NYT eds need to read LA Times article on Tikrit today; it gets at the deeper strategy behind the decision to bomb the ISIS apocalypticists who have dug in behind a ring of IEDs in the inner city, expecting martyrdom while decimating the assaulting troops on the ground.
ISIS is genocidal. Once in a while, such a group arises. They must be contained, pushed back, eradicated.
The US so far has done an amazing job of shepherding players in the region to resist ISIS in Iraq, which is an almost failed state.
G.W. Bush invited in jihadists by listening to the mad ideas of Cheney, Netanyahu, and Wolfowitz and going into Iraq.
We need to keep arm's length, but not be so naive that genocide once again stimulates another world war.
ISIS is genocidal. Once in a while, such a group arises. They must be contained, pushed back, eradicated.
The US so far has done an amazing job of shepherding players in the region to resist ISIS in Iraq, which is an almost failed state.
G.W. Bush invited in jihadists by listening to the mad ideas of Cheney, Netanyahu, and Wolfowitz and going into Iraq.
We need to keep arm's length, but not be so naive that genocide once again stimulates another world war.
2
America's actions against Iraq over the past decade clearly demonstrates that the United States is a country that utilizes terrorist tactics in pursuing its goals.
4
Bombing Tikrit in 2015! That was the stronghold of Saddam Hussein who is now so inconveniently deceased. The invasion of Iraq - based on a known lie - has surely been shown to be a catastrophic mistake by now. Quite apart from the fact Iraq had done nothing to the United States and Saddam Hussein had fought their war against Iran for years, he was a dictator who kept the various competing tribes under control in his country. Now you have created a multi-headed monster and don't know how to control it. It is beyond the control of "the West" and we should admit defeat - oh what a bitter pill - apologise to all the people who have been so traumatised, not to mention injured, killed and displaced (including your own military) and withdraw. That will be the day!
6
The editors complain about air strikes being delivered"without providing a shred of evidence showing how it could advance American interests". Here is why these air strikes are in our interest: ISIS thrives on victories. The more successful they are, the easier it is for them to recruit. Given enough time and victories they will be able to launch terror attacks in the US. For those who feel our money would be better spent on infrastructure and social programs, I would ask that they imagine a devastating attack on New York or Washington and devastating does not imply an invasion. What do you think would happen to all our social programs and funds for infrastructure if NYC is out of commission? Remember, our enemies think years and decades ahead. What we do or not do now may have profound impact on us in the future. Air strikes, with their attendant risks, seem to be a reasonable compromise between doing nothing and boots on the ground which no one wants.
2
Good grief, you guys are impossible to please. I am encouraged that the President is being pragmatic. He's doing what he can, when he can and where ever he can to defeat ISIS, leaving action on the ground to whomever is willing to fight.
Regarding Iran, I've assumed all along that the primary reason for negotiating with the Iranians is that he wants to maneuver them into a position where they are one of the principal powers in the region that are balanced against one another. That is our best hope of achieving ME stability. Since 2003, we've proved we can't do it by force, with the exception of supplying help from the air.
Regarding Iran, I've assumed all along that the primary reason for negotiating with the Iranians is that he wants to maneuver them into a position where they are one of the principal powers in the region that are balanced against one another. That is our best hope of achieving ME stability. Since 2003, we've proved we can't do it by force, with the exception of supplying help from the air.
4
It has long been apparent that no amount of American military assistance alone can save Iraq if the country’s leaders continue to marginalize the Sunnis.
What evidently should be apparent is that there will be continued marginalization against the Sunnis. Therefore we should just give up on the idea of military assistance because no matter which side we help we will be accused by the other of favoritism.
What evidently should be apparent is that there will be continued marginalization against the Sunnis. Therefore we should just give up on the idea of military assistance because no matter which side we help we will be accused by the other of favoritism.
4
If I am not mistaken, Khalid Mohammed is the imprisoned al-Quida leader who planned the 9-11 massacres. Why is his name printed in small type under the picture of a burning Takrit?
Good Mornin', Viet Nam....
1
One clear and present danger that having Jeb Bush in the White House makes possible is his selecting John Bolton to be a part of his cabinet. Bolton's recent call for a U.S./ Israel bombing run on Iran combined with regime change was an insane rant posing as suitable opinion for publication in the Times. On the other hand, the Times should perhaps be given credit for letting us in on what the Republican right wing finds acceptable policy statements. (After we got to know that characteristic walrus moustache, Americans revisiting the counting chads episode that led to the Bush victory were amazed to find press photos that showed Bolton among those entrusted with a fair count in Florida.) Fear that a Jeb Bush victory would mean war cannot be dismissed out of hand. Many Americans got a whiff of gunpowder in the air from the moment even before he entered the White House, of his older brother having selected what could only be described as a war cabinet. Not since the American people chose Lyndon Johnson over Goldwater has there been more cause for fear.
2
the only reason we can now afford to back away from our tragic intervention in the age-old Sunni/Shiite madness of Iraq and the surrounding region is that American ingenuity has brought about the domestic shale oil and gas revolution and a lesser need for that unstable region's hydrocarbons... well done, frackers !
1
The question of congressional authorization rests on congress' preference for politically pummeling Obama for being unconstitutional, when they could easily grant authorization, and ironically criticizing Obama for not doing more against ISIS and other "enemies".
As for the air strikes, we have provided air strikes against ISIS in the past, so I'm not sure how this is an escalation. As for de-stabilization, there isn't much to de-stabilize and sectarian violence will happen without the U.S., perhaps more without the U.S., but certainly U.S. involvement will not alienate Sunnis any more than they are already in their fear of Shiite Iraqis. The alternative appears to be leaving it up to Iran to run the show - I can't see how that would be any less de-stabilizing or lessen the sectarian violence. I'm not saying that the current American strategy, if it can be called that, is the right one, just that some of the arguments in this editorial are wanting and some of the suggestions agree with the administration's angles.
As for the air strikes, we have provided air strikes against ISIS in the past, so I'm not sure how this is an escalation. As for de-stabilization, there isn't much to de-stabilize and sectarian violence will happen without the U.S., perhaps more without the U.S., but certainly U.S. involvement will not alienate Sunnis any more than they are already in their fear of Shiite Iraqis. The alternative appears to be leaving it up to Iran to run the show - I can't see how that would be any less de-stabilizing or lessen the sectarian violence. I'm not saying that the current American strategy, if it can be called that, is the right one, just that some of the arguments in this editorial are wanting and some of the suggestions agree with the administration's angles.
1
Obama has unleashed such a whirlwind of trouble by his political decision to withdraw completely from Iraq. Bush made a catastrophic error in starting that war and he and Obama were thus in a tough spot, but Obama has made things worse. It is clear that this nation has no foreign policy strategy and kicked the can down the road as long as possible. but this is utter chaos.
And to make a nuclear arms deal with Iran in this environment is sheer lunacy!
And to make a nuclear arms deal with Iran in this environment is sheer lunacy!
2
I am always stunned that there are so many individuals claiming to know the future.
Nobody knows what is going to happen.
The smart people try to come up with several possible alternatives and hypothesis that sometimes exclude each other and then carefully follow up the unfolding events to recognize what theoretical model describes the future the best.
Those with a single and fixed solution to all the problems know nothing.
Those who hate their neighbors and see the unavoidable conflicst everywhere around them don’t even know the God’s commandments and recommendations.
Nobody knows what is going to happen.
The smart people try to come up with several possible alternatives and hypothesis that sometimes exclude each other and then carefully follow up the unfolding events to recognize what theoretical model describes the future the best.
Those with a single and fixed solution to all the problems know nothing.
Those who hate their neighbors and see the unavoidable conflicst everywhere around them don’t even know the God’s commandments and recommendations.
It is obvious that Obama has no plan to protect Sunnis in Iraq if the Shite militias for whom he is now providing air support prevail. Responsible governments in countries with Sunni majorities should step in to protect the Sunnis in Iraq and provide a moderating influence on the IS. The US should stay out as it creates chaos and destruction everywhere it meddles. The US congress should step in and exert their authority to stop an out of control Presidency.
1
perhaps this is too-late in this conversation:
did the Obama Administration request from the Congress a specific "extended-authorization" to militarily support various factions in an effort to eradicate ISIS?
did the Congress do anything constructive about this request?
or did the Congress just leave it hanging-out-there so that no matter what the Obama Administration attempted to do or not to do, heaps of criticism would follow?
how long are you suggesting that everyone wait for Congress?
really....
unfortunately for all concerned:
O I L is the currency...
and it is still a world wide need, every single day...
short of a much larger area of chaos...
buttressed up against nearly 3,000 years of continuous conflict among the tribes in this region...
a bit of whining here by The Editorial Board -- no?? -- that we ought now to be changing the sheets on the bed that we built and are sleeping in?
a fine mess all the way around indeed.
did the Obama Administration request from the Congress a specific "extended-authorization" to militarily support various factions in an effort to eradicate ISIS?
did the Congress do anything constructive about this request?
or did the Congress just leave it hanging-out-there so that no matter what the Obama Administration attempted to do or not to do, heaps of criticism would follow?
how long are you suggesting that everyone wait for Congress?
really....
unfortunately for all concerned:
O I L is the currency...
and it is still a world wide need, every single day...
short of a much larger area of chaos...
buttressed up against nearly 3,000 years of continuous conflict among the tribes in this region...
a bit of whining here by The Editorial Board -- no?? -- that we ought now to be changing the sheets on the bed that we built and are sleeping in?
a fine mess all the way around indeed.
1
The Shia militias may be supported by Iran, and ISIS may have originated & supported as a result of Saudi Wahhabism.
Without pulling back _all_ of the external, behind the scenes players, as well as the internal ones in these civil wars, lofty peace may just be lofty pie in the sky.
And still even if there is peace, there will be a powder keg, since a very sectarian/tribal social structure is artificially held together with an Iraqi democratic collectivism that cannot function "collectively" to overturn & subsume the tribal "winner take all" mindset. (In part, perhaps due to an underdeveloped modern economy that provides incentive for breaking down sectarian barriers.)
Without pulling back _all_ of the external, behind the scenes players, as well as the internal ones in these civil wars, lofty peace may just be lofty pie in the sky.
And still even if there is peace, there will be a powder keg, since a very sectarian/tribal social structure is artificially held together with an Iraqi democratic collectivism that cannot function "collectively" to overturn & subsume the tribal "winner take all" mindset. (In part, perhaps due to an underdeveloped modern economy that provides incentive for breaking down sectarian barriers.)
This area of the world is nothing more than a Tar-Baby no matter what we do. Thank you George Bush II.
2
This editorial fails to recognize the dilemma the President faces due to the Machiavellian machinations of the Republican party.
If the President does nothing against ISIS, America is seen as weak and the President is seen as weak. If Iraq falls, the President will be blamed.
If he orders the military to fight ISIS without Congressional approval, he is seen as someone who willfully violates the Constitution and doesn't respect the (supposed) will of the people.
America has an obligation to Iraq and our allies in the region. They have requested America's help in what the Editorial board has correctly noted will be a long battle.
Unfortunately, while Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc. are burning, our Congress sits in Washington and fiddles with more resolutions to abolish Healthcare reform, more plans to reduce food stamps and assistance to the needy.
This editorial asks what will happen when the bombs stop falling.
Why not consider what will happen if the President pulls our troops out of the area while waiting for Congress to decide if they will authorize military action.
Which is the lesser of two evils?
If the President does nothing against ISIS, America is seen as weak and the President is seen as weak. If Iraq falls, the President will be blamed.
If he orders the military to fight ISIS without Congressional approval, he is seen as someone who willfully violates the Constitution and doesn't respect the (supposed) will of the people.
America has an obligation to Iraq and our allies in the region. They have requested America's help in what the Editorial board has correctly noted will be a long battle.
Unfortunately, while Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc. are burning, our Congress sits in Washington and fiddles with more resolutions to abolish Healthcare reform, more plans to reduce food stamps and assistance to the needy.
This editorial asks what will happen when the bombs stop falling.
Why not consider what will happen if the President pulls our troops out of the area while waiting for Congress to decide if they will authorize military action.
Which is the lesser of two evils?
4
Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq to steal the oil.
Obama wanted to stay in Iraq to steal the oil.
Obama is going back into Iraq to steal the oil.
If we want to save the planet and end the Oil Wars we would take the money we are wasting on wars and find alternatives to oil. Sadly our Government is owned by the same people that have grown rich on Oil Wars and Oil so we will go on fighting over what's left of the Oil until we all succumb to the fumes.
Obama wanted to stay in Iraq to steal the oil.
Obama is going back into Iraq to steal the oil.
If we want to save the planet and end the Oil Wars we would take the money we are wasting on wars and find alternatives to oil. Sadly our Government is owned by the same people that have grown rich on Oil Wars and Oil so we will go on fighting over what's left of the Oil until we all succumb to the fumes.
3
Sunni Turkey has had northern Iraq for centuries and Persia southern. Gelb and Biden were right that we should have done that. Now it is time for us and EU to bribe Turkey to impose its puppets in the north and oversee an international city in Kirkuk with the Kurds. We don't need an inclusion central government but an extremely weak inclusive confederate government with a Shite and Sunny veto like we established in 1787 between North and South
I don't understand why the US needs to be involved. The Iraqis don't want our help regarding recapturing Tikrit. Neither do the Saudis regarding Yemen. Let the Middle East countries address the challenges facing their region. Israel doesn't deserve our support until they recognize the Palestinian right to a homeland with its own government and territory.
4
Yo do realize that without the US scrambling around to try and put out fires in the Middle East for the past several decades there might have already been nuclear weapons detonated in anger in the most oil rich part of the world, do you not?
2
Do you remember that more than a half century ago the Republicans questioned ability of John F. Kennedy to lead America in the patriotic way, allegedly due to him being a Catholic and loyal to the foreign authority, the Roman Pope?
Have you noticed how the Republicans have completely changed the course?
Now they demand any candidate for the top office to declare their loyalty to the foreign authorities.
For a few decades, every GOP endorsed candidate for the Supreme Court has been a Catholic.
Every presidential candidate has to be fully supportive of Israel so Jesus Christ could finally return to the Earth.
That’s why they pushed America into the Iraq War because at that time the Saddam regime was perceived as the potential threat to Israel. That’s why they are pushing America into the Iran War because Tehran is perceived as the worst threat to Tel Aviv right now.
Should we still construe Tehran as being governed by the religious leaders if our government acts far worse than the Ayatollahs?
Don’t you remember that George W. Bush invaded Iraq because God directed him so?
O tempora, o mores!
Have you noticed how the Republicans have completely changed the course?
Now they demand any candidate for the top office to declare their loyalty to the foreign authorities.
For a few decades, every GOP endorsed candidate for the Supreme Court has been a Catholic.
Every presidential candidate has to be fully supportive of Israel so Jesus Christ could finally return to the Earth.
That’s why they pushed America into the Iraq War because at that time the Saddam regime was perceived as the potential threat to Israel. That’s why they are pushing America into the Iran War because Tehran is perceived as the worst threat to Tel Aviv right now.
Should we still construe Tehran as being governed by the religious leaders if our government acts far worse than the Ayatollahs?
Don’t you remember that George W. Bush invaded Iraq because God directed him so?
O tempora, o mores!
4
All Bush lies about yellowcake ,and Al Quada contacts with Iraq, aside, you left out 9/11 and the devoutly professed religious reasons that were trumpeted for that terrible day.
We created a desert and called it peace. Agricola.
As the U.S. and its allies bomb ISIS controlled territory in what was once iraq and Syria into the Neolithic, there is little media reporting on the travails suffered by the civilian populations. All we hear is the mantra the "ISIS is a threat to the West".
The vacuum on the ground seems to be filled by Iran. How will our political leaders explain aligning themselves with, and assisting the extension of the influence of, Iran?
As the U.S. and its allies bomb ISIS controlled territory in what was once iraq and Syria into the Neolithic, there is little media reporting on the travails suffered by the civilian populations. All we hear is the mantra the "ISIS is a threat to the West".
