight each other for whatever their beliefs we should not get involved. What we should do is offer neutral ground to dispense aid such as food, water and medical attention to civilians ONLY and protect only civilians should they come to us. Again it may be cold to say but this is one of those scenarios that has been in the making for a long time and has to work itself out, there is nothing we can do other than stand by and aid the civilian population as much as humanly possible.

Apparently for you it does if you dont remember the criminals that got us involved there under false pretenses in the first place *cough cheney *cough Condi *cough G.W.

Obama by no means has a clean record either. He has his own crimes to answer for but if you are going to drag him out in the streets you better drag most people that have been in/are in congress since 2000 out as well, or not at all. You cant cherry pick this.

I just think that part of the world is too different for anything the west does to have a long term effect.

Wow, you're not only a terrible poster, but also horribly misinformed about Americans as well. You must just be a joy in real life, sniper.

Are you for real? Irak was better under Saddam than after Dubya. If anything the US should step back before they make things worse.

The thing is, this sectarian tension is rather recent to Iraq, it is not inherent to the state, at least not to such intensity. Iraq did live without sectarian animosity for a considerable period of time which means that Iraq is not perpetually or inherently incompatible with having different sects living in the same country in functioning harmony. The American invasion stirred this shit up. It really irks me when people forget rather quickly how things in the Middle East got to this point and how Iraq arrived to the current status quo. They look at the reality of some Middle Eastern states and just shrug while saying "Its the Middle East, duh. These people are fucked any way" "Let's just send drones or break up this or that state into impotent, miniature states" "Let's impose sanctions!". What you're saying regarding the inevitability of breaking up Iraq is fallacious because had it not been for American nosiness we most probably wouldn't have been here in the first place. There is no such a thing as the "Middle Eastern effect". The current shitty status quo is to a large extent the product of colonialism, meddling with the affairs of the region and (and I know you won't like this) the creation of an artificial state that is backed by the sweeping majority of world's powers as some sort of a post to keep an eye on the region or as repentance for what some people did to some others. If the U.S did not invade Iraq and if it didn't endorse and back the Malki's regime, which proved itself to be an Iranian tributary regime, Iraq wouldn't have been going through this. As I said earlier, there is pretty much nothing "Islamic" about ISIS brigades currently operating in Iraq as they have a large number of ex-Iraqi generals and other remnants of Saddam's regime, a regime that was highly secular. What's going on in Iraq at the moment is for the most part the taking up of arms by a somewhat minority to preserve its existence and preventing its abolition. Current hostilities started as demonstrations, then they progressed to be civil unrest and strife and finally it developed to the current armed insurrection. The U.S could have intervened at any point and contained the situation but, par for the course recently, decided to step aside and watch. Now Kerry speaks of America's decisive and unequivocal support to Iraq which in my book is the specter of another prolonged wave of drones' undiscriminating killing sprees and proxy war.

The U.S is supposed to be the archenemy of Tehran yet I'm still unable of getting my head around the reality that the U.S packed home and practically left Iraq for Tehran.

Speaking of Egypt, the U.S tried to pull the same shit off when it helped the fascist brotherhood to rise into power. The Egyptian society proved to be much more resilient and homogeneous than was calculated though.

We could best save Iraq by doing nothing. All we end up doing is get involved in Middle Eastern affairs, and as a result we get struck with terrorist attacks and then our media blames religious extremists, while completely ignoring how the U.S.A is responsible for these conflicts in the first place. No fucking shit a smaller force is going to use terrorism and guerilla warfare to fight their enemies. The best thing the U.S.A. could do is keep to itself, but that's not very imperialistic, nor does it encourage globalization. The sooner the U.S.A. realizes that the entire world doesn't have to adhere Western culture, the better the Earth will become.

Nah you're just being an America's hater.

The only thing that can save countries like Iraq is a thriving economy. Poverty breeds crime and desperation. Poverty, particularly in ME countries, breeds radicals.

@GazaAli:

I'm not so sure Iraq was lacking sectarian problems, its just they had a dictator like Saddam (or his predecessors in the Baathist movement) to keep people quiet. Id actually argue that in the long term , nationalist dictators like Saddam , Assad or Gaddafi did more harm than good on that front since they themselves often acted in a sectarian manner , whether its Saddam and the Sunni Arabs in Iraq, Assad and the Alawites in Syria , or Gadaffi and his tribe, it doesn't help when the guy preaching nationalism and unity is sectarian himself.

