The U.S. must abandon the Middle East

Right, and the U.S. ships suffered no damage. The Yemen rebels lost three radar stations. Their attack was stupid. So much for Iran and the Houthis menacing out ships. Let's hope they do it again.

 

What are you suggesting? Or are you just criticizing without substance?

 

Today Amerika, tomorrow ZE VORLD

Jeez Louise, ya sound like a bad movie, give it a rest willya.

We don't have to run the world just to get along in it, in fact, it really seems to work out a lot better when we don't. Costs less anyways.

 

It dishonors our fighting forces to claim they had no obstacles. You can drive from the border to Baghdad in just under 5 hours and if you think our troops had no fights over a 21 day period, you don't recall the actual fighting.

Naturally our men with far superior weapons had the better of it.

There is a general confusion as to what war is.

War that tied up our military lasted 3 weeks. I mean the battles were at an end.

One more matter for the memory challenged is that there was peace in Iraq from when Franks captured Baghdad until the spring of the next year. Bush gave his well known victory speech on the ship because war had ended. Bush was asked by General Franks to announce war ended. I recall well the end of the war. And sure, there was looting, and damage to electric power lines to steal copper and sell it. And some were damaging oil pipes. But that is not hardly war.

I know not why Democrats hate to give Bush credit but on this note, credit is due. Mostly to General Franks whom carried out his brilliant war plan.

As to some treaty you say. I think you must believe this is the end of WW2.

Is Obama at war with north Korea?

 

No, but you need control of all oil and non-oil resources to ensure they are sold on the Global Market in US Dollars.

 

So what if 75,000 troops were cut back from Europe?

The future of resource harvesting lies in Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, not Europe.

 

I see. Thanks for that.

 

I really hate discussing the Iraq War, but I'll jump in for a moment.

As we all know, after the military victory over Saddam's army, eventually an insurgency developed. It involved many players. There were the radical Shia groups, and Sunni groups led by former Baathist officers and soldiers, and radical jihadis from within Iraq and from outside Iraq.

And as Iraq started to descend into chaos, our Democratic leaders saw an opportunity. A presidential election was coming in 2008. So in the mid-2000s, when President Bush wanted to increase troop levels, leading Democrats opposed the idea. What better way to insure a Democratic win in 2008 than to have the Republican president lose a war? ... in disgrace. But Bush did manage to implement a surge of troops, even as Dems in Congress threatened to cut funding for the war. If we are intellectually honest with ourselves, we know ... what they wanted was a Viet Nam style failure.

2007 was a tough year for our troops in Iraq. It was the year of our highest casualties. It is the year my son was wounded and almost died over there. It is also the year that our troops defeated the insurgency. Yup. Through guts, determination, and bravery, they turned the war around that year. In 2008 our troops suffered only one third the number of casualties that they did in 2007, and their casualties slowed down dramatically to a trickle after 2008.

In the spring of 2007, while my son was fighting in Anbar Province, Harry Reid publicly declared the war in Iraq "lost". This, while our brave young people were fighting, bleeding, dying, and winning the war.

I wanted to punch Harry Reid right in the face. And to this day, I think of him as a traitor. I think he represents the very worst of our country. I think he and his ilk are the scum of the earth.

When our troops left at the end of 2011, Iraq had had free elections, and most importantly, Iraq was at peace.

But sadly, we would find out that Iraq would only have peace when the big, strong parent was there. Almost immediately, in our absence, Iraq returned to sectarianism and persecution, and they unraveled their own country. They did that.

There were lessons from Iraq, and I will tell you ...

- Our military can easily defeat any second or third world army.

- Our military can fight and win an urban guerilla war.

- But people of that region are not able to handle democracy. You cannot create a beautiful statue out of mud. It was a noble effort, but those people could not handle democracy.

- And, our politicians will betray our troops and our country for politics. Therefore, America is not worthy of the blood of our troops, and our fine and brave young people should not be asked to give it. This country isn't worthy of it.

We do have to confront ISIS and AQ. I am perfectly satisfied that our country possesses the capability to kill them from the air while taking very few casualties. But aside from that, we should disengage from our military involvement in the middle east. Those countries are no threat to us. We don't need them, really. They contain peoples who are not like us and who don't like us. Trying to help them advance at the expense of our young people is useless. Certainly, they too do not deserve the sacrifice and blood of our young people. If those people ever want to evolve forward, or if they do not wish to, we need to leave that to them. Frankly, I don't care if they do or if they don't.

But yeah, we did defeat Saddam's army in 2003, and we yanked his grimy ass out of a hole. And in 2007 our troops defeated the Iraqi insurgency. When we left, Iraq defeated ... itself.

God bless our troops.

My two cents...