The vacuum on the ground seems to be filled by Iran. How will our political leaders explain aligning themselves with, and assisting the extension of the influence of, Iran?
2
Yes, well, here's the thing editorial board.
When you applaud Obama when he steps on the Constitution on issues like immigration, marijuana, open records, executive privilege, and wholesale executive branch rewriting of Obamacare, do you really have any credibility criticizing him for ignoring it just because this time you personally disagree with him?
This is your monster.
When you applaud Obama when he steps on the Constitution on issues like immigration, marijuana, open records, executive privilege, and wholesale executive branch rewriting of Obamacare, do you really have any credibility criticizing him for ignoring it just because this time you personally disagree with him?
This is your monster.
10
Two days ago the Obama administration had 666 days left in office.
1
Mr. Obama isn’t the most powerful man in the world. He is the world worst sucker.
How in the world have the Saudi princes managed to fool him into believing that nobody else can better fight the ISIS fanatics than the American troops?
Have you seen how the Saudi troops could quickly launch the military operation in Yemen when it mattered to them and when their interests were threatened...
How in the world have the Saudi princes managed to fool him into believing that nobody else can better fight the ISIS fanatics than the American troops?
Have you seen how the Saudi troops could quickly launch the military operation in Yemen when it mattered to them and when their interests were threatened...
7
If I understand this; Iran is the nominal leader of Shiites while Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of Sunnis. America is baking up the Iranians against the extremist jihadis known as Is and America is baking the Saudis in their operation in Yemen.
What if this opens a dialog between the two sects in Islam leading to at least a form of detente with each other. Maybe, it could happen. Keep your fingers crossed. (It's at least better that choosing one against the other.)
What if this opens a dialog between the two sects in Islam leading to at least a form of detente with each other. Maybe, it could happen. Keep your fingers crossed. (It's at least better that choosing one against the other.)
It’s absolutely irrelevant now who fathered a child. It only matters who is legally responsible for the child at this moment.
According to the US Constitution, it’s Obama’s responsibility since his inauguration in 2009.
President Roosevelt defeated the industrial, military and intellectual superpowers like Germany and Japan in less than 4 years by having a clear battle plan and cooperating even with the communist USSR.
Mr. Roosevelt never simultaneously battled both the fascists and the communists like Bush, Clinton and Obama did.
We waged the wars in Iraq against everybody – the socialist Saddam regime, the Shiite militias, the Sunni insurgents and the fascistoid ISIS...
If Mr. Obama claimed in front of whole America the Iraq War to be the wrong one, why do we still wage it?
If the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Gulf States managed to assemble the troops to fight the insurgents in Yemen, shouldn’t have they done the same to stop ISIS and ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, the Christians and the Yazidis in Iraq or the deliberate destruction of the most precious cultural heritage?
Why should the American troops and the taxpayers die and pay to fight the fanatical radicals while the Saudis have assembled astonishing personal wealth and bought the fancy soccer clubs in England and France like Manchester City, Arsenal or PSG...
We should only blame Mr. Obama for those failures at this moment.
It takes a simple executive order to bring the troops home...
According to the US Constitution, it’s Obama’s responsibility since his inauguration in 2009.
President Roosevelt defeated the industrial, military and intellectual superpowers like Germany and Japan in less than 4 years by having a clear battle plan and cooperating even with the communist USSR.
Mr. Roosevelt never simultaneously battled both the fascists and the communists like Bush, Clinton and Obama did.
We waged the wars in Iraq against everybody – the socialist Saddam regime, the Shiite militias, the Sunni insurgents and the fascistoid ISIS...
If Mr. Obama claimed in front of whole America the Iraq War to be the wrong one, why do we still wage it?
If the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Gulf States managed to assemble the troops to fight the insurgents in Yemen, shouldn’t have they done the same to stop ISIS and ethnic cleansing of the Kurds, the Christians and the Yazidis in Iraq or the deliberate destruction of the most precious cultural heritage?
Why should the American troops and the taxpayers die and pay to fight the fanatical radicals while the Saudis have assembled astonishing personal wealth and bought the fancy soccer clubs in England and France like Manchester City, Arsenal or PSG...
We should only blame Mr. Obama for those failures at this moment.
It takes a simple executive order to bring the troops home...
2
Can we stop referring to middle eastern towns as "villages?"
The word "village" conjures up images of pre-modern squalor, mud huts, thatched roofs, bare-chested women and loin-clouted savages. But these people live in towns, on developed real estate, with modern utilities. They are literate.
We have treated Iraqis and other middle easterners as less-than in so many ways. Let's please stop using language that reinforces the notion that Western man is a more advanced form of human, and that Arabs are disposable and not quite fully deserving of recognition as human beings.
The word "village" conjures up images of pre-modern squalor, mud huts, thatched roofs, bare-chested women and loin-clouted savages. But these people live in towns, on developed real estate, with modern utilities. They are literate.
We have treated Iraqis and other middle easterners as less-than in so many ways. Let's please stop using language that reinforces the notion that Western man is a more advanced form of human, and that Arabs are disposable and not quite fully deserving of recognition as human beings.
1
As opposed to, say, English Country Villages?
The Middle East has been a mess as far back as I can remember. Some things never change.
2
"The core problem is that if ISIS is expelled from Tikrit, the Americans and Iraqis will need to bring security and ensure there is a government that respects the rights of all citizens. " We achieved this as part of the surge and we secrued Tikrit. Unfortunatley this President ordered us to exit too soon and it fell to ISIS. The NYT supported this withdrawl too!!. Jeez guys, let's get real here. We lost any hope of some stability in Iraq when we prematurely pulled out. What we really should have done is stay for the long term to help continue the needed security the Iraq people needed rebuild. We should have forced the corrupt government to take a much more balanced approach with the Sunni's, Shai and Kurds (we had billions to do this and could also leverage the Kurds to force the issue even more) and then transferred out. This would have taken probably another 10 years or more, but was the solution to a good ending. It's what worked in Sourth Korea, Japan, and Germany, and we are still helping provide to them. Democracy, human rights, and freedoms that come with it can only happen if there is a foundation or security and some normallacy so the majority of people can get on with developing an economy and taking longer term ownership. Our politicians are too short term. I keep hoping more of the longstanding media organizations like yours would take the longer term view and promote the need for security in enabling a more liberal and liberated world.
3
In answer to John C, most likely staying in Iraq would never have worked. Not only would forcing them to govern peacefully and inclusively have been a very costly and long-term project, as he acknowledges, any "peace" forced upon them would have been superficial because people would have always blamed Americans for all their troubles and used anti-American sentiment in all their bloody power plays. Better for Americans be gone so that the locals turn their attention to their true enemy, their own sectarian conflict and ISIS. Better for America to limit its help to diplomatic efforts, and to use force only when necessary and helpful, discretely, from afar. Thank goodness President Obama got our troops out when he did.
2
This whole mess is a religious war. There's nothing strategic about it. We need to wake up and get out of this mess.
11
There is no solution to the the morass that is the Middle East. None. Never has been never will be. If you support one faction you anger another faction in a never ending game of chess. Saddam Hussein did what Tito did - he separated the factions with an iron hand, and that is about the best that can ever be achieved. We undid all of that and created chaos.
This is not Obama's war it is George W. Bush's and Cheney's. Obama has done an admirable job given the cards he was dealt. In this instance he has given the support of the U.S. to the Iraqi government as requested - not to a particular faction. What would you have had him do to help Iraq fight ISIS? The end of the story for the U.S. will come when we leave the Middle East, just as we did in Vietnam.
This is not Obama's war it is George W. Bush's and Cheney's. Obama has done an admirable job given the cards he was dealt. In this instance he has given the support of the U.S. to the Iraqi government as requested - not to a particular faction. What would you have had him do to help Iraq fight ISIS? The end of the story for the U.S. will come when we leave the Middle East, just as we did in Vietnam.
5
No one forced Obama to re-commit forces after he had carried out the withdrawal of US forces that Bush originally agreed to.
1
Last I heard, our domestic oil and natural gas production is at an all time high. Add to that some hydro, wind, solar and bio and we should, in theory, be able to start reducing our dependence on and support of middle east resources. That is assuming that we (the people) not we (the corporate controlled) direct our government through elections to step back. It is not in our best interests to be taking sides or brokering a thousand year old religious battle. The only thing that the Shiites and Sunnis hate more than each other is The West. Their destiny is in their hands.
5
No one is going to "solve" the Shia - Sunni wars. The only goal here is reduce the pain and misery their fighting is inflicting on innocent people --including the rest of the world. This will make for strange short term alliances. None of this is "good'. This is about trying to manage a horrendously bad situation. There are plenty of bad guys and virtually no good actors in this entire region. ( an exception might be Jordan)
2
I don't understand. Here we have a number of Middle Eastern faction ready and willing to fight their own war and we want to get involved, we jump at the chance when asked? Part of the maturation process for the area is combating its own dysfunction. Let's let them grow up on their own, not condescend with our muscle flexing.
6
Paraphrasing Jon Stewart - we've figured out how to have a proxy war with ourselves. Seriously, at the very least the President has not even tried to explain what are our objectives, strategy and policies for implementation in the Middle East. We have a limited partnership with Iran in Iraq while we support a Gulf (Sunni) coalition fighting the Iran supported Houthis in Yemen. The net result is instability from North Africa to Pakistan. I don't want to engage in the who started this debate but has the situation improved over the last 8 years from the mess generated by Bush/Cheney?
The President needs to go on TV and give a clear policy speech that we can all understand and get behind. In lieu of that, we are left with red/blue bickering about what we think the policy is or should be.
The President needs to go on TV and give a clear policy speech that we can all understand and get behind. In lieu of that, we are left with red/blue bickering about what we think the policy is or should be.
9
I think it's safe to say that nobody really has a solution. President Obama is certainly trying to remain actively engaged, but neutral with regard to Sunni vs. Shiite. He is supporting anyone willing to fight against the worst psychopaths in the bunch, like ISIS or the Houthi. Which is commendable, but also futile because ISIS is supported by Saudi Arabia and the Houthi is supported by Iran, you can only play both sides for so long.
The middle east has begin its death spiral into total war, and there's no going back. As sad as it is, and as much as I think it's necessary for America to at least try and protect the lives of civilians in the region, at this point we're in the middle of a seventh century holy war, and we need get out of the way and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out to see who is the "rightful" successor to Muhammad. For whatever that's worth.
The Sunnis have the numbers and the firepower to win, and once Iran entangled itself in Yemen, Saudi Arabia could no longer sit idly by. And now Egypt is getting involved. The problem is, that instead of fighting each other, Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting by proxy.
There's only one possible way out of this, for Sunni and Shiite governments to make war on the fundamentalists within their own sects. And I think we're more likely to find an openly gay, Republican unicorn who supports gun control, than a Sunni or Shiite government willing to do that.
The middle east has begin its death spiral into total war, and there's no going back. As sad as it is, and as much as I think it's necessary for America to at least try and protect the lives of civilians in the region, at this point we're in the middle of a seventh century holy war, and we need get out of the way and let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out to see who is the "rightful" successor to Muhammad. For whatever that's worth.
The Sunnis have the numbers and the firepower to win, and once Iran entangled itself in Yemen, Saudi Arabia could no longer sit idly by. And now Egypt is getting involved. The problem is, that instead of fighting each other, Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting by proxy.
There's only one possible way out of this, for Sunni and Shiite governments to make war on the fundamentalists within their own sects. And I think we're more likely to find an openly gay, Republican unicorn who supports gun control, than a Sunni or Shiite government willing to do that.
5
If the White House actually spent all the money we wasted on fighting the Sunnis and the Shiites on befriending them and bribing them, they would love us endlessly, much more than Israel does.
Why?
We gave Israel about $100 billion. Imagine if we gave $2 trillion to the Arabs and the Iranians. They would have the pictures of Bush, Clinton and Obama hanging on the walls of their living rooms, in the same way the Europeans adored us when we invested heavily after the WWII through the Marshal plan into reconstruction of their devastated countries...
Why?
We gave Israel about $100 billion. Imagine if we gave $2 trillion to the Arabs and the Iranians. They would have the pictures of Bush, Clinton and Obama hanging on the walls of their living rooms, in the same way the Europeans adored us when we invested heavily after the WWII through the Marshal plan into reconstruction of their devastated countries...
Saying something is "pure and simple" as any part of this long and complicated reason we are in this part of the world mired/enmeshed/involved in geopolitical gamesmanship is simply ridiculous. Of course a great part moola...try to separate that out from money that goes to universities for research into these war machinations; go into supply chain that benefits from war; go into...How about looking at congress and presidents prior who ignored the folly of war: the latest, most disastrous involvement the "war" in Iraq. From there follows all. Of course, this policy followed the Brits, as well as French/German involvement in this part of the world for antiquities, for oil, for domination.
2
Congress still needs to weigh in on whether to authorize this war (without overly constraining strategy). They are willing to fund it but unwilling to vote "yea or nay" on whether we should be there at all.
2
Unfortunately if you are involved in the middle east you automatically choose sides. The Sunnis and Shiias hate one another and always have. they take turns oppressing each other. That's a fact. Now you have very radical sunnis ,ISIS, and not so radical shiiias and you need to help one or the other ,or stay out. So the choice is it best to stay out or choose a side? Obama has chosen one devil over the other. Is this good or Bad? depends on whether you think we need to be involved at all.
I would love to see a tag-team match with the Washington Post Editorial Board. But I dislike wrestling.
Oh well. This can take its place.
Oh well. This can take its place.
1
With each passing year, each passing event in the corridor from North Africa through the Middle East and on to Iran and Afghanistan, the damage done by the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan continues to mount. Is there a tiny piece of real estate in the region that is now better off for the trillions the nation spent? For the cost in lives? To look at a map of Iraq and see that ISIS controls much of the north and is now lurking in the suburbs of Baghdad is both alarming and depressing. Our president is now the lamest of ducks, thwarted and hobbled by a Republican Party that does not hesitate to treat him with such disrespect that its behavior has gone over the line which has the opposition at least show respect for the office if not the man. Of late, the floors of the Senate and the House resemble town hall meetings invaded by Tea Party thugs. Nor does there seem much hope in waiting it out until the next election. One trembles at the prospect of yet a third Bush in the White House.
3
Where is our foreign policy? Where in the world is our foreign policy? President Obama needs to articular a clear and consistent set of policies regarding Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Ukraine, China, and the list goes on. I do hope there is clarity of thought and wisdom, well hidden from our view, but it is impossible to discern if it exists.
4
Michael S "Time to stop dropping $250K missiles on $20K pickup trucks"
Thank you for one of the clearest sentences produced in describing the absurdity of this war.
Thank you for one of the clearest sentences produced in describing the absurdity of this war.
9
Quit beating around the bush. Pun not intended. The policies of George W Bush and Dick Cheney created this mess.
1
Assuming this is true, Obama has been President for the last 6+ years. He is not absolved of responsibility.
2
In the aftermath of the disastrous war against Iraq, and the subsequent trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, the current US bombing of the city of Tikrit in Iraq, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, may not go unnoticed by hundreds of millions of Sunni Muslims who viewed the execution of Saddam Hussein as unjust and the Iraq War as a war against Islam itself.
Yet in order to dislodge the Sunni group called ISIS from Tikrit, President Obama has now ordered this bombing.
At the same time, President Obama has agreed to provide logistical and intelligence support to the government of Saudi Arabia and to a coalition of nine more Sunni governments for bombing Yemen, in order to dislodge the Shiite group called the Houthies from Yemen.
All this is taking place while President Obama’s administration is negotiating with the government of Iran over the nuclear issue.
No wonder the American people are mystified and confused by these contradictory events.
Perhaps our government should refrain from the current military involvements in the Sunni-Shiite rivalry before it concludes a nuclear agreement with Iran, which agreement could open doors for further diplomatic negotiations with Sunni and Shiite groups and governments aimed at deescalating the Sunni-Shiite violence and confrontations.
For peace and stability in the Middle East may be nearly impossible to attain without ending this dangerous Sunni-Shiite violence and confrontation.
We should give it utmost priority.
Yet in order to dislodge the Sunni group called ISIS from Tikrit, President Obama has now ordered this bombing.
