Iraq War III: Return of 'Murica!

The New York Times Article: LINK

As some of you might have heard, President Obama has set out a new plan to use ground forces to combat ISIL. However, according to the president, the resolution would be limited in time (three years) and scope (limited engagement), that it would appeal to both the Republican Party (pro-intervention) and the Democratic Party (non-interventionist), despite that some members of both parties share concerns about opening up another war.

Also I don't know what Iraq WarIII or Iraq War IV will be fought over but I do know how Iraq War V will start: Find our president's head!

I really wanted to use that.

So we're returning back to Iraq, a major mess thanks to the incompetence of the Bush Administration as well as some of our top general's handling of the war effort, but also, somewhat Obama's fault for leaving so early when stability was needed in the region.

Personally, another military adventure in the Middle East is not desirable. Although we have the most powerful military in the world, the political will to keep a counterinsurgency alive and well is impossible. And although the president has set it to three years, this will go on to the next administration and depending on who's elected, either the next president will keep that promise, extend the timeline with those restrictions, or expand the war. Vietnam is a perfect example of escalation from advising to full on war.

So what do you all think?

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY TAX MONEY!

The problem was allowing ISIS to grow and gain as much territory as they did. We sat on our asses for months and months and allowed ISIS to develop a significant stronghold in the region. Now it's going to cost significantly more and take quite a bit longer to undo the damage they have done. ISIS is a far bigger threat then most of the threats we have faced coming out of the middle east. Good chance this won't end well for either side.

A lot this can be traced all the way back to the first gulf war: We destroyed the Iraqi Army but withdrew and placed sanctions against Iraq, essentially letting the Hussein regime live on life support. In the process we made promises to help the Iraqis rebel and when they did, we didn't help. This caused suspicion and friction. Then we invade Iraq in 2003 on false pretenses and false promises leading to an incredibly difficult war in which we were never prepared for, and now we're considering once again to reengage Iraq due to ISIL.

Counterinsurgencies take time, preparation, caution, and long term commitment. I wish we can do more but it will never happen. Perhaps we should have done more by leaving some ground forces in Iraq or committing more aid to moderate Syrian insurgencies against the Assad regime. Or perhaps the best option is to do nothing.

My government is run by suicidal oligarchs. The fuckers only understand war and their bullshit war economy, sorry.

I'll just leave this here...

Man, that JV team sure is creating havoc.

The price for this one should be the repeal of the 2001 and 2002 AUMF's.

Yea I've been keeping up with the recent changes in the announced American strategy for fighting ISIS. What a charade that's what I've been thinking personally. I mean you hear of some of the newly proposed things and how they're being peddled and for an instance you forget this is a war and security related matter and instead think it is some tax reform bill or a proposed amendment to some socioeconomic policy. Had ISIS actually been a threat to the U.S you wouldn't have observed such dissent and schisms within the American regime and political scene. Both democrats and republicans and other governmental agencies and bodies continue to approach the matter from a multitude of backgrounds and motives. The only sane participants of this quarrel are the unequivocally non-interventionist. The rest are up to God knows what. Interventionists seem to be more vocal and powerful as such they'll eventually have their way and the U.S will be back to the region in full scale. This proposal is just paving the way for that and introducing such a reality to the American populace gradually lest they violently convulse.

No one else getting deja vu? Not because of the war, but rather another religious extremest group pops up, highly funded, highly equipped, talking about screwing the western world. Only to have the united states use them as an excuse to enter the strategic, oil and mineral rich area. Now they wouldn't sound a lot like the Taliban would they? You know the CIA funded, started and supported for many years Taliban? Sometimes I hate the world we live in. It's like no one has a clue and everyone's still stuck on dick swaying contests.

will they leak some stories to the nyt about how isis is building WMDs and then cite it as reason for needing to send troops?

Does not compute

I hope he fights in the vanguard.

I thought the CIA was funding the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taliban. The Northern Alliance were the original mujahideen who were fighting the Soviets.

The Taliban came into being after the various mujahideen factions started fighting among themselves. They got pissed off at the constant warfare.

I'm not sure whether this is common knowledge or not, but did you know that most of ISIS military might is actually American? That's right, the U.S somehow decided to leave behind shit load of highly advanced military equipments and to entrust them to some meekly salaried men who ran away in herds leaving all of it for ISIS to commandeer. A while ago, some "unidentified" air carriers flew over ISIS controlled territories and parachuted military support for ISIS affiliated militias and brigades. The whole thing reeks of shiftiness and deception. I don't know why people think its so outrageous and deranged to entertain the possibility that this is all nothing but a farce, or disingenuous in measure at least.

In principle. And only if it's a GOP president.

