ANY American who wants us back in Iraq should shut up and enlist, period !

A campaign built upon highly visible ground forces handing out candy and soccer balls to children in between waging a war, is what winning hearts and minds is about. This strategy failed obviously. I'm not advocating one way or another, I believe in the sacredness of all human life believe or not. I'm not a war monger., merely stating if there's a situation in Iraq, it is not the time to tiptoe through the tulips, it is time to surgically remove the tumors even at the expense of damaging the surrounding tissue. We fight these modern asymmetrical conflicts with tootsie rolls and bullets, instead of facing the reality and accepting war is an ugly process, and the sooner it is over the better. One way to end the current situation is to literally...kill them all or at least severely damage their ability to wage an insurgency. If one is pushing up daisies, they can't very well fight back now can they? Doing nothing will not solve the problem, the cancer will only grow.

 

Huh? Only presently serving military should have a say or opinion about returning to Iraq? The true patriot keyboard warriors here won't like that.

 

Oh the sweet sweet irony.

 

1. I suggest the true patriots check the opinion polls on further military action on Iraq. Looks like the public is overwhelmingly on the Great Tyrant's side.

2.When Mssrs.Buffet, Gates, etc suggested higher taxes on their class the true patriots opined that if they really believed that then nothing was stopping them from volunteeering. Same holds for the keyboard warriors as regards Iraq.

 

Well, its okay if ISIS people behead people in Baghdad, Iraq, but do NOT even THINK about letting any cattle over there start eating vegetation in the desert, because THAT will REALLY cause our US government and one of our Senators to call for IMMEDIATE intervention with storm troopers.

 

What you say makes a lot of sense (as usual,) but the practical problem with abandoning any pretense at moderation, is as follows.

It is simply not possible to kill every insurgent, every insurgent's relatives, every insurgent's friends, and every insurgent's children ... which is what we would have to do, in order to fill in the well of hatred that (leaving aside the traditional rivalries of the area) our previous policies have constructed.

We invaded sovereign territory, against the wishes of the world community and against the advice of sensible people (including former President George H.W. Bush,) and in breach of the UN Charter, upon the pretext of a threat which was demonstrably unproven. No matter how efficiently, or otherwise, we conducted this illegal invasion, it is what it is, and no one will be grateful in the long term. Least of all those whose homes and society we destroyed, and whose husbands, fathers, sons, brothers (and sisters) we killed or caused to be killed by our bumbling hubris. (I use the plural pronoun, because Great Britain was largely complicit in this.)

History will not be kind to us, but the surviving children of those we attempt to eradicate will be even less kind. We can use our devastating firepower to destroy all who oppose us, but perhaps not next year, or the year after - but in ten or even twenty years, the little boys whose fathers and big brothers we killed, will no longer be little boys - and they will be back.

Frankly, there is nothing we can do to save the puppet regimes we have set up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to quote the poet ... "History to the defeated may say 'Alas', but can neither change nor pardon."

 

Why do we need to go there and why is it Obama's mess?

 

Targeting would be a problem, while I do believe there will be U.S. airstrikes conducted within Iraq...I frankly don't see that as a viable short-term solution. In 2013, the French conducted airstrikes and deployed ground troops in Mali to counter an Islamist insurgency....Operation Serval. The aim of the operation was to oust Islamic militants in the north of Mali who had begun a push into the center of Mali. The U.S. Air Force dedicated 5 C-17 aircraft to ferry French equipment and troops to Mali. For anyone interested, here is an unclassified report (magazine article) entitled "Early Lessons from France's Operation Serval in Mali." http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2013/06/Documents/Tramond_June2013.pdf

I'm not briefed on the actual sitrep on the ground in Iraq, I'm just giving an opinion The accusatory remarks of the OP stating an opinion can only be made by active duty U.S. troops who might potentially be involved in an operation in Iraq, is somewhat ludicrous.

I will stand by my statement that the U.S. needs to do something militarily to intervene in Iraq to counter the ISIS insurgency. The fact I would not be directly in said intervention does not reduce the opinion as therefore moot. I was, in fact...involved in a support role in both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and I would never deny another citizen's right to voice their concerns and opinions concerning those operations. The fact I'm to be denied, to be attacked...(verbally) for doing the same only adds credence to my rather low opinion of my nation's progressive minded citizenry. While at this stage of my life I may be regarded as somewhat of a chickenhawk, as indeed the Sun has set on my military service...but what I am not and will never be...is a chicken(*)(*)(*)(*)...which is basically my opinion of the Left fringe who sacrificed nothing in the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan yet have the gall to deny those whose opinion may disagree with their own.

Not addressing you personally, Leo.

Do I think we should begin an operation equivalent to carpet bombing areas of suspected ISIS activity? Of course not. Clearly defined targets should be established, but we should not hesitate to prosecute these targets if given the opportunity within Iraqi airspace.

 

There's another possibility, it might be that you don't understand the situation, and are totally off base in your assessment.
And that's looking like a very strong possibility..........
The last time a president had the opportunity to avoid the current situation in Iraq, he decided instead to invade, all that follows, follows from that....

 

I didn't think you were Herkdriver, and I totally understand your objection to the concept of an opinion being acceptable only from those currently serving in US forces. Whatever the conflict, or the reasons therefor - valid or otherwise, those who have served honourably will always have my respect.I know enough of the military to know that neither officers nor OR have any choice in the orders they are issued.

