ISIS

[Dill]

(11-11-2016, 12:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In my opinion if we had continued to occupy Iraq we would have spend hundreds of billions more and suffered tens of thousands more casualties.  It would have been throwing money and the lives of soldiers down a bottomless pit.  We can't afford to "fix" problems by taking over countries and occupying them.

Yes, possibly another 4,000 dead and another trillion spent.  The only advantage in our having stayed would be that ISIS would not have taken Fallujah or Mosul.  But likely it still would have formed in Syria  and spread to AFrica and urged lone wolf attacks in the U.S.   Bush should have listened to the foreign policy experts and not invaded.

Still, even after the invasion, there was a chance to set things right if there had been a plan. Keep most of the government, civil service, and army intact. Enforce security in Baghdad and Basra, rather than letting mobs loot and ethnic violence begin. Insisting that Iraqi oil remain under Iraqi control, its revenues to be shared by a common government, etc.

Regime change without nation-building will ALWAYS result in a disaster, but that is never the only option. 

[Griever]

well, soon we will get to see how much more than the generals trump actually knows...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-11-2016, 10:39 AM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, "interference" is a matter of perspective. Saudis may wonder why they should be perceived as "interfering" in matters so close to their own borders, and remind us whose "interference" broke Iraq in the first place. And Iranians may wonder if the US overturning a democratically elected government in Iran, installing a dictator there and then supporting Iraqi aggression in a war that cost 800,000 Iranian lives was "interference."

Aside from feeling the need to comment on the notion of "interference," I agree with most of what you said. 

I completely agree interference is a matter of perspective. My original statement regarding interference was based upon a perspective of a coordinated multinational effort to defeat ISIS which did not include Saudi Arabia and Iran. That's not to say the US hasn't interfered. My comment had more to do with how complicated the situation is with the competing agendas and defeating ISIS isn't nearly as simple as most people think. It isn't just a matter of throwing weapons, money, and troops at it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-11-2016, 01:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nor can we afford to take in everyone dissatisfied with living conditions in their own country. Occupying until stability is achieved is necessary or that truly is a waste. I lost friends that helped coalition forces take ground that we just gave up because of some ill-timed End Game.

Both sides here have the "correct answer" it just depends on which one you support:

A: Totally ignore

B: Totally control

Or ground lost to reallocating troops, money, attention, effort, etc from Afghanistan to an unnecessary invasion of Iraq for bullshit reasons?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-10-2016, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure the dead would rather be living, but:

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.”

Ask those that put their life on the line and you may get an answer other than "a waste".

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a child that has felt the biggest joy in their lives because you bring them an inflated ball?

The true gratitude in the elderlies eyes as you bring them medical aid to a injury they have been suffering through their whole lives?

The desire of a young girl that wants nothing more than to go to school?

Dirt poor farmers that will put on a feast for you because you bring them blankets?

The safety and freedom felt by a village as you occcupy their town?

Young men dying fighting for liberty is tragic, but it damn sure is not a waste.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/wars-postkaiser-survey-afghanistan-iraq-war/2015/10/20/3e8f2380-b7a6-11e3-9eb3-c254bdb4414d_page.html

Surveys of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans reveal the majority believe the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. I am among those who believe it wasn't worth fighting. Whereas, the majority believe the opposite about the war in Afghanistan. 

[fredtoast]

(11-10-2016, 06:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's not the enemy you defeat, it is those that look to gain from your victory.

(11-11-2016, 01:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing wrong with gaining from your victories. It has been the way of the world since the dawn of civilization. 

Then how could you tell the people of Iraq that you were there to "defeat the people who look to gain from our victory"?

[fredtoast]

(11-11-2016, 03:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Still, even after the invasion, there was a chance to set things right if there had been a plan. Keep most of the government, civil service, and army intact. Enforce security in Baghdad and Basra, rather than letting mobs loot and ethnic violence begin. Insisting that Iraqi oil remain under Iraqi control, its revenues to be shared by a common government, etc.

I disagree.  Iraq has arbitrary borders that contain different areas dominated by different religious/ethnic groups (Kurds, Sunni, Shia).  But you can't just split up Iraq into three smaller countries because the Sunnis would not have any of the oil fields.  And Iraq is just one little piece of the big mess that is the middle east.

There just is not any way to "fix" this unless there is reformation in the area and they separate their politics from their religion.  Until then sending in troops to occupy and keep the peace is just a waste of young lives and taxpayer money.