At the same time, President Obama has agreed to provide logistical and intelligence support to the government of Saudi Arabia and to a coalition of nine more Sunni governments for bombing Yemen, in order to dislodge the Shiite group called the Houthies from Yemen.
All this is taking place while President Obama’s administration is negotiating with the government of Iran over the nuclear issue.
No wonder the American people are mystified and confused by these contradictory events.
Perhaps our government should refrain from the current military involvements in the Sunni-Shiite rivalry before it concludes a nuclear agreement with Iran, which agreement could open doors for further diplomatic negotiations with Sunni and Shiite groups and governments aimed at deescalating the Sunni-Shiite violence and confrontations.
For peace and stability in the Middle East may be nearly impossible to attain without ending this dangerous Sunni-Shiite violence and confrontation.
We should give it utmost priority.
7
Yes, the militia is brutal, but who else is willing to due the dirty work? If this was a business deal the MSM would be marveling at the disruptors who were changing the game. Hey, the shite militia is the uber of the war making organizations. They stepped in and did the chore the taxi cabs, the Iraqi army, wouldn't do. The rebels in Yemen, sort of your Facebook/Google/Amazon of disruptor class in the war making space, ran a Sunni out of town. Now the established order, Saudi Arabia, must step in to right the situation. As a citizen who preached against our involvement in the Middle East for decades now I am doing the McDonalds, I am loving it. Arab on Arab, Sunni v. Shite. "Let's get ready to rumble!"
1
What, a, mess.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend unless the enemy is ISIS and my friends are Saudis - unless, that is, the enemy is Iran and my friends are Yemenis - who are enemies of the Saudis....
The enemy of my enemy is my friend unless the enemy is ISIS and my friends are Saudis - unless, that is, the enemy is Iran and my friends are Yemenis - who are enemies of the Saudis....
3
ISIS has had a lot of momentum but is surrounded by enemies and has little local support for its objectives. ISIS has internal fueds which are likely to get worse and it's likely to tear itself apart eventually. We should largely stand back and let this tragedy play out. Every well intentioned action we take from the genuine hope of Iraq liberation in 2003 to leading from behind during the Arab Spring just seems to make things worse. Libya was a relatively happy place and now it's chaos. Egypt got lucky with a popular uprising to overthrow their democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood fanatics and restore the military dictatorship. Absent a clear achievable objective (like expelling Iraq from Kuwait in 1992) Obama would be wise to stick to his "don't do stupid stuff policy".
1
I suppose the president might have taken it for granted that America's interests are served by a major defeat suffered by ISIS. And I suppose that once the bombs stop falling, we arrange with the Iranians and the Iraqis of both Kurdistan and Shiastan to go bomb another concentration of ISIS.
The problem with Iran and its Shiastan Iraqi client is a problem that won't go away until Iraq is formally partitioned, into its natural Shiastan, Sunnistan and Kurdistan components, as sovereign entities. But that problem, and its resolution, have little to do with countering the most destabilizing force in the region today, which is ISIS.
Iran hasn't demonstrated any interest in proving to the world its "fitness for rejoining the international community". Why should it? That assumption already has been established by the Obama Administration, and that status already accorded Iran, without their needing to make any sacrifices at all to secure it. Why should Iran give up the part of Iraq dominated by its Shia client? ISIS represents an existential threat to Iran, directly. Why would they depend on the "Iraqi Army" to defend that threat if they believe that they can do it more effectively?
The alliance of convenience with Iran will continue so long as it serves U.S. interests, which include destroying a rampaging ISIS. If Shiite militias bulldoze Sunni homes in areas where they mean to remain dominant, this only argues for resolving the partition mess sooner rather than later.
The problem with Iran and its Shiastan Iraqi client is a problem that won't go away until Iraq is formally partitioned, into its natural Shiastan, Sunnistan and Kurdistan components, as sovereign entities. But that problem, and its resolution, have little to do with countering the most destabilizing force in the region today, which is ISIS.
Iran hasn't demonstrated any interest in proving to the world its "fitness for rejoining the international community". Why should it? That assumption already has been established by the Obama Administration, and that status already accorded Iran, without their needing to make any sacrifices at all to secure it. Why should Iran give up the part of Iraq dominated by its Shia client? ISIS represents an existential threat to Iran, directly. Why would they depend on the "Iraqi Army" to defend that threat if they believe that they can do it more effectively?
The alliance of convenience with Iran will continue so long as it serves U.S. interests, which include destroying a rampaging ISIS. If Shiite militias bulldoze Sunni homes in areas where they mean to remain dominant, this only argues for resolving the partition mess sooner rather than later.
Since when has anything Washington has done in Iraq been in the "American interests" aside from the Washington's nuanced meaning of that term, "the interests of corporate America"?
5
This Editorial piece significantly underestimate what is Shiite and Sunni sectarian war.
Editorial treats the ongoing fight with ISIS can be managed as IRAQ internal problem which is not at all.
Yesterday's development in Yemen, The war between Shiite and Sunni sects of Muslim world entered a new stage.
Anymore this war is not the internal problem of Syria, Iraq or Yemen. This is a war between Saudi Arabia ( which represent Sunnis) and Iran ( represents Shiites) and a vast area or region from Turkish border to Yemen , Lebanon to Iran is engulfed.
This editorial can play down of the gravity of this development, but I believe dormant sectarian hostility ( since Ottoman - Safavieh ) almost couple centuries rekindled.
So like in the past , Islamic world is running a new chapter of confrontation between two big sects. This is not anymore, Syria, Iraq or Yemen internal problem.
We are inching towards a large scale sectarian warfare, which is destined to make decisive reorganizations in Middle east.
If western world meanwhile trying to secure oil, should also be aware of how to dodge the bullet too.
Editorial treats the ongoing fight with ISIS can be managed as IRAQ internal problem which is not at all.
Yesterday's development in Yemen, The war between Shiite and Sunni sects of Muslim world entered a new stage.
Anymore this war is not the internal problem of Syria, Iraq or Yemen. This is a war between Saudi Arabia ( which represent Sunnis) and Iran ( represents Shiites) and a vast area or region from Turkish border to Yemen , Lebanon to Iran is engulfed.
This editorial can play down of the gravity of this development, but I believe dormant sectarian hostility ( since Ottoman - Safavieh ) almost couple centuries rekindled.
So like in the past , Islamic world is running a new chapter of confrontation between two big sects. This is not anymore, Syria, Iraq or Yemen internal problem.
We are inching towards a large scale sectarian warfare, which is destined to make decisive reorganizations in Middle east.
If western world meanwhile trying to secure oil, should also be aware of how to dodge the bullet too.
1
The American invasion and occupation of Iraq without provocation or invitation based upon lies/incompetence about Iraqi WMD's and a connection to September 11, 2001 was the most "dangerous escalation" that inevitably brought America to this ethnic sectarian civil war crossroad quagmire.
Ever since Iraq was concocted out of three provinces of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French Empires the majority Shia Muslim Arab Iraqis have been subjugated by the minority Sunni Muslim Arab Iraqis. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an implacable foe of both the majority Shia Muslim Iranian Persians and the Sunni Muslim Arab Gulf state royal oil theocratic autocrats. The Shia Muslim Arabs are a ruling minority in Syria, a ruled minority in Yemen and a ruled majority in Bahrain.
Along with the oppression and marginalization of 35 million Kurds by Arabs, Turks and Persians you have ethnic conflicts among and between those groups on top of the sectarian problem. With 220,000 dead in the Syrian civil war and 175,000 Iraqi dead as a result of the American invasion Muslims have paid the highest price in blood.
What are the most likely effective strategies to achieve American national security defense interests in accord with American values?
Ever since Iraq was concocted out of three provinces of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French Empires the majority Shia Muslim Arab Iraqis have been subjugated by the minority Sunni Muslim Arab Iraqis. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an implacable foe of both the majority Shia Muslim Iranian Persians and the Sunni Muslim Arab Gulf state royal oil theocratic autocrats. The Shia Muslim Arabs are a ruling minority in Syria, a ruled minority in Yemen and a ruled majority in Bahrain.
Along with the oppression and marginalization of 35 million Kurds by Arabs, Turks and Persians you have ethnic conflicts among and between those groups on top of the sectarian problem. With 220,000 dead in the Syrian civil war and 175,000 Iraqi dead as a result of the American invasion Muslims have paid the highest price in blood.
What are the most likely effective strategies to achieve American national security defense interests in accord with American values?
1
You fail to see how annihilating ISIS advances American interests?! Are you guys deaf, blind, and heartless or just pretending to be? After I spent multiple tours in Iraq fighting a war that meant nothing here is an enemy that actually threatens not only our interests but those of the entire civilized world and you oppose it. Fantastic, you should change your moniker from The Gray Lady to the Hopelessly out of Touch Lady.
2
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Do we really KNOW anything about this region? Well, maybe one or two things… We know that things were much better for nearly all concerned while Saddam held the reins. Oops, too late to worry about that catastrophic miscalculation. (Or is it? Maybe Syria’s government is better than anything likely to follow. One thing is certain: we don’t know.) We know that the locals of that area have been murdering one another for many centuries, and we know there will be no end to this “religious” nonsense, whatever we do. We know the US lives and money spent in that benighted region would have been better spent at home, however we had chosen to spend them. (Imagine if we had competent government in Washington. Some part of the $trillion we wasted nation-building in the wastelands would have gone to research and development of renewables. Why, we likely could have saved the whales and the blue-fin tuna, too.)
1
The editorial board seems to have a laundry list of demands such as; the Americans must get permission from congress, the Iraqis must provide safety to the Sunnis and just provide them with electricity etc.
What planet is the editorial board on? Iraq is country at war against the most barbaric force on earth since Genghis khan and the Americans are trying to stop their advancement with or without the Persians.
This is war gentlemen and unless you are on the ground fighting ISIS you should calm down your demands given the unpredictability of war.
What planet is the editorial board on? Iraq is country at war against the most barbaric force on earth since Genghis khan and the Americans are trying to stop their advancement with or without the Persians.
This is war gentlemen and unless you are on the ground fighting ISIS you should calm down your demands given the unpredictability of war.
1
Get real! Destroying ISIL is not in America's interests!!! Then why are we over there? There is no democracy in the region to begin with and second, we don't need an ally that thumbs its nose at us, every time we disagree with their outrageous strategies!!
3
Iran gets out of the way due to our air strikes, and it's Obama's fault? Yet that's precisely what you argue needs to happen. The bigger threat here being that the shite militias backed by Iran will kill the Sunni residents of Tikrit. Then you open with Obama is failing the nation by not getting congresses approval. Yet you have argued here many times on the need for Obama to strike ISIL. This is the most incoherent and feckless editorial you have ever printed. The president of Iraq pleaded with Obama to help win the battle for Tikrit because it was proved Suliemani or is it Salami couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag and now 2 of the Shiite militias are backing out. This is cause for celebration but you are worried about these American killers feeling left out. So you want Salami and his proxies back in Tikrit so they can kill Innocent Sunnis but leave ISIL intact because as we have seen they can't beat them. Great why don't you just say you support Iran and are against a functionally inclusive state in Iraq and that ISIS can continue to do whatever it wants until congress decides what to do. Shame on you!
1
This is America! Bombing is what WE DO! And we have become quite skilled and proliferous at it. Just look back at the fire-bombing of Japan, the firebombing of Dresden. And how could we ignore the mushroom clouds we created over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Now, THAT was a first, and will be long-remembered. And now we can even do it without pilots and crews being put in harm's way. How far we have come. But, could it be in the wrong direction. One day in the not-too-distant future WE will be on someone's target list.
It is funny how you have such clarity about the situation in the Middle East. Why is it that those who are responsible are always less certain about the right course of action? Truth is that ISIS is our enemy number one. The Shiite militia may not be our friend and Iran is certainly not, but on a given day we may have mutual goals to pursue. As to getting the Shiite and Sunni to have a love fest--FORGET IT! The hatred between these two groups has been around for centuries. My prescription is to let them slug it out until there is a winner within a given geography, and then adapt our policies accordingly. I hope people still remember that the match that ignited the Middle East was the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq.
4
Sistani? Seriously? Sistani's record on "inclusivity" is a dismal one at best going back at least to the post-invasion period in which he did everything to get an election in Iraq without any institutions, election law, district boundaries, census, etc. that would be needed for a legitimate poll of the Iraqi populace. It was a naked Shiite power grab and has been his M.O. ever since despite the veneer that he and his acolytes display in the interest of an Iraq for all Iraqis. His base is in the shrines of Najaf, the most holy place in Shiite Islam. He will never endorse a truly pluralistic Iraq. Break up this country already!
All this and people like McCain and Graham want more of the same in Iran. Crazy...
1
Here is the ten-trillion dollar question.
If the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf countries are willing to mass the troops to defeat “the terrorists” in Yemen, why didn’t they do the same in Afghanistan after the 9/11, or right now in Iraq and Syria?
Why do our presidents waste the enormous sums of American taxpayer money on the Arab and Muslim tribal, sectarian and ethnic conflicts?
If the Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Gulf countries are willing to mass the troops to defeat “the terrorists” in Yemen, why didn’t they do the same in Afghanistan after the 9/11, or right now in Iraq and Syria?
Why do our presidents waste the enormous sums of American taxpayer money on the Arab and Muslim tribal, sectarian and ethnic conflicts?
1
To your pointed two-part question:
• "how it could advance American interests”?
• “what happens once the bombs stop falling”?
Please, try to articulate what those interests are, if not those of the military-industrial complex. All branches of government have been cowered to serve those interests.
Democracy is a Trojan horse, an alibi to extend the complex tentacles all over the world. And, the bombs will not stop falling ever! Haven't we learned that much? The beast needs to be fed — and, people are the cannon fodder.
• "how it could advance American interests”?
• “what happens once the bombs stop falling”?
Please, try to articulate what those interests are, if not those of the military-industrial complex. All branches of government have been cowered to serve those interests.
Democracy is a Trojan horse, an alibi to extend the complex tentacles all over the world. And, the bombs will not stop falling ever! Haven't we learned that much? The beast needs to be fed — and, people are the cannon fodder.
2
If America helps Iran destroy ISIS, Tehran will rule Iraq. If we don’t, ISIS will assume control. Talk about your lose-lose situations.
Fortunately, we may not have to decide, because it appears that Iranians would rather abandon the battle than fight on the same side as America. And these are the guys President Obama intends to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to developing nukes. They hate America more than ISIS, and we all know where they stand on Israel.
In Syria we face the same situation, and now, in Yemen, America’s “frenemies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are unwilling to wait on the sidelines and have begun fighting back against Tehran.
Does anyone else get the feeling that World War 3 has just begun?
In a battle between Shiite fundamentalists and Sunni fundamentalists it would be nice to just sit back and hope for lots of casualties, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalists who would suffer, and as history teaches us, watering little wars with inattention is the best way to grow big wars that refuse to be ignored.
I’m not sure we have a choice but to get involved, but eventually we’re going to have to choose a side.
Fortunately, we may not have to decide, because it appears that Iranians would rather abandon the battle than fight on the same side as America. And these are the guys President Obama intends to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to developing nukes. They hate America more than ISIS, and we all know where they stand on Israel.
In Syria we face the same situation, and now, in Yemen, America’s “frenemies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are unwilling to wait on the sidelines and have begun fighting back against Tehran.
Does anyone else get the feeling that World War 3 has just begun?
In a battle between Shiite fundamentalists and Sunni fundamentalists it would be nice to just sit back and hope for lots of casualties, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalists who would suffer, and as history teaches us, watering little wars with inattention is the best way to grow big wars that refuse to be ignored.
I’m not sure we have a choice but to get involved, but eventually we’re going to have to choose a side.
14
If Iraqis themselves cannot oust ISIL from Tikrit with 30,000 troops, why should the U.S. even bother?
Anyone remember Vietnam?
Anyone remember Vietnam?