Now whether the Americans should have removed Saddam is another question, but claiming Iraq had no sectarian animosity is untrue, the gassing of the Kurds , or the religious restrictions on Shia at the time show otherwise. The fact that alot of the support Daash gets is from Sunni secularists , former Baathists and tribal leaders doesn't change that

you are forgetting that frankly most states in the region are artificial, almost all (save some like Egypt) were created following the first world war by European powers, and that is the issue in the region.

This is a dubious claim considering that Syria is going through pretty much the same exact problem (along the same sectarian lines no less) without the US having invaded beforehand.

Our entrance strategy isn't the issue, which is what GW gets to take credit for. It is our exit strategy that is the issue and Obama takes credit for that. Like I said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

I don't think its a matter of us saving them, after all the type of resentment between the tribes goes to a time before the freaking crusades. The truth is that Iraq was just a provincial name given to the land by colonial powers and whose borders were basically just legal markings. So you get the same thing as India and Pakistan while they were part of the British Empire, two groups of people who HATE each other forced into one country. The difference is that in India and Pakistan both sides (Muslims and Hindus) went to their own side of the former colony and made their own countries (and fought numerous and bloody wars since.) Saddam was able to stay in power by blowing the hell out of the opposite tribe and ruling by fear.

I see three states coming out of this. The Shiite Malaki Iraq gov in the south, backed by Iran, the ISIS Sunni in the West backed or at least tolerated by the Saudi Arabians, and the Kurds to the North, hated by everyone.

The sad truth is the "best" outcome for us is to either try to decapitate the extremists offensive (which we have no will for) and may not work or just back off and let this millennia long conflict between Shia and Sunni go on, knowing full well that it can evolve into a full blown regional war with Ridyah and Tehran burning and most of the worlds energy supplies getting smashed.

The humanitarian part of me is saddened because this will be the deaths of tens maybe hundreds of thousands and untold levels of human suffering. The Machiavellian part of me simply acknowledges that this is a great way to get two groups of people who hate us (ISIS and the fanatics that attract them and the Iranians) busy killing each other. And the pragmatic part of me knows this is going to be a $^!* storm that would probably lead to an energy crisis and conflicts elsewhere (like the energy rich East China sea where China has been pushing out our allies for that sweet energy.)

What a world eh?

Its funny that you brought up Syria. It is true that what Syria is going through right now was not the product of U.S actions, but the progression of the situation to its current abysmal state is, at least to a considerable extent, the product of U.S' policy of inaction and idleness. When the Syrian uprising went the military route, the U.S took it upon itself to arm the resistance and provide logistical support to it. It did a shit job in that and did not allow others to do a better one under the pretense of "step aside, we're handling it". Furthermore, it continued to give empty promises while preventing other regional players from actively and effectively getting involved. The SFA, which is the non-fundamentalist and moderate portion of anti-Assad insurgents who started the armed struggle against the Assad regime, was on the verge of complete annihilation had it not been for the KSA, the strongest and most strategic ally of the U.S, who eventually got fed up with U.S' policies towards the Syrian situation and decided to act on its own. In recent months, it flooded the SFA with as much support as it can get through to them in order to continue fighting Al-Assad regime AND Al-Qaida affiliated militants and organizations who gained ground in Syria only recently as a result of the U.S' failure to react properly to the situation there. It is not far fetched that the KSA is probably supporting some of the forces fighting the Malki's regime in order to prevent Iraq from becoming an Iranian post and tributary state thus limiting Iran's influence in the entire region.

If the U.S does not want fingers to be pointed at it it should simply abstain from getting involved in other people's business and let them sort their shit out. Its really simple. You don't get to police the world AND claim inculpability and no liability at the same time.

only person that could keep Iraq in check was Saddam.. let them kill each other

I don't think there exists a single society out there with no tension between minorities, ethnic groups, religious groups or any other antithetical groups. It is a matter of how to manage that tension. To this day, there is tension between whites and blacks in the U.S, Walloon and Flemish in Belgium, western and eastern Germans...etc but those respective societies seem to function properly. Saddam was a shit dictator, but he managed somehow to control that tension. He was brutal with whoever might try to disrupt that balance, be it Shiite, Kurd or Sunni, but it would be untruthful to say that he did not favor Sunnis to an extent, although it never culminated to the volume of Malki's favoritism of Iraqi Shiite. But most importantly, whether the situation would have inevitably progressed to the current status quo is something that can never be validated. On the other hand, the claim that the American invasion of Iraq led to the current situation can and is being thoroughly validated. When dealing with the hypothetical and the concrete, the latter will always prevail and trump the other. Reality supports the culpability of the U.S in relation to the demise of the Iraqi state and at the same time the inevitable progression of Iraq under Saddam's regime to the failure of the Iraqi state and society remains hypothetical and unproven.