 

The Insanity of a “No-Fly Zone” in Syria.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-insanity-of-a-no-fly-zone-in-syria/
In an apparent break with the Obama White House, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for the creation of a no-fly zone inside Syria Thursday, the day after Russian warplanes started bombing rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Since the Progressive Dem vote is going to Hillary, surely her statement claiming that she's all for imposing a No Fly Zone over Syria if elected is the antithesis of your posting. There is no parsing this because she stated it on National TV during the last debate. As it is, Hillary and Obama colluded with Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to put a multi-purpose pipeline through Syria in an effort to cut Russia's monopoly supplying Europe with LPG gas and fuel. If implemented the No Fly Zone against Russia under Hillary will ignite WWIII.

 

I truly enjoy your posts. A lot more than those from Democrats.

 

I just read the article in the link you provided.

It is almost an exact copy of things I've been saying here on PF for months.

I think I've been plagiarized!!

But seriously, good one. Worthy of its own thread, really.

My two cents ...

 

No. I am not criticizing.. I don't get Iran's game. They are involved in Iraq, Syria, with HAMAS and Hezbollah .. and the al Houthis. Its qame they can't win. The US and Gulf states are not going to let them choke off the Bab al Mandab or Straits of Hormuz from international traffic.

The US has no other ambitions with regard to Iran or Yemen.

 

Excellent post although a bit biased in favor ot Bush, Jr. while blaming Democrats like Harry Reid for Bush's war. I beg to differ on one point. I understand your strong loyalty to your son, but an objective individual would agree with Reid. The war was lost. If you consider it somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory, please inform us as to what was accomplished. Please don't insult our intelligence by saying we ended the Saddam regime.

Bush started a bloodbath in Iraq that continues to this day. I assume you have heard of a place called Mosul.

 

I have to agree, I often wonder why we ended the Iran\Iran war just to then attack Iraq ourselves, Iran must of been laughing at us

 

For once we are in agreement. But let me go a step further. The questions below are not aimed at you. They are aimed at the general audience. I would dearly love someone to answer them.

John Bolton, a neocon Fox News contributor and a former ambassador to the U.N., stated that Iraq was in Iran’s sphere of influence. Why are our troops fighting and dying for Mosul and Iraq only turn the whole region over to Iran? This is not new. Iraq joined Iran’s sphere of influence during the first administration of Bush, Jr.

The same is true of Syria. Our military assets in Syria are attempting to stabilize the region. Syria is a strong ally of Iran and Iraq. Why are we doing that?

I repeat, why are our troops fighting in Iraq and Syria for Iran’s benefit?

 

Thank you for the clarification, and I agree with you. While I am urging that our government withdraw all ground assets in the Mideast, our fleet will still control the sea approaches to the Mideast. In addition, when needed, we will have complete air superiority.

 

I would say for the same reason that Obama shipped $1.7 Billion in cash to Iran. Don't forget that Iran and Syria have been allied since the early 1980's. Hezbollah was originally trained, armed and financed by the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

You see, this is why I said I hate discussing the Iraq war.

I am an independent. I am not an R or a D. I owe no allegiance to either. I don't like either. I am also a stickler for the truth, and I have an impeccable nose for hypocrisy. And ...

I am sooooo sick of the politicization of that war, and I am disgusted with the politically motivated revisionist history of that war that so many engage in.

I would hate Harry Reid as much as I do regardless of his political party. He is the scum of the earth (apologies to scum of the earth for the insult).

What is important is not partisan finger-pointing, but the question of what we learned from that war. The most important things in my post are when I talked about what we learned. My remarks about Reid were just my heartfelt and justifiable anger at an American traitor, a cold hearted bas---d who sold his soul long ago.

And the other part I feel strongly about is that America is not worthy of the blood of our troops. Those who are willing to put their lives on the line for us are the best of us. But America at large is spoiled and ignorant and gutless. America doesn't care if our leaders are hopelessly corrupt. Most Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map, but they could tell you the latest on the Kardashians. And we have leaders who will turn on our troops in a heartbeat if there is political advantage to be had by doing it.

This is not worth bleeding or dying for. This is not worth losing your children for.

This is what I learned from that war.

God bless our troops. My respect for all of them cannot be put into words.

Seth

 

Iraq is within Iran's sphere of influence because Iraq is a majority Shiite nation, and Iraq's government is led by Shiites.

We are fighting ISIS in Iraq because ISIS is an existential threat to us and our allies. Remember, ISIS is just an Iraqi-born form of Al Qaeda. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris were ISIS. The San Bernardino terrorist attack was inspired by ISIS, and the perpetrators had sworn loyalty to ISIS. The U.S. has simply made a pragmatic decision that ISIS must be destroyed, even if we have to help a country do it that is within Iran's sphere of influence. I don't have a problem with this. I see this as the U.S. destroying an enemy, and this enemy is particularly deserving of it.