3
In the short run, at least, the US is in a lose-lose situation in Iraq and the Mideast. We are criticized for bombing ISIS and helping the Shiite militias BY THE MILITIAS WE ARE HELPING. We are criticized for not bombing enough. We are blamed for he bombs that Saudi Arabia drops on the Shiite Houthi and we are blamed for nearly everything by the Sunni Al Qeda in Yemen.
All of the actors in the Mideast are playing very cynical games wit the lives of millions. Saudi Arabia scrambles into the fight when Shiites are the target, but remains aloof when ISIS in on the rampage. Iran will help Iraq, but only if it doesn't appear to coincide with the goals of the US even though our goals do coincide.
Were it not for the innocent victims, we could let them pummel each other 'till one stands alone and victorious on their hard won pile of rubble.
But we cannot and should not ignore the innocent victims and cannot remain aloof (although it would be nice to see a bit more effort by the affected countries against ISIS).
Of all the sides to pick, "against ISIS" is a clear choice. We should do what we can against ISIS. In the long run, the petty criticisms from the many petty power mongers in the Mideast won't mean anything.
Whatever happens in the Mideast will be blamed on the US, but it will not be our fault.
All of the actors in the Mideast are playing very cynical games wit the lives of millions. Saudi Arabia scrambles into the fight when Shiites are the target, but remains aloof when ISIS in on the rampage. Iran will help Iraq, but only if it doesn't appear to coincide with the goals of the US even though our goals do coincide.
Were it not for the innocent victims, we could let them pummel each other 'till one stands alone and victorious on their hard won pile of rubble.
But we cannot and should not ignore the innocent victims and cannot remain aloof (although it would be nice to see a bit more effort by the affected countries against ISIS).
Of all the sides to pick, "against ISIS" is a clear choice. We should do what we can against ISIS. In the long run, the petty criticisms from the many petty power mongers in the Mideast won't mean anything.
Whatever happens in the Mideast will be blamed on the US, but it will not be our fault.
1
Just what is Obama supposed to do? Yesterday we read in this paper that some Shia militias pulled out in protest of American involvement at Tikrit. Today, Sunnis get infuriated because Americans are helping to dislodge ISIS from Tikrit? This is a no-win situation for Americans either way. Let's see this engagement as what it is, a limited military campaign to dislodge ISIS. Both Shias and Sunnis are against Americans and more importantly against each other. There is no-basis for fixing anything or long-term improvement with America's help. ISIS advanced with broad support from local Sunnis and now they are complaining about the Shias and Americans. If ISIS is driven out of Iraq, both Shias and Sunnis should consider this an opportunity for a united Iraq and work for it together. And America should get out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
1
Bombing Tikrit to help Shias backed and supported by Iran to overtake Sunnis, ISIS?
In Yemen, help Saudi’s to bomb Shias to help Sunnis, what’s going on here?
Is it confusion, hypocrisy or incompetence to deal with the mess after first gulf war in 90’s and invasion of Iraq in 2000?
In Yemen, help Saudi’s to bomb Shias to help Sunnis, what’s going on here?
Is it confusion, hypocrisy or incompetence to deal with the mess after first gulf war in 90’s and invasion of Iraq in 2000?
Answering the question who’s my enemy and who’s my friend should not have to be so hard, but in the Middle-East every actor seems to be enemy and friend at the same time. But it also depends on which side of the street you’re walking, cross a road and suddenly your friend turns into a foe, and shoots you in the back. In Iraq and Syria the US coordinate their actions against the “Sunni” Islamic State(IS) more or less with the Islamic Republic(Iran), but in Yemen it’s the opposite. The US are helping to coordinate the fight against the “Shia” Houthi’s, supporting forces who in other theatre’s try to undermine or fight the US. By combatting the Yemenite Houthi’s the US suddenly find themselves on the same side of the street as Al-Qaida Yemen. In trying to understand international and regional politics in the Middle-East you already needed a crystal ball. But nowadays the ball has been dropped and splintered into a thousand shards.
President Obama has no idea what he is doing.
America should not fight ISIS because ISIS is not our problem.
ISIS is the problem of Arab and Muslim world and only the Arabs and Muslims can fix it.
If we fight ISIS and ISIS is significantly supported and embraced by the local Sunni population of Iraq and Syria, then we will be seen as fighting the Sunnis. Our national interest is not to be portrayed as being in the conflict with the Sunnis.
The key question is how to defeat ISIS. With the bombs, fighter jets, drones and tanks?
Never, never, never!
We can only defeat ISIS by defeating their ideology. We can only defeat their ideology with the scientists and criminologists.
How?
First we enlist the support of the most important ally within the Muslim world – the Koran. We have to simply point out that the Koran doesn’t support ISIS ideology.
Why do we need the scientists?
To prove that the Koran is the book of pure principles and non-materialistic instructions. Contrary to the Koran, ISIS ideology and worldviews are based upon the Hadiths, the books full of ancient specific rituals, dogmas, clothing and Arab culture from the 8th century.
Why do we need the criminologists? To prove that the Hadiths were written by the ancient Arabs long after the death of Prophet Mohammed, thus without His supervision, approval or input.
ISIS is completely unrelated to God or the Koran...
In the Koran there are no Sunnis and Shiites and there is no civil war perpetrated by ISIS.
America should not fight ISIS because ISIS is not our problem.
ISIS is the problem of Arab and Muslim world and only the Arabs and Muslims can fix it.
If we fight ISIS and ISIS is significantly supported and embraced by the local Sunni population of Iraq and Syria, then we will be seen as fighting the Sunnis. Our national interest is not to be portrayed as being in the conflict with the Sunnis.
The key question is how to defeat ISIS. With the bombs, fighter jets, drones and tanks?
Never, never, never!
We can only defeat ISIS by defeating their ideology. We can only defeat their ideology with the scientists and criminologists.
How?
First we enlist the support of the most important ally within the Muslim world – the Koran. We have to simply point out that the Koran doesn’t support ISIS ideology.
Why do we need the scientists?
To prove that the Koran is the book of pure principles and non-materialistic instructions. Contrary to the Koran, ISIS ideology and worldviews are based upon the Hadiths, the books full of ancient specific rituals, dogmas, clothing and Arab culture from the 8th century.
Why do we need the criminologists? To prove that the Hadiths were written by the ancient Arabs long after the death of Prophet Mohammed, thus without His supervision, approval or input.
ISIS is completely unrelated to God or the Koran...
In the Koran there are no Sunnis and Shiites and there is no civil war perpetrated by ISIS.
You know what would help?
Bombing Iran.
Nothing can bring peace to Iraq faster than bombing Iran.
The Iranians will welcome our bombs with open arms, and this will make all of the Middle East Muslims love us and lay down their weapons, and they will form democracies and everything will be awesome.
Bombing. It makes us safe.
I forget how, exactly but chicken hawk warmongers like John Bolton say it, so it must be true.
I wish we could go one day, just one day, without bombing or threatening to bomb someone in the Middle East
Bombing Iran.
Nothing can bring peace to Iraq faster than bombing Iran.
The Iranians will welcome our bombs with open arms, and this will make all of the Middle East Muslims love us and lay down their weapons, and they will form democracies and everything will be awesome.
Bombing. It makes us safe.
I forget how, exactly but chicken hawk warmongers like John Bolton say it, so it must be true.
I wish we could go one day, just one day, without bombing or threatening to bomb someone in the Middle East
2
When will we learn we can't defeat a guerilla army in their homeland. The only way ISIS will be defeated is if the people living in the middle east decide to put an end to them. We can encourage that with diplomacy not with bombs.
5
Our involvement in Iraq will not improve the situation! This is, essentially, a religious war. Haven't we learned that yet?
2
A dangerous, deadly, costly and completely unnecessary escalation in Iraq.
Iraq is the new Vietnam. The similarities are too numerous to list here, but both were started on false circumstances, both had no evidence of how the wars advanced or protected American interests, both wars lasted far too long and both achieved absolutely nothing except the deaths and wounding thousands of American soldiers and the deaths and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Vietamese and Iraqui nationals, both cost far too much in scarce American tax dollars and both wars never should have been started as they never were our fight and posed no danger to America and lastly, we lost both!
In the Iraq War, Obama is the new Nixon and Bush was the new Johnson.
Bush's Iraq War started this entire mess in Iraq and the chaos that has and is spreading all accross the Middle East and North Africa when he killed Saddam Hussain. Hussain, while a evil dictator, provided a balance against Iran and the Iranian people lived far better lives then the killing, bombing, fighting, terror, starvation, and homelessness they have been forced to live with for 14 years!
Iraq never was our fight. It was and is up to the Iraqui people to decide their own fate.
The Iraq War has only made America and Americans more vulnerable to terrorism, made us hated by Iraquis and other of the region's people as our relentless bombing for 14 years has caused enormous deaths, destruction, and shear terror.
End it and get out now!
Iraq is the new Vietnam. The similarities are too numerous to list here, but both were started on false circumstances, both had no evidence of how the wars advanced or protected American interests, both wars lasted far too long and both achieved absolutely nothing except the deaths and wounding thousands of American soldiers and the deaths and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Vietamese and Iraqui nationals, both cost far too much in scarce American tax dollars and both wars never should have been started as they never were our fight and posed no danger to America and lastly, we lost both!
In the Iraq War, Obama is the new Nixon and Bush was the new Johnson.
Bush's Iraq War started this entire mess in Iraq and the chaos that has and is spreading all accross the Middle East and North Africa when he killed Saddam Hussain. Hussain, while a evil dictator, provided a balance against Iran and the Iranian people lived far better lives then the killing, bombing, fighting, terror, starvation, and homelessness they have been forced to live with for 14 years!
Iraq never was our fight. It was and is up to the Iraqui people to decide their own fate.
The Iraq War has only made America and Americans more vulnerable to terrorism, made us hated by Iraquis and other of the region's people as our relentless bombing for 14 years has caused enormous deaths, destruction, and shear terror.
End it and get out now!
5
A Dangerous Escalation in Iraq?
Want to see really terrific escalation? Give Iran written permission to develop nuclear weapons.
Want to see really terrific escalation? Give Iran written permission to develop nuclear weapons.
3
They (Iran) do not need our permission, anymore than we needed somebody's permission to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Get real. The weapons are coming, and coming and coming.........
The Obama administration needs to start planning the eventual partitioning of Iraq. Too much blood and bad faith has been exchanged among the factions in Iraq for it to be a unified nation in these times. There are only two ways to stabilizing the region, one is establishing a new oppressive regime, and the other is the partitioning of Iraq among the major factions (e.i. Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd). Partitioning should not be considered a failure, but rather acknowledging reality and historical precedents (e.g., Pakistan-India-Bangladesh partitioning, Irish independence, recent Scottish independence vote).
Of course, there are other competing reasons for keeping Iraq together instead of partitioning, namely to keep the Iranians out and Kurds down; but, these should not and cannot be enough reason to deny the most realistic and pragmatic solution to stabilizing the region called Iraq.
Of course, there are other competing reasons for keeping Iraq together instead of partitioning, namely to keep the Iranians out and Kurds down; but, these should not and cannot be enough reason to deny the most realistic and pragmatic solution to stabilizing the region called Iraq.
1
The key difference between the crazy pilot and the crazy leaders is that the former killed 150 people while the latter saddled us with seven decades of never-ending wars and untold number of human deaths and sufferings.
Our leaders first dethroned democratically elected secular government of Iran and installed tyrannical and torturous Shah Regime that created a fertile ground for the rise of Ayatollahs.
Then they undermined a puppet socialist government of Afghanistan by training, financing, arming and indoctrinating the Taliban and mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation of that country.
Then they were the best friends with the Saudi dictatorial clique that used their petrodollars to spread extremely rigid and distorted religious views called Wahhabism across the Middle East and the world.
Then they dethroned or undermined relatively moderate and secular governments of Iraq, Libya and Syria leading to the creation and spread of the Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Right now our leaders are supporting the Shiites in Iraq fighting the Sunnis and the Sunnis in Yemen fighting the Shiites.
If the aforementioned makes any sense to you, then you are much smarter than me personally...
I am simply befuddled with our foreign policy.
Our leaders first dethroned democratically elected secular government of Iran and installed tyrannical and torturous Shah Regime that created a fertile ground for the rise of Ayatollahs.
Then they undermined a puppet socialist government of Afghanistan by training, financing, arming and indoctrinating the Taliban and mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation of that country.
Then they were the best friends with the Saudi dictatorial clique that used their petrodollars to spread extremely rigid and distorted religious views called Wahhabism across the Middle East and the world.
Then they dethroned or undermined relatively moderate and secular governments of Iraq, Libya and Syria leading to the creation and spread of the Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Right now our leaders are supporting the Shiites in Iraq fighting the Sunnis and the Sunnis in Yemen fighting the Shiites.
If the aforementioned makes any sense to you, then you are much smarter than me personally...
I am simply befuddled with our foreign policy.
2
First, why do we care so much about stability in this region? Until we answer that question, no other consideration matters. Assuming there is a compelling reason for our involvement--and I have never heard one--the current situation presents an anomaly and an opportunity. Imagine, here we are, working with both the Iranians and the Iraqis, and at the same time. New alliances can be built, old mistakes (like disenfranchising the Kurds and Sunnis in Iraq) can be corrected, and pluralism--whatever that is--can be fostered. And we can use our new friendships as a counterweight to the overwhelming and inordinate influence Israel now wields over our Middle East policy. Do we have the skill--and the will--to do this?
12
Oil. Cheap, plentiful oil.
2
Question: "Why do we care?"
Answer: OIL
Answer: OIL
2
We care because it is the home base of radical Islam, which still poses a threat to the West. Also because millions of people live there, is the site of key (former?) allies, and, like it or not, is the nexus of world energy production.
We the People:
We want to solve domestic problems and promote peace in the middle east. How should we do that Mr. President?
Mr. President:
Oh, bomb another place over there.
We want to solve domestic problems and promote peace in the middle east. How should we do that Mr. President?
Mr. President:
Oh, bomb another place over there.
3
"If that happened in Tikrit, the United States would be blamed for helping to trigger yet another cycle of horrific sectarian violence."
~allow me to fix that sentence for you: When that happens in Tikrit, the US will be blamed for helping to trigger yet another cycle of horrific sectarian violence."
I asked a Syrian friend yesterday how the Iraqis can tell the difference between a Shia Iraqi and a Sunni Iraqi. She said they couldn't, not until the Americans got involved lo those many years ago.
Why? Why? Why? Why must the US government keep the pot of sectarian hatred roiling? We do it at home with racialist domestic policies and we do it abroad in every venue imaginable. I suspect that keeping the fight going is the only way the US government can appear to be important and in charge. That, and it creates a steady stream of disfigured heroes who we can thank serving and protecting our freedom, while applauding in adoration the grit it took to lose some limbs yet still learn how to dance for a national television audience.
Our freedom isn't in peril in the Levant, except in so far as we get embroiled in wasting more lives and treasure for pointless military adventurism.
~allow me to fix that sentence for you: When that happens in Tikrit, the US will be blamed for helping to trigger yet another cycle of horrific sectarian violence."
I asked a Syrian friend yesterday how the Iraqis can tell the difference between a Shia Iraqi and a Sunni Iraqi. She said they couldn't, not until the Americans got involved lo those many years ago.
Why? Why? Why? Why must the US government keep the pot of sectarian hatred roiling? We do it at home with racialist domestic policies and we do it abroad in every venue imaginable. I suspect that keeping the fight going is the only way the US government can appear to be important and in charge. That, and it creates a steady stream of disfigured heroes who we can thank serving and protecting our freedom, while applauding in adoration the grit it took to lose some limbs yet still learn how to dance for a national television audience.
Our freedom isn't in peril in the Levant, except in so far as we get embroiled in wasting more lives and treasure for pointless military adventurism.
1
We should have listened to Biden, split that country into three separate regions.
3
Now is the time for the NYTimes' correspondents & investigative journalists to begin the work of educating & informing readers on the last 100 years of Yemini history. Without context, the Congress in its ignorance & arrogance will plunge the US into a protracted, metastatic Middle-East War, the likes of which we have never known. Surely it will be one we (US) can never sustain. "Victory" will never be attained. My Queens College History Professor taught us that "We learn from History that we don't learn from History." Must we again prove my beloved professor right?