The states may be artificial in the sense that those lines on the map are only recent, but the peoples are not alien or new to the region.

@sibu_xgamer:

Exactly as much as I hate saddam (I'm originally from Iraq) but at least saddam used to kill people who oppose him only but now Iraqi people are getting killed left and right without any reason but trying to live normal life (I actually got three cousins who died due to random suicidal bombing while they were shopping)

@GazaAli:

in some ways you are correct , those states have issues, but you forget one single element, all of these societies you mentioned went through both the European enlightenment and urbanization, it might not be perfect, but those 2 events meant that things like traditional societies, excessive role of religion in the state, and such , things like race play less of a role, even in America blacks and whites are not massacring each other, especially after the end of slavery and segregation.

remember that a country like the US or the countries of Western Europe place far more emphasis on the individual than on a specific group , urbanization as well as individuals immigrating to the US and more or less leaving behind their old identity helps keep harsh sectarianism at bay. Also for east and west Germany the problem is not identity , its politics, its not as though East Germans feel more in common with other former soviet states than with western Germans.

most of the Middle East has not really gone though anything like that, there is still a big emphasis on community , and the state never really managed to replace the local or religious loyalties with national ones. So once a western system suited to individuals is implemented, its obvious sectarian politics will be the result. if you want to go back to the earlier example of Germany, you know alot of Shias in Iraq for instance feel closer to the Shias of Iran , or the Shias or Lebanon , than they do to Sunni Arabs or Kurds in Iraq.

obviously the people in the Middle East are not new, but neither are their feuds, histories, cultures, and that is what I am arguing, that in some cases it might be better to reorganize countries, based more on those things , even if I know its mostly theoretical.

@GazaAli:

here for instance is a comparison between the US , and many Middle Eastern nations.

in the US, a mostly white population elected Obama , twice , to me this shows that outside a small minority wearing silly white pajamas and shouting racist rants, enough Americans are not voting based on race, or religion , or where he was born ( Im talking about specific areas in the US). At the same time, Obama isn't appointing his cabinet based on race, or abusing the rights of other races, probably because he sees them first as Americans , with race being secondary at best.

compare that to the countries in the Middle East where people tend to support someone based in large part on his religion , ethnic group or tribe. Can you imagine Iraqi Sunnis voting for a Shia candidate? how about a Egyptians electing a Christian for president? possibly, but its a lot less likely.

now , Im not saying it will never happen , heck in the US the thought of electing a black president would have prompted laughter from people even 40 years ago , so one day it may happen, but not under the current situation

Most of us do not suffer from PTSD.

On average, it seems that 20% of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have either depression, PTSD, TBI or a combination of those. I'd say that's quite high. Also, alcohol abuse is reported to be considerably high among veterans, which is to be expected.

If that's actually the percentage, then my point still stands: Most of us don't have PTSD.

Side note: You know Jebus is a troll, so why would you stoop to his level and make fun of a condition that some people suffer from? That's about as shameful as the things that he said.

I'm glad you brought up the European enlightenment and the urbanization of Europe as I originally intended to brought that up myself but it slipped my mind. Europe had the luxury of making the natural transition into its current form of society, a liberty that the Middle East seems to be actively denied. You can't simply bestow enlightenment upon people. When the focus in European societies shifted from the community into the individual, it happened naturally, it was the natural progression of the historical movement of these societies. And when Europe decided on democracy as its theory of political philosophy of choice to govern its societies, no one attempted to coerce it into doing so. Much of the wars and the meddling in the affairs of the Middle East happened with the pretense of "spreading democracy". May be we don't want to be ruled by democracy and may be we do want that but the important thing is that it should be left to us to decide and it should be the result of the natural progression of things.

Its theoretical at best. No one would willingly disintegrate or fragment his homeland. Israel, which is a state that pretty much was founded by depriving some other people of their land and kicking them out, still find it extremely difficult to let go of the west bank and allow for geographical integrity between the west bank and the Gaza strip despite the fact that the total area of Palestinian Territories is just scraps compared to the total area of mandatory Palestine. Keeping in mind that Israel is an occupying force at least in regards to the west bank and Gaza strip seeing how it maintains an iron fist over the borders of the region and the decisive affairs of the population.

I'm not sure if 20% isn't significant enough to constitute a phenomenon or a prevalence.

I actually don't recall having an image of a troll for Jebus in my mind. Troll or not, I shouldn't have stoop to his level, I assent to that.