I am not aware of being either on the left or the right in this or any other political matter. I have my own views upon how society should conduct itself, but in the party political sense, I am unaligned. But I totally agree with your view that everyone, irrespective of nationality, age, or status is entitled to give a view upon this, or any other matter.

Were it otherwise, I who was nine years of age when the Iraqi invasion occurred, should have considerably less right to a view than people such as yourself.

Having said all that, perhaps the OP was making the point that, in his opinion, too many people here and elsewhere, are too gung ho about sending young men in harms way, when there may be better alternatives.

 

Well, to be fair, many chicken hawks likely can't enlist due to age and other standards set by the military. That said, however, I'm with you, and would of course extend this to any and all such conflicts (undeclared wars) around the world. Let those who want it foot the bill, too.

 

Yeah thanks I'm aware of history. You must be confusing me with a Bush supporter. History doesn't excuse Obama from making a bad situation worse....again. He knew the situations before he took the job, if he couldn't handle the Presidency then he shouldn't have taken the job. The failure is out playing golf while Iraq is being overtaken by terrorists. He knew for a long time that this was happening and he did nothing. His inept non decisions have made us all less safe. Maybe if he wasn't so corrupt he would have more time to be President.
Also since you like to discuss the past why did Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton authorize the use of force in the first place if it was the wrong thing to do?
And why did our current Vice President Joe Biden tell us in 1998 that Saddam was a direct threat and that he possessed chemical and biological weapons and was trying to get nuclear weapons and urged people to dethrone him years before anyone knew Bush was even running for Presidency? Did Bush mastermind a plan to trick him then before he was President? Wow Bush is smarter than I thought!

At least Bush went to congress in a legal lawful manner, Obama let 5 terrorists go without even letting them know.

 

Think of if thats how war really worked, that means every single doctor, lawyer, farmer, everyone who is not a soldier would have to become a soldier if they support the war. It would be impossible to support the war while still remaining a farmer, its an utterly ridiculous notion that you obviously didnt think through very well.

 

You are really making a case for the lack of understanding scenario.
What could Obama do about Iraq?
There were no US forces in Iraq, and Iraq didn't want US forces to be there.
What exactly should the president have done?

"Why did Biden say Iraq had WMDs in 1998"?
Because he thought there were WMDs in Iraq in 1998, but 1998 isn't 2002, by 2002 we had spent 60 billion dollars more on the CIA, and even more on the NSA to assess Iraq, Frankly, if they hadn't figured out that Iraq didn't have WMDs, then I can point to some significant cuts that should be made to the budget....because it was possible to read in the newspaper that Iraq had no WMDs....

Congress may have authorized the invasion, but it's still a war crime to invade a country.
And if you check the constitution, the President is commander in chief, and has the power to pardon, to commute sentences, etc.
Congress can't diminish that power by statute, the president can have any prisoner held by the United States freed, a simple statute tucked into the Omnibus Defense Appropriations Bill, doesn't change that or limit it....

 

Basically once you have managed to create an all volunteer fighting force you eliminate all costs to the ruling class of going to war. War becomes just a matter of cost with no risk to the power structure or their offspring. Bring back the draft with no, repeat no exemptions, and watch the rush to war disappear.

 

This OP is one of the stupidest I've ever heard.

It is like saying "your house is on fire. Don't call the fire dept. Put it out yourself".

EVERY American soldier, sailor, or airmen is a volunteer. They CHOSE to sign up in full knowledge of the types of enemies they might have to fight and the areas they might have to fight in.

 

Full knowledge??? Are you kidding?

 

Pure comedy. Biden was right on Iraq having wmds but Bush wasnt.

 

Make sure your Dear Leader gets your memo, Channe. If he wants to send troops back into Iraq then he can carry his ass to the tip of the spear and lead from the front for a change.

You can contact him here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments

Nah - Everything Troianii said is true...
.

 

A little bit extreme here, but instead of making people enlist, how about we just not go back at all. With the US involvement after Saddam, the nation had close to a decade to try and get its (*)(*)(*)(*) together and they still need to do that.

 

As far as Iraq goes, EVERYONE who was involved in that foreign policy department screwed up royally, be it Bush or Obama.

 

What nonsense but we've known for a long time that the dream of liberals, who won't serve in the military, is to make everyone shut up unless they're parroting the party line. As for the incredibly stupid "nd the truth is, even if you have served, what is stopping you from serving again ?" He left his legs on the battlefield, fool.

 

Horrible analogy. Fire fighters are not asked to start fires. The chicken hawks want war but don't want to fight

 

Neither do chicken(*)(*)(*)(*)s, so they shouldn't be voicing their opinions, either.

And don't forget to e-mail Obama - chicken(*)(*)(*)(*)s have no business sending men and women off to war.

 

So every chickenhawk is a cripple or an old man? Why should we be going to war on the opinions of cripples and old men?
Either way you slice it, chickenhawks advocating for invasions and mass death is an embarrassing absurdity, no matter what their excuse is for not going themselves.

In their heart of hearts, they know it too, which is why the word "chickenhawk" is such a potent one. It cuts like hot steel.
IMO, a grown man should be embarrassed to suggest a war over something so stupid, especially when he wouldn't be going.

Too many self-styled ideologues like to pretend they're world elites and participate in the demanding of troop deployments for some world aim they themselves won't get a crumb from.