Simply said, America has had “salto mortale” governments for decades.
It has been chronically making the neck-breaking moves in the Middle East ever since the end of WWII.
We cannot achieve victory over there because we are fighting ourselves.
Every our ally over there was our enemy at certain moment. Every our enemy from the Middle East has become our ally at one moment in time.
We have been fighting against the people that we previously trained, financed and equipped. It happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria...
Why?
We could stay on this side of the ocean and mind our own business as we did for a couple of centuries...
It has been chronically making the neck-breaking moves in the Middle East ever since the end of WWII.
We cannot achieve victory over there because we are fighting ourselves.
Every our ally over there was our enemy at certain moment. Every our enemy from the Middle East has become our ally at one moment in time.
We have been fighting against the people that we previously trained, financed and equipped. It happened in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria...
Why?
We could stay on this side of the ocean and mind our own business as we did for a couple of centuries...
If conditions in Iraq are muddled, so is this editorial. The President is right to support the Shia militias against ISIS, whose destruction is the main goal of the U.S. at this time. Working with Iran will likely facilitate a nuclear agreement as well. It is in the interest of the United States to have closer relations with Iran, which is now the strongest and most stable state in the region.
1
The Sunni-Shiite divide is intractable -- as it has been for the better part of a thousand years.
The ineffectiveness of American intervention as a means of resolving the elemental conflict dynamic in the Middle East is indisputable.
The Republican Congress has no interest in actually owning any of the current U.S. embroilment in Iraq and Syria, which would be a grave political liability in the already looming 2016 elections.
No matter how chaotic and ineffective America's reentry into Iraq may be, Obama will certainly not be inclined or able to significantly backpedal given his strident assertions about destroying ISIS.
None of this will change until there is a sustained, massive and resounding rejection of the current morass by an unmistakeable majority the American electorate.
However, after thirteen plus years of ineffective meddling in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with no such overt backlash or protest, the prospect of such a response now seems highly improbable.
The ineffectiveness of American intervention as a means of resolving the elemental conflict dynamic in the Middle East is indisputable.
The Republican Congress has no interest in actually owning any of the current U.S. embroilment in Iraq and Syria, which would be a grave political liability in the already looming 2016 elections.
No matter how chaotic and ineffective America's reentry into Iraq may be, Obama will certainly not be inclined or able to significantly backpedal given his strident assertions about destroying ISIS.
None of this will change until there is a sustained, massive and resounding rejection of the current morass by an unmistakeable majority the American electorate.
However, after thirteen plus years of ineffective meddling in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with no such overt backlash or protest, the prospect of such a response now seems highly improbable.
15
Start the draft for the purposes of sending our young men and women, there will be a huge and relentless backlash by the American public. Just try it.
1
American interests is a bit like faith, very difficult to define yet seen as an obligation.
2
There will be no winners in Iraq, it's a skins vs shirts atmosphere, just too many sects involved with age old gripes.
So the Times proposes a do nothing strategy? Nothing of substance about what we should do? I don't know if Obama is right. And I don't know if he has the authority to support Iraq's request for air support. But we have that request from their Prime Minister so that Iraq can better it's chances to defeat this cancer. The fact that some elements of the Iraq militia has withdrawn because of our support isn't a reason to do nothing either. Tribal differences of opinion in that part of the world are the norm. And finally, our support should not be about Sunni or Shiite and appearing to take religious sides. Of course many will choose to see our involvement that way. But to the extent we provide support to anyone we should do so based on principals - defeating terrorism and extremism, supporting stability, human rights......
1
If the US withdraws then the neighbors will step up and deal with the situation. Why fight your own battles when the US is willing to cross the ocean and fight them for you.
Let's give those in the middle east a chance to solve their own problems. I believe they were doing that before there was a US.
I am tired of the old adage that if you do not fight them over there you will have to fight them here. But then again we did fight the North Vietnamese over there and prevented them from attacking us here. So maybe I am wrong.
Let's give those in the middle east a chance to solve their own problems. I believe they were doing that before there was a US.
I am tired of the old adage that if you do not fight them over there you will have to fight them here. But then again we did fight the North Vietnamese over there and prevented them from attacking us here. So maybe I am wrong.
Gen. Qassim Suleimani can handle this. And we should let him. He must keep his people under control and try to persuade his forces to behave (in contrast to the barbarians of ISIS) like decent humans. We should leave the whole neighborhood there now. We should not be joining our friends, the barbaric Saudis, in bombing Yemen. Out Out Out Out Now. We need the money here. No more throwing taxpayers' (or China's) money in the pot of perpetual war. I begin to think that Bush and Cheney knew exactly what they were doing when they illegally invaded Iraq. The real goal is forever war for forever profits for the war machine.
1
NYTs should be asking why the U.S. has been in a state of war for so long. Will it never end? The NYTs should be asking is the U.S. state of constant war from blowback of it's policies. Or, it's support of the rogue state Israel. Or, the middle ages fiefdom of Saudi Arabia. There was never any viable reason for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both began based on lies, and a kind of cryptic rationale that Americans outside of Washington were feed. The U.S. has become a true nation of secrets. Nearly everything is kept secret on the basis of national security, and the media, especially the NYTs, has fostered and allowed this secrecy to prevail. It's a wonderful world if your a defense contractor or a cyber security firm getting nearly unlimited government entitlements in secret. Obama is a Trojan Horse, and has been since elected. He is a wannabee bending over to satisfy his conservative, corporate masters.
3
This editorial seems to ignore that Obama held up military assistance to the Iraqis until they deposed Maliki, who ruined whatever prospects the success of the surge had offered by prosecuting Sunni leaders and decimating the military for the sake of promoting his own toadies. Further, Obama has withheld direct support to the Kurds and Sunnis, forcing them to work with the new Iraqi leadership, in hopes of maintaining this uncomfortable sectarian mix that was artificially cobbled together by the British after the 1st world war. There is plenty of room for opinion and criticism here, but let's get the basics straight, eh?
The cauldron is being stirred and heated up, as the U.S. saw its foothold in Yemen lost and Iran had a top general on the ground in Iraq directing the battle for Tikrit. There is no mere coincidence between the American unleashing ferocious airstrikes and the Saudis doing the same in Yemen. Clearly these are coordinated actions meant to weaken Iran's growing involvement and power.But it all plays into ISIL's hands if the Iraqi Shiite militias splinter away from the central government in Baghdad. The Saudis can ill-afford a protracted conflict with Yemen, and it remains to be seen what its desired end-game is there. But the risks of region-wide conflict has grown, and that is the most dangerous result of the twin escalations in Yemen and Iraq.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan have been perfectly willing to let the U.S. do the heavy lifting for years and it's time they not only provide military and logistical support but financial as well. The free ride is over
I believe that if Obama had addressed the threat from ISIS they could have blunted the initial thrust and given Obama some time to formulate a strategy. I also think that if Obama is serious about an air campaign he needs to ramp it upto Desert Storm levels. If he doesn't want boots on the griound then how much longer can he keep this present strategy?
I believe the only reason Obama has not resisted Iran's significant influence in the region is he needs that nuclear deal to set his legacy He ignores the fact that they are the largest finder of state sponsor terror and their threats against Israel and the U.S. don't seem to bother him. Iran is like a cancer that spreads throughout the region and there is no cure
The sectarian violence is so out of control that time it's a lost cause. I only don't think there is a solution the people can get behind. It's time to it our support for everyone but Israel
I believe that if Obama had addressed the threat from ISIS they could have blunted the initial thrust and given Obama some time to formulate a strategy. I also think that if Obama is serious about an air campaign he needs to ramp it upto Desert Storm levels. If he doesn't want boots on the griound then how much longer can he keep this present strategy?
I believe the only reason Obama has not resisted Iran's significant influence in the region is he needs that nuclear deal to set his legacy He ignores the fact that they are the largest finder of state sponsor terror and their threats against Israel and the U.S. don't seem to bother him. Iran is like a cancer that spreads throughout the region and there is no cure
The sectarian violence is so out of control that time it's a lost cause. I only don't think there is a solution the people can get behind. It's time to it our support for everyone but Israel
There are multiple considerations in US Middle East Policy, which exist because fossil fuel must be kept flowing from distribution hubs which the US can control for exploitation by Big Oil, an Assortment of Sunni Royals, and Israel is circling the field looking to advantage its own gas distribution ambitions, which are considerable. Petrodollar circulation between the US and Saudi Arabia is still a concern because it is a key element of the financial bedrock which supports the dollar as the world's reserve currency, for we would surely not like to pay our bills in anything but our own currency.
One of the maddeningly difficult facts of life which, must be surmounted, if we are to continue to back our current cast of somewhat suspect allies, is the influence of geography, and what it has to say about the the ability of our allies to continue to allow the US to dominate distribution in its role as policeman of the world. The simple fact is that Iran has by the verdict of geography and centrality to massive European and Asian Fossil Fuel Markets the potential to win, and left uncontained not in the nuclear sense, but in the business sense, they are destined to come out on top.
So far, since we had the sublime stupidity to fragment Iraq in such a way that the Shia of Iraq have been liberated to realign with Iran, the Sunni Royals have ginned up another war in the ME through proxies like ISIS, the US has decided to back both Sunni and Shia to a degree. Soon we must choose.
One of the maddeningly difficult facts of life which, must be surmounted, if we are to continue to back our current cast of somewhat suspect allies, is the influence of geography, and what it has to say about the the ability of our allies to continue to allow the US to dominate distribution in its role as policeman of the world. The simple fact is that Iran has by the verdict of geography and centrality to massive European and Asian Fossil Fuel Markets the potential to win, and left uncontained not in the nuclear sense, but in the business sense, they are destined to come out on top.
So far, since we had the sublime stupidity to fragment Iraq in such a way that the Shia of Iraq have been liberated to realign with Iran, the Sunni Royals have ginned up another war in the ME through proxies like ISIS, the US has decided to back both Sunni and Shia to a degree. Soon we must choose.
Escalation in Tikrit merely is a reminder that Iraq and America would have both been better off if we had left Saddam alone.
Yes, he was a bad man - but then the US has created and propped up many like him to rule countries around the world with devastating consequences for their own people, as long as such puppets protected America's interests.
Yes, he was a bad man - but then the US has created and propped up many like him to rule countries around the world with devastating consequences for their own people, as long as such puppets protected America's interests.
2
Democracy Now reports today that the death toll from our 'war on terror' has topped 1.3 million, and continues to climb. There is something very very wrong with us.
5
Those of us (and there were many) back in 03 that if we went into Iraq it might theoretically and practically never end were correct. Fifteen years and counting.
2
We keep being told that the Sunnis are being 'marginalized.' How so? It appears to me that Sunnis feel 'marginalized' in any country / situation where they are not in complete economic, political and military control. The only way to appease the Sunni minority is to turn the entire country over to them. They oppressed the Shiite majority for decades- and the moment they have to share power they start a civil war. I think the Iraqi government should say 'no' to the Sunnis.
8
The concluding paragraph of this editorial presents a list of outcomes that relies more on more hope than probability.
1
Iraq was a British concept combining a region with 3 distinctive regions containing Sunni, Shiites, and Kurd. It is time to realize this was a bad idea and is not working. The region needs separate regions for each autonomous group. Forcing these cultures into a single country has proven to be a disaster. We need to be realistic, and allow Iran to be partitioned into a Sunni Arab region, a Shiite Arab region, and a Kurd region. By forcing these cultures together, we will end up with a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and just a continuation of a centuries old fight that is not even close to ending. Let these people live in peace in separate autonomous regions, and stop trying to impose Western world concepts on the region.
36
Once again Obama is another war monger. We need to get out now come on Obama live up to your promise of getting America out of the Middle East quagmire now please. We could be using that money to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and put that money also into education and our health care system.
2
So many commenters here worrying about what "our" interests are, and the political "reasons" for us being involved. In the end, this is all about how to shove as much money into the Military-Industrial Complex, pure and simple. Take a look at the Senate budget. Everyone seems to be fighting to see how much more money they can shovel into that pig than the other. The flames that we started in that region are just going to have to burn themselves out now, and there is nothing we can do about it. There are no "good guys" to support, and none of them are actually our allies. We need to completely withdraw from the region and drastically slash our military spending if we are going to rebuild our own country.
38
If ISIS is such a threat to the world, where is Europe and why are they not involved int this? England and France are at the root cause of this from all the way back in 1920 when they drew the lines in the sand. The European Union should be the ones at the forefront of this war not the USA again.
Obama should be leaning very hard on our supposed allies to get into this or we should get out.
As far as any long term plan for the area, there is none, because no one can predict what kind of a dragon will crawl out of this dark lagoon next.
Obama should be leaning very hard on our supposed allies to get into this or we should get out.
As far as any long term plan for the area, there is none, because no one can predict what kind of a dragon will crawl out of this dark lagoon next.
2
The incompetence in the Middle East by American administrations - for All of this century - continues to be mind boggling...Not since Vietnam have so many, suffered so much, for so long, because of so few.
5
What we need is a flow chart that links all the interconnecting players since it is getting so confusing, along with weekly updates with changes to the flow chart. This will give us a better idea when WW III starts.
2
President Obama sure has a thing for bombs. He drops them with the flick of the finger and never shows any concern whatsoever about where they're landing or on whom. It's really time for him to return his Nobel prize, since his bellicose behavior has unequivocally disqualified him from ever being viewed as a purveyor of peace.
2
If the core problem is to ensure that there is a government that respects the rights of all citizens and provides security - don't we owe the Iraqi's that? "If you break it - you own it" - Colin Powell.
Is this going to war as the editorial implies or part of a "police action"?
I thought the whole point of the Afghanistan affair (the far more justifiable one) was to prevent a terrorist organization from controlling a large territory thus enabling them to plan larger and more sophisticated operations and provide greater training to its members?
All this said - I still don't know if Obama is making the right move. There is a case to be made though. At least he's not planning on bombing Iran or providing direct military assistance to the corrupt and incompetent government in Kiev (so far) - as the relentless drumbeat of op-ed pieces in this paper keep urging him to do.
Is this going to war as the editorial implies or part of a "police action"?
I thought the whole point of the Afghanistan affair (the far more justifiable one) was to prevent a terrorist organization from controlling a large territory thus enabling them to plan larger and more sophisticated operations and provide greater training to its members?
All this said - I still don't know if Obama is making the right move. There is a case to be made though. At least he's not planning on bombing Iran or providing direct military assistance to the corrupt and incompetent government in Kiev (so far) - as the relentless drumbeat of op-ed pieces in this paper keep urging him to do.
15
Mr. Obama is doing this to show that he's not a weakling, like commenter Downtown, suggests.
In his last two years, the president should not feel pressured to bow to the Warriors on the right who think negotiations are for weaklings and war is American Exceptionalism.
When will these people start to look back on history, especially recent history, and realize what a failure all these forays have been? A cynical person would say it's all about the money, supporting Eisenhower's statement about the military-industrial complex. But surely McCain, Graham and all the GOP presidential hopefuls are just patriots....right?
In his last two years, the president should not feel pressured to bow to the Warriors on the right who think negotiations are for weaklings and war is American Exceptionalism.
When will these people start to look back on history, especially recent history, and realize what a failure all these forays have been? A cynical person would say it's all about the money, supporting Eisenhower's statement about the military-industrial complex. But surely McCain, Graham and all the GOP presidential hopefuls are just patriots....right?
3
I had a psychology professor in college that gave a lecture about a scientific study that proved persons with brown eyes have a lower IQ than persons with blue eyes. I did not believe what he was saying. I believe him now.
1
We have been doing the same things in the same way for most of my adult life, and having spent untold trillions on our military forces, we continue to lose, and lose again. Either we are an Empire or a Republic, and until we decide which, we are going to bomb as the tactic of last resort. Bombing has never worked anywhere, since the US in its role as world hegemon has decided that bombing any place in the world, at any time is the signature prerogative of 21st Century Empire.