So the US is at fault when it gets too involved in a country

and the US is at fault when it doesn't get involved enough in a country

lolk

And you didn't really address my point, you just went on an anti-America tangent. You originally claimed that the situation in Iraq would've been avoided had the US invaded. Obviously you can't say that considering that US intervention isn't necessary for a sectarian war to break out in the region.

What?

Also:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/how-obamas-syria-policy-fell-apart-101704.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/opinion/cupp-obama-syria/

http://thehill.com/policy/international/208057-ex-us-ambassador-to-syria-could-no-longer-defend-us-syria-policy

http://online.wsj.com/articles/critics-obamas-foreign-policy-failed-to-squelch-extremism-in-iraq-1402859038

I'm not one to attempt to legitimize my own views on something through pulling some articles from the Internet, we all can do that after all. But this is to show you that what I'm talking about is no "Anti-America tangent" and is very real.

@GazaAli:

here is the chance to have an enlightenment of some kind, I honestly don't think that if history was different , these countries or identities would exist. would there have been Jordanians?Lebanese?Palestinians?Libyans? , Im not so sure.so is it worth preserving these countries? that in itself is a good question.

and you know what? even us Jews have that issue to some extent, there is a question to be asked, what does one put first, his Jewishness? or him being an Israeli? that is actually , philosophically speaking a question thats at least 2000 years old in one form or another.

that's a great excuse if you're an idiot

If these national identities did not exist, what would have replaced them? And if we are not to preserve these countries, what would occupy their geographical area? Don't get me wrong, its not that I'm evangelical about those identities and states per say; after all, they are the products of colonialism just like you said. But I'm more concerned about damage control. If the existence of these identities supposedly is causing all this bloodshed and instability, fragmenting them further is not the answer.

And regarding the question of national identity versus religious one, that is an issue all religious states suffer from in the 21st century and I don't have an answer for that kind of dissonance.

thats a question that really only the Syrians, Lebanese and such can answer. Think about it, 100 years ago this area was the Shaam (or Greater Syria) , so who knows..

if those identities are not to be broken m then they need to have a European style enlightenment, or get to the point where old feuds between tribes or sects aren't as big of an issue, but it only happen after alot of bloodshed, remember it wasn't that long ago that Europeans were killing each other for religion in large numbers..or on the concept or race.

Its not actually a religious idea , its more that that, nor is it new. since its not the topic at hand I won't go further into it here, I will PM you and explain what i mean in greater detail

Be sure to remember that Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the Iraq War. That was her judgment.

Good thing it is fact and not an excuse, but it seems you are full of excuses. No surprise there. Obama is full of excuses as well. You and he have something in common.

There simply is no saving countries in that region. It comes down to people with lack of education and religious ideologies that determine this. If you look at most hard line countries over there they literally need a strong man in charge. In Iran the government rules with a iron fist even though the people do have some freedom. In Iraq before we invaded, Saddam Hussein was a brutal strong arm dictator which kept Islamic terrorists at bay since he was harder on them then the US could ever be. Now the conflict in Syria is going on and the world wants to help oust another strong arm dictator in Assad. Each time we take down one of these leaders we are just sitting up brand new safe havens for future Islamic fundamentalists that feel like doing harm to people. People in westernized countries need to finally get it through there head that democracy as we know it just won't work in those countries at this point in time.

Now after saying that I feel the USA needs to stay 100% out of this. This should be left up to the Iraqi people to defend themselves. They have had over a decade to set up a formidable military and what have they done? They set up military fighters who surrender by the hundreds if not thousands to a technologically inferior fighting force. If ISIS begins to take too much control Iran will step in or even Saudi Arabia and Jordan since ISIS poses a threat to the stability of the surrounding areas. Leave it to other countries in the area and Iraq to determine it's own fate right now.

Yeah no, you did in fact go on an anti-America tangent

>you say that if the US didn't invade Iraq, the country wouldn't be dissolving in a sectarian civil war atm

>I say "not so fast, US invasion is obviously not a necessary pre-condition for sectarian civil war in the region; see Syria"

>Instead of addressing this point you instead tangentally go on a rant about how US policy is to blame in Syria as well

Maybe Iraq is like Starling City : "It can't be saved. Because the people there don't want it to be saved". Of course the U.S. shouldn't emulate Malcolm's logic and actions here.

I'm afraid Iraq is a lost cause. We can keep pouring resources into it but that'll be like putting a Band-Aid over a gushing arterial wound.

Hate to say this, but we should just let the country partition into different states based on culture and make new deals.