BREAKING: Obama to annoucne policy-reversal wrt Cuba

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Iraq war actually never ended, the US military simply changed from boots on the ground to advisers to constant air attacks. that worked beautifully the last time it was tried. Transitioning from Bush's foreign policy back to Clinton's/Obama's. Anything is fine as long as no Americans die, with special operations forces and air strikes preferred as they have less political risk while still allowing the President to appear to be tough in domestic politics. This is obviously not to say that either Bush did better.

All you need is one good terrorist attack and people would be bellowing for troops to return.

[The Romulan Republic]

If only being juvenile was the worst of their problems.

Yes. And I am getting a strong sense that there's another Iraqi war just waiting to happen again. The war fatigue is over. Just a few beheadings and the mainstream media and politicians all get worked up.

We are at war in Iraq right now, but its fairly limited, and I'm not sure there's much support for anything more.

[Simon_Jester]

All you need is one good terrorist attack and people would be bellowing for troops to return.

I think the terrorist attack would have to be definitively tied to some organization of Iraqi origin that the Iraqis themselves were not suppressing.

There are a lot of Americans (overwhelmingly on the right) who think invading Iraq was a good idea, sure... but there were a lot of Americans who thought we were right to go into Vietnam, too. There still weren't nearly enough to make "let's go back to Vietnam!" anything other than political suicide in, say, 1979.

[SpottedKitty]

If only being juvenile was the worst of their problems.

I would say that this is among the biggest problems because of what it leads to, lack of compromise.

Would you like some of our UK politicians to improve the meme pool? It's beginning to look like some big names might be available for transfer after our next election.

[Irbis]

I think the terrorist attack would have to be definitively tied to some organization of Iraqi origin that the Iraqis themselves were not suppressing.

Just like 9/11 was tied to Iraq and totally not not-suppressing Saudi Arabia?

[Simon_Jester]

No, I mean exactly unlike that.

[Although most of the rhetoric I remember from the Bush era actually had Bush stay well clear of explicitly blaming Iraq for 9/11, at least after it became clear who'd actually done it. They let their Renfields in the right-wing media take care of that.]

What I'm getting at is that Americans really aren't interested in fighting another damn war in Iraq, especially after the first one ended in a muddy, bloody, indecisive mess. The Iraqis aren't either, which would make a second war much harder.

I think it is very unrealistic, bordering on cartoonish, to assume the US would just mindlessly invade Iraq again. Just as it would be ridiculous to posit the US invading Vietnam again in the 1980s.

[Batman]

Prior to it actually happening I would have considered it unrealistic, bordering on cartoonish, for the US to mindlessly invade Iraq thefirst time.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think it is very unrealistic, bordering on cartoonish, to assume the US would just mindlessly invade Iraq again. Just as it would be ridiculous to posit the US invading Vietnam again in the 1980s.

Well, third time is a charm? No one thought the US would go back a second time either.

[Simon_Jester]

Prior to it actually happening I would have considered it unrealistic, bordering on cartoonish, for the US to mindlessly invade Iraq thefirst time.

The cartoonish part is that Bush was able to sell it. Today, it'd be a much harder sell.

After the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein took on a disproportionate role as perceived world-historical villain in American eyes. He was seen as a genuine enemy where in fact he was basically another old penny-ante dictator. Speaking anecdotally, if you'd asked Americans of the late '90s to pick a single person in the Middle East most likely to stage a major terrorist attack in the US, they'd probably have put him at the top of the list- with Qaddafi and bin Laden vying for second, at least among those who knew who bin Laden was.

Even though most Americans found out who was really behind it in short order, at least in my area of the country, Saddam was still seen as a potential threat. This played a major role in the willingness of the Americans to go to war with him in 2002: in many cases, Bush's assertion that he was a major threat to America was confirming our preexisting suppositions.

That puffed-up sense of Saddam as threat, and as threat who can be easily beaten as in the first Gulf War, probably had more to do with the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 than anything else. Had the general public grasped that we were signing up for a ten-year guerilla campaign ending in the creation of an unworthy puppet regime, I suspect a lot fewer people would have agreed to it.

This time around, that's what people are likely to expect from a ground commitment, because that's exactly what we got in Afghanistan and (the second time around) in Iraq. No one expects flags, footprints, glory, and a quick homecoming.

