Iraq forces likely need help to regain territory: U.S.

Oh gee . . . .weren't there 2 wars in IRAQ ,ALREADY, in recent history to "LIBERATE" Iraq . . . where thousand of American troops died, thousands more returned home disabled . . . . . . . . .and NOW AGAIN????????

Well those well trained Iraqi forces may just drop their weapons and run leaving the fighting to the US. Then, after US victory with a human cost want the regained lands returned to them and ask USA to leave.

Recall that formidable Republican Guard. They also turned tail and ran. Though then they were outclassed.

Mission accomplished indeed

The fundamental divide in Iraq that makes it ungovernable by anybody other than dictators is the split between the Sunnis and the Shiites, the two major sects within Islam. Nearly 90% of the world’s Muslims are Sunnis, but the dividing line between predominantly Sunni and predominantly Shiite areas in the Persian Gulf region runs right through the middle of Iraq (Iran to the east is 90% Shiite). Until U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, the country had always been ruled by Sunnis, just like every other Arab nation. With all the countries in the region lined up on one side or the other of this religious divide, any U.S. aid to Maliki’s sectarian regime amounts to taking sides in a religious struggle.

Mission unaccomplished indeed.

Are we going to help the country as well as we did, the last time around?

Had Obama kept to the plan that was already in place and tun slowly, gradually started to withdraw troops over the years instead of one lump sum, we probably wouldn't be here talking about these radical Jihadists, but the president knows everything better than anyone else. He IS after all, the Sainted anointed one. Now I feel that it's going to be harder to pacify the country, to go back and to re-try and establish a presence is just too massive at this point.

Relentless airstrikes on munitions, equipement, and camps. Leave the cities alone until exact targets are ID'd.

@Bass I remember one of your previous posts telling the Bush bashers to give it a rest and focus on what should be done now. Now you are trotting out the same hypotheticals and blaming Obama for this debacle. You're being very inconsistent here. When are you going to get it? This country was always going to disintegrate without an iron fist and keeping troops there was merely delaying the inevitable, wasting even more money and most importantly, seeing people come home in body bags. I'm sure more time would have given the religious head cases with fantasies of caliphates time to reflect and come to the conclusion that freedom, democracy and secularism are the way forward. This is a disaster. Blame whoever you want but let's not throw any more money and lives at this.

@jim

I think really and truly now you know exactly what it feels like to here what bashers sound like. It goes both ways. I wish you guys would have practiced what you guys are preaching now. Also, I'm not bashing, I'm just saying and making an observation about how Obama handled the Iraq and the entire ME as a whole. I'm critical about that, but I will wait and see what happens next.

Here we go again. A complete cock-up from the word go. Iraq: the gift that keeps on giving.

Remember Viet Nam? It started with a few advisors sent in by Kennedy. It ended with 50,000 dead American youth and a last helicoptor flight from the US embassy in Saigon (now Ho Chi Min City). Now Obama sends in advisors. Slippery slope. But hey, the arms makers get really rich, so there is a silver lining to that cloud.

doesn't bode well for AfPak, does it? no doubt calls to send in the boys will start. I don't think they are ever getting it back - iraq most likely to split 3 ways....

"likely"? They're all running for the hills! No chance!

Well, the ISIS forces outnumber the Iraqui forces 10 to 1 or, is it the other way around?

bass4funk: gradually started to withdraw troops over the years instead of one lump sum, we probably wouldn't be here talking about these radical Jihadists

Under your scenario we could also be seeing the US get dragged into another urban warfare situation against a religious enemy with pictures of body bags on the news at night. At which point you'd be criticizing Obama.

He IS after all, the Sainted anointed one.

Stop being so anti-intellectual.

Of course Maliki`s Shia armee is not able reconquer the Sunni areas in the east. And if Obama now jumps in to help them do so, that would be complete lunacy. Especially when he at the same time is supporting the Sunnis who are trying to destroy Assads Alevite government in neighouring Syria -- the other Baathist regime which kept a lid on the Sunni/Shia divide.

That American liberals tend to continue to lambast Bush for removing the Baath regime in Iraq while supporting Obamas attempt to remove the Baath regime in Syria is one of those great mental distortions that are truly astonishing.

gradually started to withdraw troops over the years instead of one lump sum, we probably wouldn't be here talking about these radical Jihadists

So many problems with that concept, beginning with the fact that the Iraqi government wouldn't allow it.

WilliB, note that the flow of weapons is from Iraq to Syria. Also note that this week marks the last stage of the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. It is a messy situation with no winners, but give Obama his due. Or would you rather have McCain in command?

Maybe the Chinese could help out here?

We need to use up all the oil in the Middle East ASAP so that we are truly forced to find new means of energy. Then we can stop pretending we give a toss about the whole area and let them get on with murdering each other.

@Jimizo

When are you going to get it? This country was always going to disintegrate without an iron fist and keeping troops there was merely delaying the inevitable, wasting even more money and most importantly, seeing people come home in body bags.

But Obama said he was successful in leaving behind a "sovereign and stable Iraq".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKSb2ukQxvY

Are you saying that Obama was wrong? Wasn't Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize 15 minutes after taking the oath of office as President of the United States because his mere election meant that all wars would end without America meddling in the affaires of other nations? Granted, Obama did meddle in Libya using military force to overthrow it's dictator turning that country into a basket case and a hot bed for Islamic extremism. Oh, and Obama did standby while hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians were killed. He did try to help by proffering his "red line" but was promptly ignored and the gassing and deaths continued. Well, at least he didn't make the situation worse by trying to prevent the killing of civilians. Oh, and don't forget the millions of refugees and the potential destabilization of Jordan.