Today in the wake of the liberation of the Shia Crescent (where most of the oil is) by liberating the Shia Majority to align with their Persian Soul Mate, the Sunni Royals have decided that a new proxy war is needed to reverse the verdict of the First Iraq Civil War. They have consequently created ISIS in the panic which has ensued because of ME realignments which were forced by our own stupidity in taking out the Sunni man on the barricades, Saddam Hussein.
Now we are trapped in the absurd logic of arming both sides, Sunni and Shia, and also bombing the proxies of both sides, for the lack of any better idea. As the sides clarify and the loyalties of the various warring proxies are becoming very clear, it becomes everyday more obvious that the Bush decision to take out Saddam has queered a century of American maneuvering in the ME to control the distribution of fossil fuel, and build the regime of Petrodollar circulation. Can we force a grand bargain or just choose a side? Till we do bombing is it.
Today in the wake of the liberation of the Shia Crescent (where most of the oil is) by liberating the Shia Majority to align with their Persian Soul Mate, the Sunni Royals have decided that a new proxy war is needed to reverse the verdict of the First Iraq Civil War. They have consequently created ISIS in the panic which has ensued because of ME realignments which were forced by our own stupidity in taking out the Sunni man on the barricades, Saddam Hussein.
Now we are trapped in the absurd logic of arming both sides, Sunni and Shia, and also bombing the proxies of both sides, for the lack of any better idea. As the sides clarify and the loyalties of the various warring proxies are becoming very clear, it becomes everyday more obvious that the Bush decision to take out Saddam has queered a century of American maneuvering in the ME to control the distribution of fossil fuel, and build the regime of Petrodollar circulation. Can we force a grand bargain or just choose a side? Till we do bombing is it.
1
When in doubt, bomb.
When in doubt, send drones to bomb.
When it doubt, destroy people and buildings.
When in doubt, use more violence.
That's U.S. foreign policy in a nutshell.
This is what our brilliant elected officials see as the path to peace and safety.
When in doubt, send drones to bomb.
When it doubt, destroy people and buildings.
When in doubt, use more violence.
That's U.S. foreign policy in a nutshell.
This is what our brilliant elected officials see as the path to peace and safety.
3
American military involvement in the Middle East (overt or covert) is a mistake, always has been a mistake, and (it seems) will remain a mistake. It may provide profit opportunities for moguls seeking oil field contracts or for weapons merchants. That comes at a terrible price.
57
But, we have become so skilled at making such mistakes! Look at the history books and calculate the costs - not in dollars, but in lives.......
Anyone who thought that "Homeland" unfairly portrayed the CIA and other protectors of America as a bunch of ignorant fools sent on a death mission by a pack of politicians who specialize in putting Band-Aids on gaping wounds, some of which we have ourselves inflicted, the recent events in Sana'a and the long-running idiocy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East testify that the HBO producers were actually pulling their punches.
I object to having to pay my tax dollars to fund organizations that are designed to keep people in other countries in their place.
We have become the moral successors of Rudyard Kipling, assuming the White Man's Burden and ensuring that the lesser, darker-hued people worldwide pay us proper homage.
Stop it.
And now members of our Republican Congress, who are willing to let poor children go without insurance and can find no funds to invest in Detroit or any other disaster area, are having conniptions because their new phony budget doesn't provide for enough new shiny weapons with which we can bully the rest of the world.
Stop it.
We can't, can we?
I object to having to pay my tax dollars to fund organizations that are designed to keep people in other countries in their place.
We have become the moral successors of Rudyard Kipling, assuming the White Man's Burden and ensuring that the lesser, darker-hued people worldwide pay us proper homage.
Stop it.
And now members of our Republican Congress, who are willing to let poor children go without insurance and can find no funds to invest in Detroit or any other disaster area, are having conniptions because their new phony budget doesn't provide for enough new shiny weapons with which we can bully the rest of the world.
Stop it.
We can't, can we?
11
Here we go again. Yet another US president has started a war on his own that has no long-term goals and will further immesh us in the affairs of the country we destroyed in his predecessor's war. Except for today's editorial, I have seen little outcry from the media, Congress or the people. What are we thinking? More to the point, ARE we thinking?
I support Barack Obama on many of his policies, but foreign relations is not one of them. First it was political assassinations and killing by drones in foreign lands. Now it is all-out bombings of a city involving complex alliances and issues we know little about. It appears to me that the president has a dangerous tendency to "protect" the United States by single-handedly leading us into conflicts and wars we have no business fighting. But because he is more personable than his predecessor, we let him get away with it. Where is the outcry? Where are the demonstrations? Where is the governmental oversight? More importantly, where will we go from here?
I support Barack Obama on many of his policies, but foreign relations is not one of them. First it was political assassinations and killing by drones in foreign lands. Now it is all-out bombings of a city involving complex alliances and issues we know little about. It appears to me that the president has a dangerous tendency to "protect" the United States by single-handedly leading us into conflicts and wars we have no business fighting. But because he is more personable than his predecessor, we let him get away with it. Where is the outcry? Where are the demonstrations? Where is the governmental oversight? More importantly, where will we go from here?
46
It occurs to me that politics in the USA hangs a cloak over any action we do in the Middle East.
Both political parties here seem as a must to have the appearance of great military strength to right all the ills in the world. Otherwise, the parties would look weak which is a political no, no.
Somehow, we must leave this nonsense which is very, very costly.
America should show some exceptionalism by being mature wasting not our resources. The latter action by having huge defense budget could put our own needs in great jeopardy.
Both political parties here seem as a must to have the appearance of great military strength to right all the ills in the world. Otherwise, the parties would look weak which is a political no, no.
Somehow, we must leave this nonsense which is very, very costly.
America should show some exceptionalism by being mature wasting not our resources. The latter action by having huge defense budget could put our own needs in great jeopardy.
Once again we have gone blundering into a complex region with good intentions but dubious plans. Sad to see this happen yet again in such a damaged but complicated region. Makes me wonder about all the military and 'intelligence' advisors directing Obama's attention. These conflicts have been going on for centuries with no apparent willingness of the locals to sort it out. And interestingly, the regional powers seem all gung ho to intervene in Yemen but show little visible signs of heading north. That is the problem of having a great force -- it is a huge hammer and too many problems just look like nails.
18
ISIL is as close to a "paper tiger" as one can get. No industry, little commerce and no agriculture beynod desert scapes.
It's a bonanza for the Military-Industrial Complex and a distraction to keep American citizens from fully pondering the monstrous economic inequality that promises to turn the USA into Pharaonic Egypt, where just a handful have money and power and the rest are hauling stones in abject poverty.
The Founders warning against "foreign entanglements" aside, the 24/7 immersion of our politicians in military empire (with the all waste of resources that go with it) guarantee we'll never have decent government or a truly progressive civil society.
The Founders warning against "foreign entanglements" aside, the 24/7 immersion of our politicians in military empire (with the all waste of resources that go with it) guarantee we'll never have decent government or a truly progressive civil society.
5
What an infuriating article. To suggest that it is ever a bad idea to bomb a stronghold of a group as murderous as ISIS is ridiculous.
ISIS kills Americans wherever possible, cuts of our heads, puts the murders on tape, shows the whole world, and laughs at our seeming impotence. Killing ISIS members is by definition advancing American interests. You seriously think Obama needs to explain to us why killing members of ISIS is a fine, completely understandable, commendable idea? You really fail to see how killing people like this advances our utterly valid and humane interest in working towards a world where all ISIS members are 6 feet under?
I'm actually flabbergasted. Totally blown away. And a tad angry. How can such educated and intelligent people be so oblivious to the obvious fact that dead members of ISIS are the only good members of ISIS.
ISIS kills Americans wherever possible, cuts of our heads, puts the murders on tape, shows the whole world, and laughs at our seeming impotence. Killing ISIS members is by definition advancing American interests. You seriously think Obama needs to explain to us why killing members of ISIS is a fine, completely understandable, commendable idea? You really fail to see how killing people like this advances our utterly valid and humane interest in working towards a world where all ISIS members are 6 feet under?
I'm actually flabbergasted. Totally blown away. And a tad angry. How can such educated and intelligent people be so oblivious to the obvious fact that dead members of ISIS are the only good members of ISIS.
1
What the US did to unite Iraq has turned out badly. The ancient murderous hatred between Sunni and Shiite is too much for the US to cope with. Lets declare Iraq a bankrupt investment and just get the hell out of there. This editorial is merely a rewrite of years of the same stuff going on in Iraq. Lets face it, the whole country is one big swamp. And yet our president calls the Muslim religion absolutely fine where no one is a militant as the centuries old killings go on and on.
2
An interesting editorial by people who either do not know what is happening or were given a task by their teachers a line that they needed to write on. It has contradictions and misinformation. Let me point out a few, one is the statement that the President’s action would appears to be siding with the Shiite militia- which makes up the bulk of the forces battling ISIS, and then you point out the fact that the Militias are boycotting the actions on the ground as well as the Commander left the area on Sunday prior to the US air campaign. The start of the air campaign by us had a precondition, that the Shiite militias cannot be a part of this campaign.
In order to fight ISIS, we do need boots on the ground – Saudi Wahhabis would not help us fight Saudi, Qatari, and UAE funded ISIS and we do not want our boots again there. We may have to close our noses and work with what we got; and that is the Shiite/Sunni Militias.
BTW, are we to assume that this editorial board would keep taking a principled stand where minorities are given their due rights and where there are disenfranchised majority exist, New York Times editorial board would ensure that their voices are heard. We can start with the situation in Bahrain where the majority (almost 70+ %) of the indigenous citizens (Shia Muslims) are being ruled by a small minority of Khalifas (Sunni Wahhabis). I would not hold my breath for that editorial though as the Bahrainis are oppressed by the Saudis for whom you are out to bat.
In order to fight ISIS, we do need boots on the ground – Saudi Wahhabis would not help us fight Saudi, Qatari, and UAE funded ISIS and we do not want our boots again there. We may have to close our noses and work with what we got; and that is the Shiite/Sunni Militias.
BTW, are we to assume that this editorial board would keep taking a principled stand where minorities are given their due rights and where there are disenfranchised majority exist, New York Times editorial board would ensure that their voices are heard. We can start with the situation in Bahrain where the majority (almost 70+ %) of the indigenous citizens (Shia Muslims) are being ruled by a small minority of Khalifas (Sunni Wahhabis). I would not hold my breath for that editorial though as the Bahrainis are oppressed by the Saudis for whom you are out to bat.
4
Congress needs to step up to the plate with an authorization of military action in Iraq and Syria or, if not, the U.S. should withdraw. Presidential Commanders in Chief are not warlords or kings of olden time having the sole power to wage war wherever and whenever they like. President Obama needs to step back from directing an unauthorized war, and if the GOP led Congress is too busy voting to repeal Obamacare for the 75th time, while its only declared Presidential candidate, Ted Cruz signs up on the federal exchange since his wife left Goldman Sachs, then the U.S. should indeed withdraw from the battle and let Saudi Arabia start to act responsibly and join with Iran in dealing with their regional problems in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.
5
He's dangerous. Doesn't have a clue . No effective strategy. We beat a hasty retreat from Libya and Yemen. Let's extend our total withdrawal from the whole region. We are being beaten soundly
5
It is in America's best interests to protect the lives of innocent civilians when it has the opportunity to do, especially in a country we have been in for the majority of my twenty year life. What do I mean by this? In your own newspaper, Editorial Board, you quoted the Pentagon referring to the following train of logic: Iran's missile suck. Ours are heat seeking and the most accurate in the world. Iran was going to use there sucky missiles to bomb Tikrit. We waited out for as long as possible, and then decided to intervene, to "minimize civilian casualties and the loss of infrastructure." Explain to me how this was not, explicitly in your own Newspaper, in America's best interest?
You're just not used to candor on this subject. In the 90s, US sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Madeline Albright, when asked if the those civilians deaths were worth what little the sanctions accomplished, replied, "we feel it was worth it".
1
Given the title and lead - "A Dangerous Escalation in Iraq" - the N.Y. Times could have called on Congress to rise to its Constitutional responsibility and approve these wars or force a U.S. withdraw. That might be more within the Times' power to accomplish than demanding all parties fight nice. Though given our Congress, it's probably a toss up.
In any event, the Obama administration's course of action is only inexplicably inconsistent if one sees the choice as only between Shia or Sunni, or withdrawal. Yet it seems the administration is now consistently opposing armed insurrections on behalf of governments or potential governments, especially if one weighs the lack of recent finger pointing at Assad. Whether this is any way to tamp down a threatened regional Shia-Sunni war without borders is a legitimate question. But it's better addressed directly on the political and military merits than by way of ranting or hand-wringing that the Obama Administration has no clue, which merely descends into U.S. partisan politics.
In any event, the Obama administration's course of action is only inexplicably inconsistent if one sees the choice as only between Shia or Sunni, or withdrawal. Yet it seems the administration is now consistently opposing armed insurrections on behalf of governments or potential governments, especially if one weighs the lack of recent finger pointing at Assad. Whether this is any way to tamp down a threatened regional Shia-Sunni war without borders is a legitimate question. But it's better addressed directly on the political and military merits than by way of ranting or hand-wringing that the Obama Administration has no clue, which merely descends into U.S. partisan politics.
3
American political dominance is dying and this unfolding catastrophe is teasing out that truth day by day. The problem is that America is losing its moral imperative. It's becoming obvious that Democracy© isn't the de facto path of righteousness we've always assumed. Democracy works, but it has a time and a place. It isn't a one-size-fits-all form of government.
Of course, America isn't the first to experience this change of fortune. England lost its moral imperative when enlightened societies saw the "White Man's Burden" for its self-serving truth. The USSR lost its moral imperative when enlightened societies saw "Communism" for its self-serving truth.
Maybe when the USA runs out of OPM playing target practice around the globe it'll become obvious that, yes, America too lost its moral imperative when enlightened societies saw "Democracy©" for its self-serving truth.
Of course, America isn't the first to experience this change of fortune. England lost its moral imperative when enlightened societies saw the "White Man's Burden" for its self-serving truth. The USSR lost its moral imperative when enlightened societies saw "Communism" for its self-serving truth.
Maybe when the USA runs out of OPM playing target practice around the globe it'll become obvious that, yes, America too lost its moral imperative when enlightened societies saw "Democracy©" for its self-serving truth.
3
How do you solve a problem like Sharia?
If America helps Iran destroy ISIS, Tehran will rule Iraq. If we don’t, ISIS will assume control. Talk about your lose-lose situations.
Fortunately, we may not have to decide, because it appears that Iranians would rather abandon the battle than fight on the same side as America. And these are the guys President Obama intends to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to developing nukes. They hate America more than ISIS, and we all know where they stand on Israel.
In Syria we face the same situation, and now, in Yemen, America’s “frenemies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are unwilling to wait on the sidelines and have begun fighting back against Tehran.
Does anyone else get the feeling that World War 3 has just begun?
In a battle between Shiite fundamentalists and Sunni fundamentalists it would be nice to just sit back and hope for lots of casualties, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalists who would suffer, and as history teaches us, watering little wars with inattention is the best way to grow big wars that refuse to be ignored.
I’m not sure we have a choice but to get involved, but eventually we’re going to have to choose a side.
If America helps Iran destroy ISIS, Tehran will rule Iraq. If we don’t, ISIS will assume control. Talk about your lose-lose situations.
Fortunately, we may not have to decide, because it appears that Iranians would rather abandon the battle than fight on the same side as America. And these are the guys President Obama intends to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to developing nukes. They hate America more than ISIS, and we all know where they stand on Israel.
In Syria we face the same situation, and now, in Yemen, America’s “frenemies" like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are unwilling to wait on the sidelines and have begun fighting back against Tehran.
Does anyone else get the feeling that World War 3 has just begun?
In a battle between Shiite fundamentalists and Sunni fundamentalists it would be nice to just sit back and hope for lots of casualties, but there are plenty of non-fundamentalists who would suffer, and as history teaches us, watering little wars with inattention is the best way to grow big wars that refuse to be ignored.
I’m not sure we have a choice but to get involved, but eventually we’re going to have to choose a side.