Without that "war will be over by Christmas" delusion, it's a lot harder to convince people to throw more people into a meat grinder.

Remember how horribly flat McCain's hawkishness on Iran fell?

[Flagg]

We're increasing troop presence in Iraq and sending more "advisors" all the time to fight COBRA I mean ISIL. If those chucklefucks move on Baghdad I'm sure Operation Oh Fuck Will immense and the Iraq War III will begin.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly I doubt it, but if I'm proven wrong I virtually guarantee this- there will be no second occupation.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Honestly I doubt it, but if I'm proven wrong I virtually guarantee this- there will be no second occupation.

Which is even worse! America and some European nations went off bombing Libya and left it a fucking mess that is still a mess! When are you people going to take responsibility for all the mucking up you people do!

[Flagg]

Honestly I doubt it, but if I'm proven wrong I virtually guarantee this- there will be no second occupation.

Which is even worse! America and some European nations went off bombing Libya and left it a fucking mess that is still a mess! When are you people going to take responsibility for all the mucking up you people do!

Never. That perk comes with being king shit of the planet.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Honestly I doubt it, but if I'm proven wrong I virtually guarantee this- there will be no second occupation.

Which is even worse! America and some European nations went off bombing Libya and left it a fucking mess that is still a mess! When are you people going to take responsibility for all the mucking up you people do!

Never. That perk comes with being king shit of the planet.

As I suspected. But then, America is likely going to either bankrupt itself or gentrify itself into some caricature of some gloom doom sci-fi show in the future anyway so I guess that's what its people want.

[Siege]

Point of order: the situation in Libya is nothing like the situation in Iraq. The bombing of Libya happened after the civil war erupted and the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 1973. Libya was a mess well before it was being bombed, the bombings serving to hasten the fall of Gadaffi's regime. The UN did not authorize boots on the ground, therefore there were none. That is how international law is supposed to work.

If nobody lifts a finger 'why aren't you doing something'; if there's airstrikes 'why are there no troops on the ground' and when there's troops on the ground 'why are you making the same mistakes again'. What is it that you want to happen?

[Flagg]

Point of order: the situation in Libya is nothing like the situation in Iraq. The bombing of Libya happened after the civil war erupted and the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 1973. Libya was a mess well before it was being bombed, the bombings serving to hasten the fall of Gadaffi's regime. The UN did not authorize boots on the ground, therefore there were none. That is how international law is supposed to work.

If nobody lifts a finger 'why aren't you doing something'; if there's airstrikes 'why are there no troops on the ground' and when there's troops on the ground 'why are you making the same mistakes again'. What is it that you want to happen?

I want to build a time machine and send people back to somehow convince policy makers and journalists (the ones cheerleading on the front page not the ones asking questions and pointing out a lack of evidence on page 8 ) and others to turn the public tide against the war. Then I'd wake up, laugh at the absurdity of being able to convince any of those fucksticks not to kill an untold number of Arabs and North Africans and say to myself, America is just gonna wash its hands like so much Pilate at some point. The people we fucked royally from 2003 on will remain fucked royally and in a decade or 2 there will be some attack on America and we'll act like the innocent victims and ask "Why do they hate us?"

[Irbis]

[Although most of the rhetoric I remember from the Bush era actually had Bush stay well clear of explicitly blaming Iraq for 9/11, at least after it became clear who'd actually done it. They let their Renfields in the right-wing media take care of that.]

That's funny, I remember the whole yellow cake and mobile labs story a bit differently. They sold it so well that even 10 years later in best selling book written by SEAL describing how operation to find Bin Laden went you could have found disgusting bits on how US soldiers in Iraq were attacked with chemical weapons by Al Quaeda operative who got it from Saddam. It was so bad in fact that CIA of all people had to issue separate statement calling it nonsense.

What I'm getting at is that Americans really aren't interested in fighting another damn war in Iraq, especially after the first one ended in a muddy, bloody, indecisive mess. The Iraqis aren't either, which would make a second war much harder.

I seem to recall US anti-war sentiment was back then strongest in history and look how quickly it was turned on its head. And the sad thing is, right now you could find plenty of people in Iraq willing to embark on attack on USA for everyone who will give them the chance.