Syria is more complicated. The U.S. is not stabilizing Syria. The U.S. is attacking ISIS and AQ in Syria. But the U.S. is not helping the Syrian government defeat ISIS like we are doing in Iraq with the Iraqi government. Instead, the U.S. is supporting a civil war against the government of Syria. We are actually involved in two wars in Syria. One is against ISIS and AQ. The other is against the Syrian government. The war on the ground against the Syrian government is being waged by rebels that the U.S. government naively thinks would like to bring democracy to Syria. There is scant evidence of that. These rebels have tribal and religious loyalties and absolutely no history of any dedication to democracy. Furthermore, it was this civil war that we supported that created a vacuum of governance in Syria that ISIS took advantage of. For ISIS to consolidate and take territory in Syria would have been impossible before the civil war we helped create. And now, thanks to us (Obama and Clinton) we have to get rid of ISIS in Syria.

I believe we will succeed at this effort in Iraq because we are killing off ISIS with the Iraqi government. I believe we will fail at this effort in Syria because we refuse to work with the Syrian government, and because we are simultaneously trying to overthrow the Syrian government.

This is one of the most moronic and convoluted American policies I have ever seen in my lifetime (61 years).

It is interesting to note that both the Syrian government and Iraqi government are under the sphere of influence of Iran.

Don't ask me to explain why this seems like such a great idea to Bolton, Obama, Clinton, and other warhawks like McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Clinton wants to declare rebel-held territory "off limits" to Russian and Syrian aircraft if she is elected president. Get ready for battles with the Russians in the skies over Syria. I have no idea how far that new war (Hillary's U.S. vs Russia war) will escalate. That's anybody's guess.

But I will tell you this. Killing off ISIS is necessary. But any of our service members killed in the effort to overthrow Syria's government, or in battles with the Russians, are wasted. They will have died unnecessarily for nothing.

 

You didn't answer my questions. Admittedly, they are tough questions. It is almost as though fighting in Iraq and Syria is the new normal. That doesn't make sense if it is for Iran's benefit.

Past time to leave the Mideast.

 

I really don't get Iran at all.. Look at how they straddle the oil corridor.. They could be successful and very prosperous, but instead they are screwing around. If they do hit a US ship, the US would probably hit them hard.. and it won't be pretty.

 

We don't go to war to see what we learned from war. We go to war for a damn good reason, and then we go to war to win it. I am not being partisan when I blame Bush, Jr. for an illegal war. He went to war based on three lies, and he didn't give our troops the support they needed to quell Iraq. He was satisfied with removing Saddam and taking, temporarily, Baghdad. That is why we lost the war, and being partisan has nothing to do with it.

You questioned Reid's statement that the war was lost. The war was lost. I asked what you thought we achieved in the war. You told me it was lessons learned. Well, that isn't good enough. We lost that war and Bush was responsible for our defeat. Those are the facts.

 

What we need is focus. We need to focus on destroying our avowed enemies - AQ and ISIS.

We are not going to fix the Sunni-Shiite hatred in that region. We are not going to bring western values of democracy, tolerance, cooperation, compromise, respect for rights, the impartial rule of law, or national unity to the countries of that region. We cannot impose those values on them because, honestly, they don't want them.

We should just kill off our enemies that we must, and otherwise leave those backwards people alone.

More of my two cents ...

 

Sandy, the U.S. achieved every military goal it set out to achieve in Iraq. When we left in 2011, the country was at peace. The day after the last troops left, Iraq's government issued a warrant for the arrest of Iraq's Sunni president, and he fled first to the Kurdish area and then to Turkey. The persecution of the Sunni population then began.

Sandy, we didn't lose that war. The Iraqis lost it. They defeated themselves.

Reid made his statement in 2007, while our troops were busy defeating the insurgency. He's an a---ole. And people like him are the reason why our country has no right to ask for the blood of our young people.

And our troops did defeat the insurgency, and they did it in part by gaining the confidence of the Iraqi Sunnis. After we were gone, the Shia-led government of Iraq destroyed all that.

We didn't lose anything. Iraq lost. They chose this path because they are backwards and primitive in their thinking compared to the west. Religion, sect, and tribe mean more to them than any of the values we hold.

Instead of blaming, we need to learn.

 

Your synopsis sounds like a continuing nightmare. It's like history being replayed over and over again like a broken record. Nothing you say here has any appeal for me whatsoever. I want none of it. Even if we engaged as you suggest and won, what of value would we have gained? Simply more fodder for future conflicts. I say emphatically NO! Let's stop the redundancy. Let's jump off the merry-go-round and stop finding every conceivable excuse for more political gamesmanship and start focusing on more positive ways to exert influence as a power for the betterment of humanity worldwide. That would be a worthwhile change.