Thanks to Obama's feckless policy and unsteady leadership, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are being overrun by allies of Al Qaeda.

Mission accomplished Mr. President.

'Are you saying that Obama was wrong?'

Obama opposed the Iraq invasion, no doubt in part due to the realization that this country would inevitably disintegrate into chaos after the occupying forces pulled out. As I mentioned, a near trillion-dollar debacle with thousands of body bags probably convinced him to get out. The inevitable pressure and criticism of 'cutting and running' from the chest-beaters at Fox and other 'patriots' no doubt delayed his decision to pull out. The delay is where he got it wrong and he should have been stronger against the fanatics in his own country, not those thousands of miles away on another continent.

Thanks to Obama's feckless policy and unsteady leadership, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are being overrun by allies of Al Qaeda.

Nope; this would have happened whoever was president. The difference is that America has skin in the game in Iraq. Wanna have skin in the game in those other countries? - Vote Republican.

a complete chaos in the American foreign policy

Ali KhanJul. 04, 2014 - 10:43PM JST

a complete chaos in the American foreign policy

I take your post personally. Nobody else care, We are doing the best we can. It is very unfortunate the UN has not been very effective in foreign conflict resolutions.

sfjp330Jul. 04, 2014 - 08:14AM JST

Thanks for your good observations in history of the Middle East.

"Maybe the Chinese could help out here?" That's a good one. Send the Koreans in at the same time. Can you imagine the looks on the Iraqi faces when they see the swarms of Asians with their talk of 70-year-old Japanese aggression? Really seems to put things in perspective.

Laguna:

" WilliB, note that the flow of weapons is from Iraq to Syria. "

Where did you get that from? Since ISIS has erased the borders, weapons flow whereever they are needed. I can believe that since ISIS latest windfall some are diverted to Syria, but it is a given that before that, a lot of Obamas support for the Syrian Sunni radicals went straight to ISIS.

" Also note that this week marks the last stage of the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. It is a messy situation with no winners, but give Obama his due. Or would you rather have McCain in command? "

Smoke and mirrors. Since when do you believe any announcements about chemical weapons. And in addition, since when are chemical weapons a big deal for liberals? When Saddam had them and used them, well we got was scoffing about "non-existant WMDs". And now, they are suddenly a huge deal, although Assad has hardly used them at all. What strange double standards.

@super

Under your scenario we could also be seeing the US get dragged into another urban warfare situation against a religious enemy with pictures of body bags on the news at night. At which point you'd be criticizing Obama.

You know what, that's the price you pay for withdrawing too early, Bush warned of this, before he left office, he already started to initiate a gradual and slow withdrawal, Iraq was at that time mostly quiet and the Iraqis were starting to have elections and the country was SLOWLY coming back, but this president was in a quick haste to leave and taking with him the security that Iraq so desperately needed. Had he NOT done that, we wouldn't be here talking about this most likely. That's why I'm criticizing him. He has NO one to blame but himself and Maliki.

Stop being so anti-intellectual.

Stop being a partisan!

@global

I take your post personally. Nobody else care, We are doing the best we can. It is very unfortunate the UN has not been very effective in foreign conflict resolutions.

Who's we? The president? I'm just dying to see how this unfolds. His majesty has really got himself into a very tight pickle!

@jim

Obama opposed the Iraq invasion, no doubt in part due to the realization that this country would inevitably disintegrate into chaos after the occupying forces pulled out. As I mentioned, a near trillion-dollar debacle with thousands of body bags probably convinced him to get out. The inevitable pressure and criticism of 'cutting and running' from the chest-beaters at Fox and other 'patriots' no doubt delayed his decision to pull out. The delay is where he got it wrong and he should have been stronger against the fanatics in his own country, not those thousands of miles away on another continent.

The disintegration of Iraq as it is now could have totally been avoided. This ahas Obama and Maliki's fault, if you want to give Bush the fault for underestimating the threat if Al Qaeda, fine, but stop being like all your other liberal kin and place the blame NOW in the present where it belongs, the president messed up, pure and simple. And don't give me, Obama cares so much bout the troops, Obama has THE worst record when it comes to caring about our men and women in uniform, I'm not going to go off a tangent, but Obama has NOT shown proper leadership when it comes to our military. He does care more about the voters, thats for damn sure! Jim, you make it seem like being a patriot is a bad thing. I know most liberals don't like their country and that's fine with me, they can relocate. Fox is the ONLY network that covers and cares for our troops, CNN does a decent job, but the Obama National Barack Channel, barely a smidgin of coverage. The fanatics are the people that fundamentally want to change the country into a giant vegan, flowerpot.

@Laguna

At least McCain wouldn't have screwed it up or do you want to say, Obama has better insight about military strategies than McCain? This is what happens when you vote liberals into office and you have to deal with foreign policy. You get a big colossal conundrum.

'Fox is the ONLY network that covers and cares for our troops'

Fox is part of the trail of slime of the slug Murdoch who hopefully will one day end up in prison like Andy Coulson in the UK. It embarrasses the more thoughtful minds on the US right and it weakens and degrades your arguments when you reference it. Murdoch is due for questioning by Scotland Yard and decent people can hope that his debauching of journalism can come to an end.