Would I blow your mind away if I told you that George W. Bush wasn't pro interventionist when he was running in 2001?

Yeah it seems like deja vu. Instability does spread and can affect other bordering countries. Iraq's problems became Syria's problem and could spillover to our allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It could also affect Israel. Not only that, ISIL has committed war crimes against its own populations as well as executed foreign nationals, including Americans. As for the Muhajadeen business in Afghanistan in the 80s, yeah we did fund them but that was before the fact. The biggest mistake after the Soviet left was not helping them rebuild.

Again, wars take time and commitment. We have the strongest military force but we're strategically incompetent thanks to our current politics and ignorance of war.

@GazaAli: Ya shady as hell. A Mentally ill man in our capital of Ottawa shot a off duty soldier in the war museum then managed to walk for 10 minutes, not hindered by any of the 100's of cops/emergency units, on and around parliament hill, up the steps through the field right into the our main governmental building and finally got shot by the master at arms ironically. The story our government tried to spin was it was Isis's doing, and we should all be worried. Though the truth is the man was ill, was known to be ill by both medical doctors and government defense agencies (questionable online behavior) before this all went down, and Isis had nothing to do with it. So ya I don't believe any of the stories surrounding this farce. Especially when most news organization I have access to our American, and in America propaganda is so very much legal, and used on a regular daily bases.

If they are willing to lie about billions of misspent and wasted tax payers dollars, on private corporate contracts and party spending, then they for sure are willing to lie about any old thing they think will make them and their friends get one up on everyone. Hell if I was American I'd be even more distrustful of the ones running for government seats, since big business can just give as much as it wants to any campaign, and I all ready 100% don't trust our politicians.

Also appropriate.

I think if I were to accept ISIS fraudulent nature the expanse of ISIS reach that has been being huckstered in recent months would be the giveaway to convert me. Again we're faced with the same scenario in which a motley, coarse bunch of primitive savages taking shelter in the desert, miraculously bridging savagery and modernity in a strange and inexplicable combination, are threatening world security. When I put it this way I feel so numb thinking this is actually widely accepted and what's galvanizing people to take action.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Al-Qaeda anybody knows? Its been ages since we heard of them.

Then you must not have been paying attention.

Obama already has war powers from the War on Terrorism authorization that Bush got. This is a political move to make sure everybody gets on the record with supporting the actions against ISIS.

You people really need to read more.

I read through two Web pages of that incident in Google News. Only one, the conservative Minority Report Blog, blamed it on ISIS.

Don't see a problem with fighting ISIL.

@doozie78: those aren't ISIS.

Why would you oppose fighting ISIS?

There are several:

No more intervention/meddling to avoid blowback. ISIL's current leader as well as the insurgency that sprung up after 2003 was a byproduct of the US intervention in Iraq back in 2003. Baghdadi was in US custody in an effort to round up suspected insurgents but was released later on. As for the 2003 insurgency, we indirectly created a insurgent network that allowed itself to form and communicate, which ultimately led to increased fighting and then the surge in 2005(?) And no, this isn't conspiracy nonsense, it actually happened.

They didn't attack us directly. They may harm our allies and interests but in the end, that's their business, not ours. Our allies should fend for themselves. ISIL did kill US civilians however so I'll give you that.

It costs money. We put the cost of the 2003 Iraq War on a credit card. The American taxpayer didn't pay a dime for the war and that was a mistake. If we did go to war again and if it does expand, could we pay for it again? Put it on a credit card again? How will our economy fare?

ISIL may be losing ground. Fierce resistance and growing dissatifaction among the ranks could dismantle ISIL itself. Attacking them could embolden them and leader to a more united ISIL which could draw more foreign and domestic fighters.

There are good reason for not intervening.

there will always be medieval bloodthirsty religions morons in the middle east as long as it relies on theocracies, religious laws, and clan mentality. Hard to fight that with bombs and bullets, but the kurds seem to be doing quite well.

Obomber is like Black Bush...only not nearly as funny.

Virtually nothing of what he wrote about that incident is true/accurate.

I was wondering when the war withdrawl symptoms were going to kick in.

the canadians need a "loose change" video to uncover the facts.

Stop meddling in the ME for ****s sake. There are human rights violations being committed all over the globe; we can't keep being the world police all the time! IMO American involvement in ME politics (and the fact that we invaded and killed quite a lot of civilians) is what lead to the instability of the region. Consequently, the US is also in a crap ton of debt as it is; can we really afford another war? I really feel for those people being killed but it should be someone else's problem (i.e. UAE and Saudi - where you guys at?); not ours.

You know whats going to happen one or more of those American "advisors" are going to get caught and beheaded and they'll use that to start another war and probably as a excuse to invade Syria while they're at it.