2
Hard to find justification for our involvement in such a situation where the preamble to our much-quoted and seldom-followed Constitution says to "provide for the common defence". Since when does offense mean defense?
If we just ignore the problems of other countries they will eventually reach our shores no matter what. It happened in 1941, and then again in 2001. Like it or not, we're the superpower.
I find it interesting that when president Obama did not show any interest in the taking on Isis in Iraq, he was criticized for allowing the conflict escalate in Iraq, but, now, when he has agreed to help the Iraqi troops advance to Tikrit by giving them air cover, he is accused by you for escalating the war. It is a classic case of "Heads you lose, tails I win".
11
Bombing Tikrit without evidence? Please, why this sudden need for real proof of genuine national interest? Military careers & Pentagon contracts aren't enough reason? Ask Dick Cheney, he'll tell you. He's out there raising millions, again, for the GOP. Ask his donors, they'll tell you. Ask the GOP candidates, and follow-up on the Qs, and you'll get the same GOP reasoning we've been hearing for years. Ditto from the prospective Dem candidate, you should definitely ask HRC what she would do & why. She'll set you straight, right?
7
How could the Administration do this without checking in with the Times Editorial Board?
The isolationist wing of the Democratic Party is in panic mode. America is threatening to lead "from the front," instead of from the rear, as in Libya.
You know what happened under George Bush, Jr?
You do not need to be a "neo-con" to know that all George Bush, Jr. did was topple an Arab dictator, provide the soil for the Arab Spring so beloved once by Times columnists, and allow Iraqis to vote in real elections. The fact that these acts revealed the Middle East as an unstable collection of "tribes with flags" is not Bush's failure, it his greatest legacy. We either deal with it, and help build a better Middle East, or we die with it. But at least we are not hiding our heads in our collective Wifi and looking up every few years just to puzzle over the latest destruction of our urban landmarks like the Twin Towers.
The isolationist wing of the Democratic Party is in panic mode. America is threatening to lead "from the front," instead of from the rear, as in Libya.
You know what happened under George Bush, Jr?
You do not need to be a "neo-con" to know that all George Bush, Jr. did was topple an Arab dictator, provide the soil for the Arab Spring so beloved once by Times columnists, and allow Iraqis to vote in real elections. The fact that these acts revealed the Middle East as an unstable collection of "tribes with flags" is not Bush's failure, it his greatest legacy. We either deal with it, and help build a better Middle East, or we die with it. But at least we are not hiding our heads in our collective Wifi and looking up every few years just to puzzle over the latest destruction of our urban landmarks like the Twin Towers.
4
It is obvious from this editorial piece that the authors have second thoughts about the policy soundness of fighting ISIS in Iraq. Without American help, ISIS would have most likely taken over Iraq, including its Kurdish area by now. No matter how repugnant the Iranian regime may be, the prospect of Iraq and Syria falling under ISIS's murderous reign does not bode well for any of the neighbors.
5
How about high official of the Obama Administration, Secretary Kerry or someone else call for a conference with the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd leaders and work out a consensus plan to defeat or degrade ISIS, and then ask what these leaders want the U.S. do or stay on the sideline? Our primary concern is ISIS. We should definitely avoid letting the pro-war parties -- military-industrial-politico complex, defenders of Pax Americana, and the Netanyahu-Likud Israel and its Neoconservative partners -- push us into another major war in the Middle East. Ex-Ambassador John Bolton proposed that we bomb Iran to stop Iran from getting the "bomb." Are we going to repeat the reckless, costly, damaging blunders of the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The intensifying sectarian conflicts in the Arabian Peninsula threaten to wreck havoc on the stability of the region. Avoid getting drawn into the sectarian
armed conflicts and do what we can to deescalate the belligerent strifes.
armed conflicts and do what we can to deescalate the belligerent strifes.
2
I think the the editorial is based on the assumption that the US can act as a fixer in the Middle East, when in fact we are basically a punisher. Having expended huge resources in the area, what are our accomplishments other than the massive physical, human, and political destruction carried out by our ground and air forces. Did we fix something in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya? Have our drones, bombers, artillery, ground troops, made any of those countries a better place to live?
We are a nation that politically is content to punish perceived foes, and then expect indigenous parties to rise from the ashes and develop modern egalitarian democracies and be our allies.
We are a nation that politically is content to punish perceived foes, and then expect indigenous parties to rise from the ashes and develop modern egalitarian democracies and be our allies.
5
One is reminded of the final line of a movie uttered to Jack Nicholson's character, the private eye Jake Gittes: "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."
We are trying to fix something we can't understand in a community in which we don't belong.
We are trying to fix something we can't understand in a community in which we don't belong.
116
Water under the bridge but one could speculate that if Saddam Hussein was still around he would have things under control.
Now, guess who started us on this futile path of turning a tribal, fractured country in name only into a "democracy".
This is the perfect time to involve Congress. Let the hawks put in their two cents worth.
Obama is setting himself up for the blame after it fails.
Now, guess who started us on this futile path of turning a tribal, fractured country in name only into a "democracy".
This is the perfect time to involve Congress. Let the hawks put in their two cents worth.
Obama is setting himself up for the blame after it fails.
1
Understand? Mirrors on mirrors in boxes. Just cut the Gordian knot.
No more true words have ever described our insanity in Iraq and the rest of our Middle East polices and military actions.
1
Keeping USAF flying active missions over Iraq and Syria appears to be President Obama latest tactic (but not a strategy really) to prevent Israel Air Force from overflying Iraq air space on their way to Iran. Net result would be helping and strengthening the Islamic Republic of Iran, USAF being in effect Iran's air force, however without the support or consensus from the US Congress. First, when asked, the President said he had no strategy for blocking and defeating the Islamic State in Syria/Iraq. Later in 2014, he apparently came upon an idea how to prevent PM Netanyahu from acting alone on Iran's nuclear program.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
2
Congress abdicates its most solemn duty under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the editorial board of the nation's Newspaper of Record blames the president.
Is Karl Rove or Frank Luntz writing your stuff now?
The editorial board ignores the fact that the president has been roundly criticized for not negotiating a status of force agreement with Iraq to leave our troops there, even though the sovereign government of Iraq said they did not want such an agreement and now the editorial board is criticizing the president for complying with requests from Iraqi officials.
The editorial board is concerned over sectarian violence that will erupt after ISIS is ejected from this area under American bombardment.
Compared to WHAT, sir, exactly?
Let's follow the WWII model and not worry about rebuilding until after all sides stop destroying.
Is Karl Rove or Frank Luntz writing your stuff now?
The editorial board ignores the fact that the president has been roundly criticized for not negotiating a status of force agreement with Iraq to leave our troops there, even though the sovereign government of Iraq said they did not want such an agreement and now the editorial board is criticizing the president for complying with requests from Iraqi officials.
The editorial board is concerned over sectarian violence that will erupt after ISIS is ejected from this area under American bombardment.
Compared to WHAT, sir, exactly?
Let's follow the WWII model and not worry about rebuilding until after all sides stop destroying.
3
It seems that America's interest is to wage endless wars against Muslims to appease the gods of war and industry. Did it start when we shot down an Iranian airliner, or was it when we killed thousands in Lebanon in retaliation for the bombing of the Marines, or was it Desert Storm...?
4
Your editorial actually did a good job of laying out reasons for the US to make these airstrikes, if followed up by the recommendations in the last two paragraphs.
I am really struggling with this Editorial.
Surely this is principle-riding and purism at its very worst.
You are seriously questioning whether pushing back on ISIS in in our interest.
Seriously.
Bombing raids in support of a government and country we have sunk thousands and thousands of our best lives into, trillions of dollars - go ahead and question whether we should have ever made that investment, but having made it, and now witnessing Iraqis finally standing up to fight for at least their tribe if not their country - why would you NOW discover your qualms? So many years after Judith Miller?
This is all a little late, and a little misguided and pointless.
In the grand scheme of things, what we are doing now is providing a nudge. In the end, all the big things, the heavy lifting, remains to be done, and remains to be done by Iraqis. We are not doing it for them, we are giving them a chance to do finish it, sometime.
Please. Do not now discover qualms you should have discovered a decade ago. Way late, and not appropriate.
Surely this is principle-riding and purism at its very worst.
You are seriously questioning whether pushing back on ISIS in in our interest.
Seriously.
Bombing raids in support of a government and country we have sunk thousands and thousands of our best lives into, trillions of dollars - go ahead and question whether we should have ever made that investment, but having made it, and now witnessing Iraqis finally standing up to fight for at least their tribe if not their country - why would you NOW discover your qualms? So many years after Judith Miller?
This is all a little late, and a little misguided and pointless.
In the grand scheme of things, what we are doing now is providing a nudge. In the end, all the big things, the heavy lifting, remains to be done, and remains to be done by Iraqis. We are not doing it for them, we are giving them a chance to do finish it, sometime.
Please. Do not now discover qualms you should have discovered a decade ago. Way late, and not appropriate.
5
You can argue that the President's actions require congressional authorization. You can argue that the President's quasi-alliance with Iran is unwise. You can argue that restricting our effort to airpower alone is likely to be ineffective and that lack of American ground troops would place pacified areas of Iraq under Iranian rule. You can argue we shouldn't be in Iraq at all or that ISIS is not a threat.
You can argue lots of things, but I am mystified how you could say that bombing Tikrit is an escalation of our involvement. What do you think we did in Kobane? What do you think it meant when the President said his goal was to disrupt and destroy ISIS (a goal shared by both Congress and a majority of the electorate)? What do you think war is? What, you thought that fighting ISIS just meant making a speech or two and it would magically disappear?
Not one shred of evidence it advances American interests? So you are saying that destroying ISIS is not in our interests? Then when their next atrocity comes down the pike, you'll be screaming for someone to do something about stopping them.
And in this case, as much as I think the President has made a complete hash of the situation, his insistence that Shiite militias pull back and non-sectarian forces take the fore in taking major Sunni areas is the right one, precisely for the reason of not inflaming sectarian tensions you mention.
Come on, guys, how about some logical consistency?
You can argue lots of things, but I am mystified how you could say that bombing Tikrit is an escalation of our involvement. What do you think we did in Kobane? What do you think it meant when the President said his goal was to disrupt and destroy ISIS (a goal shared by both Congress and a majority of the electorate)? What do you think war is? What, you thought that fighting ISIS just meant making a speech or two and it would magically disappear?
Not one shred of evidence it advances American interests? So you are saying that destroying ISIS is not in our interests? Then when their next atrocity comes down the pike, you'll be screaming for someone to do something about stopping them.
And in this case, as much as I think the President has made a complete hash of the situation, his insistence that Shiite militias pull back and non-sectarian forces take the fore in taking major Sunni areas is the right one, precisely for the reason of not inflaming sectarian tensions you mention.
Come on, guys, how about some logical consistency?
4
The Middle East policy of the United States under President Obama has been nothing short of horrendous. Above all else, this has been clearly illustrated by his conduct of the Iran negotiations, The emerging nuclear agreement, which would permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons after a ten year sunset period while not addressing Iran's development of long range missiles capable of reaching our country or their continuing efforts to destabilize other countries in the region like Yemen, must be carefully reviewed by Congress and if it hurts the vital interests of our country, as it appears to do, then it must be stopped.
7
"We must send our armies anywhere our vital interests lie." - Julius Caesar. And of course Iran is suicidal and will expect no massive retaliation for any first strike they launch. Good thinking.
2
And the Republicans will do.........*crickets*
2
So, what would you do?? Launch a ground war? Use our army and Mariens to invade Iran? More sanctions? Use our air force to bomb Iran, which usually does not work.
Need I remind you of who destablized the mid-east in the first place?---It was us, the good old USA. Our first Iraq war was defendable. The Bush 2003 Iraq war was/is the horrendous and led directly to current conditions in the mid east.
Need I remind you of who destablized the mid-east in the first place?---It was us, the good old USA. Our first Iraq war was defendable. The Bush 2003 Iraq war was/is the horrendous and led directly to current conditions in the mid east.
1
As a retired Marine Corps officer with two combat tours, I think people are forgetting that combat operations are not exercises in precision engineering where the variables are controlled and it is possible to get precisely what we want. I recommend avoiding combat whenever possible. It often creates more problems then it solves. However, if you are dealing with a group that is achieving its goals with combat operations, the opponent has stuck you with a dilemma. You can let him get whatever he wants (which means that your related interest wasn't really an interest but a nice to have option) or you can meet his force with your force. Strong words don't work well against people who are gaining their objectives with force. So we have a choice - combat force or no force. If we select combat force because it is the least bad of a range of bad options, the results are unpredictable. We can have a tactical success by destroying an enemy strong point with bombs, the enemy can then focus world attention on the fact that the strong point had originally been a small village, that no longer exists. I agree that the Iraqi government needs to be inclusive, but the apparent alterative that may well become the government of Iraqi is even less likely to respect the rights of all Iraqis than today's government. Trust me, every option is awful. Is combat the least awful option? What a mess the real world is!
25
Painful as it may be, let us admit that we are not capable of helping the Middle East. We and they will be better off the sooner we leave. Bring all our people home, stop the money, arms, support and lectures.
17
What are you doing, Mr. President? There seems to be no overarching coherency in American foreign policy.
7
Maybe the bombing doesn't advance US interests, but it advances the president's interests, of at least that is what he and his minions think. It makes him look tough and defends him against Republican criticism. This is what drives almost everything Democratic president's do when it comes to "national security," as if they constantly have to prove their patriotism. The pseudo-shrewd White House advisors no doubt reason the if the Tikrit campaign fails it will imperil whatever comes out of the Iran negotiations (if anything does). Funny, Republican presidents don't worry about Democratic criticism.
3
Somehow, I don't think Bin Laden's killer is worrying too much about Republican criticism. Its the Joint Chief's I worry about. Civilians tend to be shy about making them defend their tactics and strategy.
1
Once again a constant drumbeat of criticism from the editorial board about the Obama foreign policy. But has anyone noticed that there are NO body bags coming home any more? Surely that must count for something.
peter gren
peter gren
15
We have literally nothing to show for the last two trillion squandered by the Bush and Obama administrations in Iraq. The political, economic, and military situations are all worse. At the rate things are going, over the next decade, we will spend another trillion dollars in a futile effort to stabilize a region of the world that has not been stable for 1000 years.
When will we recognize that we have no friends in the middle east, and our only interests are the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and a consistent supply of oil. Continued military involvement achieves neither of those objectives. It is a massively expensive waste of resources.
How much better off would we be if we spent the last two trillion we blew in Iraq and Afghanistan installing solar panels on every roof in America? How much better off would we be if we spent the next two trillion we are about to blow in the never ending middle east wars installing solar panels on every roof in America?
The amount of energy that investment would produce would dwarf all of the new oil and gas production generated by frakking. It would last for decades, for trivial maintenance and upkeep cost. When it finally had to be replaced, it would be with solar panels that were at least an order of magnitude less expensive. And it would produce no greenhouse gasses.
Those who will not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
When will we recognize that we have no friends in the middle east, and our only interests are the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and a consistent supply of oil. Continued military involvement achieves neither of those objectives. It is a massively expensive waste of resources.
How much better off would we be if we spent the last two trillion we blew in Iraq and Afghanistan installing solar panels on every roof in America? How much better off would we be if we spent the next two trillion we are about to blow in the never ending middle east wars installing solar panels on every roof in America?
The amount of energy that investment would produce would dwarf all of the new oil and gas production generated by frakking. It would last for decades, for trivial maintenance and upkeep cost. When it finally had to be replaced, it would be with solar panels that were at least an order of magnitude less expensive. And it would produce no greenhouse gasses.
Those who will not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
20
Much or the reason for our having nothing in return for our investment in Iraq has to do with Obama's willingness to give it all away with his vision of a kumbayah world where everyone gives up that which it cherishes the most.
Much like his domestic policies, Obama's foreign ones have been, at best amateurish, and, more reasonably, destructive.
Much like his domestic policies, Obama's foreign ones have been, at best amateurish, and, more reasonably, destructive.