[Simon_Jester]

So in other words, Flagg, basically you don't have any actual opinions about what should be done in response to current events, you're just pissed off and embittered over events in the past.

Honestly I doubt it, but if I'm proven wrong I virtually guarantee this- there will be no second occupation.

Which is even worse! America and some European nations went off bombing Libya and left it a fucking mess that is still a mess! When are you people going to take responsibility for all the mucking up you people do!

It is profoundly inconsistent to say:

1) ISIL is bad.
2) A ground presence in Iraq to fight them is bad.
3) Bombing them is worse.

Now, unless you disagree with (1) and think ISIL is good... I'm honestly not sure what your argument is anymore.

That's funny, I remember the whole yellow cake and mobile labs story a bit differently. They sold it so well that even 10 years later in best selling book written by SEAL describing how operation to find Bin Laden went you could have found disgusting bits on how US soldiers in Iraq were attacked with chemical weapons by Al Quaeda operative who got it from Saddam. It was so bad in fact that CIA of all people had to issue separate statement calling it nonsense.

What this tells you is that:

1) There is a profound divide among Americans about what the facts of the case really were.
2) The Americans who still believe what they heard on Fox News (which hasn't changed its official tone) are buying books by that alleged SEAL.

What it does NOT tell you is whether the idiots who think Hussein had nerve gas and a nuclear program and was collaborating with Al Qaeda actually make up enough of the American population to provide popular support for a war. And I'm telling you, in my honest opinion (I live here, you don't)... there is not that much popular support for a war. This is why talking about fighting Iran over their nuclear program actively hurt McCain in the 2008 election. Iraq and Afghanistan may not have traumatized the US public as badly as Vietnam did in the '60s and early '70s, but it didn't make us any more interested in sticking our hand into any new blenders.

What I'm getting at is that Americans really aren't interested in fighting another damn war in Iraq, especially after the first one ended in a muddy, bloody, indecisive mess. The Iraqis aren't either, which would make a second war much harder.

I seem to recall US anti-war sentiment was back then strongest in history and look how quickly it was turned on its head. And the sad thing is, right now you could find plenty of people in Iraq willing to embark on attack on USA for everyone who will give them the chance.

Well, if you posit an attack by an Iraqi organization on the United States, all bets are off.

Just yesterday morning I said: "I think the terrorist attack would have to be definitively tied to some organization of Iraqi origin that the Iraqis themselves were not suppressing."

So no, this wouldn't refute my argument. It's a component of my argument.

And if that's not what you're doing... well, it's intellectually dishonest to compare the very real attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Navy to a specious 'case for war' like "ISIL is threatening Baghdad!"

Because no that will not lead to a second occupation on any meaningful scale.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Point of order: the situation in Libya is nothing like the situation in Iraq. The bombing of Libya happened after the civil war erupted and the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 1973. Libya was a mess well before it was being bombed, the bombings serving to hasten the fall of Gadaffi's regime. The UN did not authorize boots on the ground, therefore there were none. That is how international law is supposed to work.

Isn't Iraq in some kind of civil war now? Granted the order of events was different, but it is fast degenerating into something like what Libya was before the air strikes happened.

If nobody lifts a finger 'why aren't you doing something'; if there's airstrikes 'why are there no troops on the ground' and when there's troops on the ground 'why are you making the same mistakes again'. What is it that you want to happen?

The biggest mistake made during the Iraqi invasion was banning of the Baath party. Which unfortunately is a mistake that cannot be rectified. Ever. Right now, the best solution is to split up the country but there's too much US prestige at stake in keeping Iraq together as one.

It is profoundly inconsistent to say:

1) ISIL is bad.
2) A ground presence in Iraq to fight them is bad.
3) Bombing them is worse.

Now, unless you disagree with (1) and think ISIL is good... I'm honestly not sure what your argument is anymore.

No, the real problem and the gist of my argument is that bombings are NOT enough! Where is the stabilizing force factor? There was no element on the ground to stabilize Libya and now the country is pretty much degenerated into chaos. Just because ISIL gets bombed to the ground and appears to "melt away" doesn't mean it's over! Who the hell fills the power vacuum?