Maliki WAS a pro-American strongman - and he still is, though in another governmental capacity. That's why we selected him. Before we put him in office, he ran the Iraqi side of our "deBaathification" program - the program we put in place to drive Sunnis from politics and to remove them from all civil employment. He was hugely successful and cooperative with us in attacking Sunnis. So, when their elections ended in a virtual 4 way tie, we pushed to have him be declared the winner - which is what happened. Once in office, of course, Maliki continued his program of repression against Sunnis - complete with driving their representatives out of politics and elected office by physical force, attacking them with the national military (newly cleansed of Sunnis), and giving free reign to Shiite militias. Why didn't we see THAT coming? We already knew that deBaathification had been a gigantic blunder. Their current president, al Abadi, is not nearly so virulent, and has accommodated Sunnis to a slightly greater degree. For instance, when ISIL fighters had been removed from one city they had occupied, al Abadi stopped the Shiite militias from killing the Sunnis and burning their property in that city - a definite improvement. He actually required the militias to depart. Also, he has accepted the US direction of training Sunnis for government military service, where our objective is to have a more integrated military as a way of reducing sectarian violence. At the time, it was easy to find interviews of Sunnis who pointed out that the government of Iraq was killing them (with the government military and by allowing militias free reign) AND ISIL was killing them (for opposition, for perceived cooperation with the government, for religious differences) but was also providing reasonable defense against the government and militias - basically a balance of terror. So, the real difference (according to these interviewees) was that ISIL offered them inclusion and representation in their Islamic State as well as giving them their civil service jobs back - ending their disenfranchisement. As for the US president being Tsar, I'd point out that presidents don't ignore the advice of the career professionals upon which his/her success depends. Rather famously, when Obama requested a plan from them for removing us from Afg, the Pentagon presented plans for a surge along with convincing reasons why doing less would be a disaster.
Maliki represented a change in the "plan" if you can call it that. He was not our first choice, as I assume you know. Again most of your critique of US policy in Iraq coincides with what I have heard and read. I did not say the US President was a Tsar. Read carefully. You have never heard of "If the Tsar only knew" delusion? I bet you can Google it. I would be surprised if any president always ignored his advisors. But a President whose day is not guided by his morning intel briefing is rare. That is big plus for Obama among the many negatives.
The real problem is more and more converting to Islam and an inevitable percentage of those going "whole hog" Jihad. As long as Islamic religion has appeal, it will have, for all purposes, an inexhaustible supply of new recruits for terrorism. What I want to know is, what exactly is the appeal of Islam, as it is a religion that requires a lot of discipline, i.e., there are a lot of "do's" and an even greater number of "don'ts"? Why would anyone want to become Moslem unless they (the men at least) are drawn to it because they are the type that would enjoy abusing women with no consequence and committing acts of violence against whoever and writing it off to "the glory of Allah"? A reprobate individual might consider abstaining from pork etc. a small price to pay for a license to rape and murder?
The radical Jihadis are VERY unpopular in the Middle East.. They are a life and death threat to other Muslims and any hope for continuing improvement in education, healthcare and development. As for the US having a 7%chance of defeating ISIS.. Its all about Asymmetrical Warfare. - - - Updated - - - Maliki was the only choice and he was solidly in Iran's pocket,
You clearly know more about the details of ME politics than most of us. What was your take on Challabi? As I recall he was our early choice. "Neither Bush we want, nor Chalabi; we want beer and lablabee." I guess they still have lablabee.
I knew Chalabi was a crook before the start of the war when he and Bibi were crowing to the press that they were going to get a new pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa. He's a treacherous bastard.. Bush should have noticed.
It would seem then that the real solution would be to just let the non-radical muslims do something about the radicals? But is this happening to any significant extent? If not, why not?
Sending in Christian missionaries with armed protection would do way more to help turn around this bad situation than sending in troops would. Liberals shouldn't be so quick to reject religious solutions.
Sending in anyone with armed protection is the same as sending in troops, as soon as they start getting shot at. (...but you were kidding, right? )
There are some ways to initiate a diplomatic and economic outreach to the Middle East that has a lot of potential to change the formula as well. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rleans-and-florida-from-rising-oceans.300460/ The Sahara Forest Project...and saving New Orleans and Florida from rising oceans!
Well said....... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ration-policy-and-islamic-restoration.499211/ Trump immigration policy and Islamic restoration... Are President Trump's immigration policies setting the stage for the most massive outpouring of the Holy Spirit to ever occur? Will it be felt most in the Islamic world? Let's face it..... when the majority of Muslims see that Honor Killings and Feminine Genital Mutilation and participation in plans to over throw democratic governments...... are backfiring...... they could well be inspired and encouraged to initiate what will lead to what a woman from Alberta, Canada was shown back in 2009. The possible connection here is fairly obvious!
Sending in those who can help the local population is fine. Injecting a contingent of foreign operatives to assault their religion is absolute nonsense if peace or humanitarian aid is the objective.
The USA/Saudi Arabia/Israel created ISIS to destabilize and terrorize the people of the middle east (not Israel and SA) of course....they equipped them, armed them and continue to enable them....ISIS are nothing but paid mercenaries... does the USA want to defeat them NO they don't until the job is finished....
I'm assuming a divvying up of the ME like post WW2 Europe being the end result of "The job is finished"?
OP thread title: If the way the Taliban gave the US military the run-around in Afghanistan - and still is!! - is any benchmark, I'd say the US military has a negative chance of beating IS. I confidently predict that within a couple of days of trying, Trump will be on his bended knees begging a real president to come and help out.
Right from the outset ISIS has been spoiling for a ground war with US troops because it knows it cannot lose no matter what. If they defeat American forces on the ground they are Jihadi heroes and if the lose they are Jihadi martyrs and an inspiration to tens of thousands more to come and "avenge" their deaths. ISIS cannot be defeated in a ground war so it needs someone far smarter than the Imbecile-in-Chief to beat them.`
Well that's because the US can't do what needs to be done to eliminate ISIS without international backlash. However, if ISIS F-ks with the US in the near future, I have a feeling Mad Dog Mattis is going to order the carpet bombs over that 172 mile stretch of road that the Iraqis are too afraid to go down.
And besides rearranging the dirt in that part of the desert what objective will be achieved by wasting millions more taxpayer dollars?
ISIS has two major strong holds. If the US wants the free up that road, they have zero strong holds in Iraq and Syria. It's the deadliest road on the planet. The Iraqi Army is making their way down it, one foot at a time. It's not a waste of money to turn those goat F-kers into glass, allowing Iraq and Syria to regain control of their territories.