1
We bomb Tikrit because:
Our ally Iraq, which is ruled by Shias, has requested us to bomb Sunni Tikrit to help them remove an invading Sunni force.
The only Iraqi force that is present and has made any progress toward liberating Tikrit are Shia militias controlled by Iran, our enemy.
These Shia militias have a sordid history of committing atrocities against Sunnis, the inhabitants of Tikrit that they claim they are trying to liberate.
Many Shia militias hate us so much that they do not want our involvement indicating that they are not allied with the US. They are allied with Iran, our enemy.
The "real" Iraqi army that we spent untold billions on and disintegrated is now on the move and the Shia are supposed to step aside, except the "real" army hasn't shown up yet.
As a result of this, the administration has decided to drop bombs on Tikrit without Congressional authorization, except our Congress is so broken and dysfunctional, it couldn't authorize a school crosswalk for kids.
There is really nothing that can be done to help, so we fall back on the old reliable policy of dropping bombs.
Finally, after the bombing and fighting, no one has a clue about what should be done next.
What has just been outlined would only make sense to an insane person. A dangerous escalation? How can we break something that is this badly broken?
Our ally Iraq, which is ruled by Shias, has requested us to bomb Sunni Tikrit to help them remove an invading Sunni force.
The only Iraqi force that is present and has made any progress toward liberating Tikrit are Shia militias controlled by Iran, our enemy.
These Shia militias have a sordid history of committing atrocities against Sunnis, the inhabitants of Tikrit that they claim they are trying to liberate.
Many Shia militias hate us so much that they do not want our involvement indicating that they are not allied with the US. They are allied with Iran, our enemy.
The "real" Iraqi army that we spent untold billions on and disintegrated is now on the move and the Shia are supposed to step aside, except the "real" army hasn't shown up yet.
As a result of this, the administration has decided to drop bombs on Tikrit without Congressional authorization, except our Congress is so broken and dysfunctional, it couldn't authorize a school crosswalk for kids.
There is really nothing that can be done to help, so we fall back on the old reliable policy of dropping bombs.
Finally, after the bombing and fighting, no one has a clue about what should be done next.
What has just been outlined would only make sense to an insane person. A dangerous escalation? How can we break something that is this badly broken?
27
Ever consider that our Congress has no interest in authorizing Obama to use military force?
Ever consider that our Congress believes that giving him that sort of power would be more dangerous than the powers that he already has?
I wouldn't authorize Obama to do anything without a strong and effective way of negating his incompetence.
Ever consider that our Congress believes that giving him that sort of power would be more dangerous than the powers that he already has?
I wouldn't authorize Obama to do anything without a strong and effective way of negating his incompetence.
1
Perhaps the entire reason we're over there boils down to:
- Our vested interest in Israel
- "Cleaning up our mess"/"fixing what the Bush admin messed up"
- Ensuring that our oil supplies don't get too tampered with
This is why energy independence is so critical to the domestic success in the US. We need to minimize our involvement (air strikes), supply our own oil, and keep supporting Israel?
But then we may find ourselves fighting Iranians in Yemen, not to mention the Iran nuclear deal on the fringe...
- Our vested interest in Israel
- "Cleaning up our mess"/"fixing what the Bush admin messed up"
- Ensuring that our oil supplies don't get too tampered with
This is why energy independence is so critical to the domestic success in the US. We need to minimize our involvement (air strikes), supply our own oil, and keep supporting Israel?
But then we may find ourselves fighting Iranians in Yemen, not to mention the Iran nuclear deal on the fringe...
2
Alternative energy, single payer health care, limits on money in politics and corporate power, a defense budget pegged at 2% of GDP, domestic manufacturing. Those are our problems. Not crazies killing each other because they can't agree how many times a day to pray to who. Why are we spending billions to fight the tides when we have real problems at home?
We fly $100m airplanes a thousand miles carrying $500k bombs to kill illiterate teenagers in beat up Toyota trucks, for fighters who don't want our help.
We fly $100m airplanes a thousand miles carrying $500k bombs to kill illiterate teenagers in beat up Toyota trucks, for fighters who don't want our help.
11
A rare moment when I agree with the Times editorial board.
However, to me it shows the problem resulting from Obama being too eager to end the war. Without troops on the ground we lost our influence. Had we stayed and maintained an aggressively involved stance, we could have defended the interests of Iraq's Sunnis against Maliki and his stooges.
We could be helping Iraq now instead of the Iranians. We could be benefiting from Iraqi oil instead of the Chinese.
We're an empire whether we like it or not; the alternative is China. Let's try to live up to our power in creative ways. This current action is half-hearted and bound for failure without a real commitment.
However, to me it shows the problem resulting from Obama being too eager to end the war. Without troops on the ground we lost our influence. Had we stayed and maintained an aggressively involved stance, we could have defended the interests of Iraq's Sunnis against Maliki and his stooges.
We could be helping Iraq now instead of the Iranians. We could be benefiting from Iraqi oil instead of the Chinese.
We're an empire whether we like it or not; the alternative is China. Let's try to live up to our power in creative ways. This current action is half-hearted and bound for failure without a real commitment.
16
And who will be expected to pay for a real commitment? The stone has
very little blood left in it.
very little blood left in it.
It was a moment of genius to pull our troops out and let them see what they faced. Then Iraq asked for our help. That is what it was all about.
So how do you justify the agreement made by the Bush administration to leave Iraq with the Maliki government. So, when Obama became president he should started another war by telling Maliki he was not honoring the agreement? They wanted us out of their country. We destroyed it!! Also, blame belongs squarely on the United States. We should have NEVER waged a war with Iraq. The region will always be destabilized... Read the Bible! The ultimate sin are the lies told by our government in order to stage a war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and for that reason this country will forever pay the price! Obama is right... Stay the @#%$ out of the middle east. Take care of us here in America!!!
With the situation in Yemen completely out if control; Libya and Syria in utter disarray; and Iraq disintegrating; the situation in the middle east is at a very dangerous turning point. Iran is backing one side and Saudi Arabia and Egypt the other. I hope that the U.S Central command and the president have some sort of plan, any sort of plan at this point. I'm becoming increasingly concerned that there is no plan at all in place. I hope at this point they are keeping an eagle eye on Pakistan and their nukes.
4
The US has a long-term relationship with Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Thomas Friedman even suggested that he receive the Nobel Peace prize. Is he the person to lead in the marginalization of Shiite militias, many of whom are not much different than Al-Qaeda or ISIS? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. He can receive the prize though since bringing peace is not a prerequisite.
However, suggesting that Iran can serve an important role by cooperating with the US and the West on security in the region is one of the most absurd statements I have read in this newspaper. Iran is part of the problem in terms of the destabilization of the region. Iran controls Shiite militias and more and more of Shiite Iraq. Iran is behind the Houthis, Assad and Hezbollah.
It is not possible to look at the mess in the Middle East and partition off the actions of Iran in one country or another, in spite of the US tendency to look at the leaves and not the forest. Unlike the US and the West, Iran actually has a policy and a plan and that is hegemony and control and they are doing a great job. Perhaps now that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are and will be intervening in Yemen that might change. They understand that Iran is disruptive; the editorial board does not.
However, suggesting that Iran can serve an important role by cooperating with the US and the West on security in the region is one of the most absurd statements I have read in this newspaper. Iran is part of the problem in terms of the destabilization of the region. Iran controls Shiite militias and more and more of Shiite Iraq. Iran is behind the Houthis, Assad and Hezbollah.
It is not possible to look at the mess in the Middle East and partition off the actions of Iran in one country or another, in spite of the US tendency to look at the leaves and not the forest. Unlike the US and the West, Iran actually has a policy and a plan and that is hegemony and control and they are doing a great job. Perhaps now that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are and will be intervening in Yemen that might change. They understand that Iran is disruptive; the editorial board does not.
7
President Obama made a request for authorization, which Congress has simply not acted upon. I'm curious why your board feels that this is more of an escalation and more dangerous than airstrikes conducted by the US against ISIS earlier this year. I don't find your reasoning clear except that the Shiite militias have taken the lead here rather than as earlier the Kurds did. The Iraqi army itself has not had much luck by itself.
I wonder what percentage of our voting population understand the religious, historical, and cultural differences between Sunni and Shiites?
I wonder what percentage of our esteemed representatives in Washington understand the religious, historical, and cultural differences between Sunni and Shiites?
I wonder what percentage of our top military establishment understand the religious, historical, and cultural differences between Sunni and Shiites?
I wonder why we are still involved after more than a decade of disasters?
I can only think of three answers: oil, Oil, and OIL
Remember when Cheney held his secret strategy meeting with top oil executives?
I wonder what percentage of our esteemed representatives in Washington understand the religious, historical, and cultural differences between Sunni and Shiites?
I wonder what percentage of our top military establishment understand the religious, historical, and cultural differences between Sunni and Shiites?
I wonder why we are still involved after more than a decade of disasters?
I can only think of three answers: oil, Oil, and OIL
Remember when Cheney held his secret strategy meeting with top oil executives?
8
"Remember when Cheney held his secret strategy meeting with top oil executives?"
...not to mention defense contractors, who never met a war they didn't like.
...not to mention defense contractors, who never met a war they didn't like.
This whole part of the world is just completely crazy. But ISIS is certainly the craziest. They certainly have to be stopped. If Iraq and Iran are not up to the task, then Obama probably feels that he must do something, regardless of side effects. Who is there anywhere who could figure all of this out?
1
Obama is tilting towards Iran, and this bombing supports Iran's ally and efforts.
2
Isn't it odd how the Saudis refuse to take on ISIS, yet when Sunni Islam is on the run in Yemen, they don't hesitate to start the bombing runs, apparently without even telling Obama. Same for the Egyptians in Libya. If the regional players aren't upset enough about ISIS slaughtering fellow Muslim and taking over the Middle East, city by city, then why should the US taxpayer care?
3
My sentiments exactly.
The US government had its change to provide good governance in Iraq, twelve years ago. It failed to do so. Instead it inflicted a radical right agenda while destroying all that had been working.
NOW we ought to start to do it? No. Leave them alone. Let them govern their own country.
NOW we ought to start to do it? No. Leave them alone. Let them govern their own country.
10
If we don't understand the impossible tangle that is the Middle East by now we never will. It is all shadows, all the time. It is long past time for the US to get out and let the people of the region fight what is exquisitely their own battle. Get out now, and stay out. And work with other superpowers to contain the insanity, and disarm the region of all nuclear weapons.
9
Obama is an absolute joke. He has somehow managed to make the most powerful nation on earth seem like the weakest. The Iranians are pushing us around like we are children.
11
The increased Iranian power in the region is a direct result of the Bush/ Cheney invasion of Iraq and their disbanding of the Iraqi army. Previously, the Reagan administration recognized the balance of power, but in the typical Republican incompetent way, selling arms to Iran while strengthening Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein, even after he used WMDs. Republicans set the house on fire and then, eager to throw another can of gasoline on the flames, criticize the fireman.
23
Face it, the days of American Exceptionalism are over. The spectre of a Great White Fleet no longer strikes fear in the hearts of our adversaries.
The United States today is where Britain was a century ago, when the Sun actually did begin to set upon the Empire.
We have become pragmatists to the point of prostituting ourselves for the almighty buck. To ensure access to cheap oil, we align with questionable "allies" and dispatch mighty warships, planes and troops into losing battles against primitive forces armed with pickup trucks, improvised weapons and, sometimes, weaponry obtained through our own military and intelligence networks. When those efforts fail, we send even more forces into the fray, as if expecting a better outcome. Meanwhile, common sense and diplomacy are scorned as signs of weakness.
President Eisenhower's dire warning about the "Military Industrial Complex" has come to fruition. And even that is ignored with a certain sense of national hubris.
The United States today is where Britain was a century ago, when the Sun actually did begin to set upon the Empire.
We have become pragmatists to the point of prostituting ourselves for the almighty buck. To ensure access to cheap oil, we align with questionable "allies" and dispatch mighty warships, planes and troops into losing battles against primitive forces armed with pickup trucks, improvised weapons and, sometimes, weaponry obtained through our own military and intelligence networks. When those efforts fail, we send even more forces into the fray, as if expecting a better outcome. Meanwhile, common sense and diplomacy are scorned as signs of weakness.
President Eisenhower's dire warning about the "Military Industrial Complex" has come to fruition. And even that is ignored with a certain sense of national hubris.
@Downtown
You can't lay this at the feet of Obama. We were there already "mak[ing] the most powerful nation on earth seem like the weakest" for six whole years before he even became president.
You can't lay this at the feet of Obama. We were there already "mak[ing] the most powerful nation on earth seem like the weakest" for six whole years before he even became president.
I agree with most of this editorial, but I question how realistic it is to expect the US has the capacity to effectively manage Iraqi domestic politics. After failing at this task for over 10 years, rather miserably in fact, why should this time be any different? When you're in a hole stop digging.
The bottom line is that many of the borders and constitutional orders across the region are being violently contested. Unfortunately, the US has shown that we have neither the will nor the way to effectively and ethically control this process. It's past time to talk realistically about the limits of US power.
The bottom line is that many of the borders and constitutional orders across the region are being violently contested. Unfortunately, the US has shown that we have neither the will nor the way to effectively and ethically control this process. It's past time to talk realistically about the limits of US power.
13
Wouldn't it be best to wait until after a future 9/11 type attack to have that discussion. Particularly if it happens to include the detonation of a nuclear device in an American city?
The ongoing tragedy which is the Middle East is largely the fault of Britain, France and more recently the United States. No national interest is served by our being in this perpetual morass. Obama should honor his campaign pledges to end our presence in the Middle East and he should do so immediately.
42
To blame the situation of the Middle East on Europeans and Americans is to assume that Islamic Arab and Persian peoples, among others there, are to be, like children, not held fully responsible for the state of their world. They are adults, in cultures whose civilized history as deep as can be found anywhere else on Earth. Their current failings are not ours, but their own. We cannot, unfortunately, simply build a wall around them and forget them. Our siding with those there who take on the responsibilities of civilization is both desirable and necessary. The civilized side of Islam is a treasure on this Earth; the barbaric side, by contrast, follows on the story of a prophet who was warlord and conqueror, in contrast to Jesus's and Buddha's peaceable model lives.
Absolutely. All that oil means nothing to us. And having hundreds of millions of people armed with nuclear weapons, and spouting all kinds of hatred in an electronically interconnected world means little to our weak, puny nation.
See also: American First Committee circa 1940.
See also: American First Committee circa 1940.
President Obama is a captive of the military-industrial complex and their need to conduct Forever War. Warfare, much of it as war crimes, will be the single most defining element of his presidency.
12
Obama needs to step down if he is unable to successfully lead the country and is "captive" to anyone. He doesn't seem to have any problem wielding the pen and excluding Congress when he wishes to do so, therefore, he can simply say "no", as in "no more war". Sadly, that is not his record over the last 6 years.
3
"excluding Congress"??
I think Congress did that job quite well all by itself when it shut down the government rather than accept it didn't have the votes to do what it wanted. And when it came to acting on the President's request for Congress to update HIS war powers with a new resolution, Congress, again, decided to 'exclude' itself by choosing not to act. And finally, the only Congressional action Congress felt was really necessary was to write a letter to the Grand Ayatollah. That went over like a lead balloon. Again, Congress did that to itself, without Obama's help.
The president isn't the problem here, Congress is.
I think Congress did that job quite well all by itself when it shut down the government rather than accept it didn't have the votes to do what it wanted. And when it came to acting on the President's request for Congress to update HIS war powers with a new resolution, Congress, again, decided to 'exclude' itself by choosing not to act. And finally, the only Congressional action Congress felt was really necessary was to write a letter to the Grand Ayatollah. That went over like a lead balloon. Again, Congress did that to itself, without Obama's help.
The president isn't the problem here, Congress is.
I have been saying for a while that future historians will probably say that September 11, 2001 was the beginning of the third world war.
The state system imposed on the Middle East as well as North and sub Saharan Africa by Western colonial powers is breaking down wholesale.
Literally, civilization is crumbling in a very large part of the world and the power vacuum is being filled by tribes and warlords, just as happened in Europe when the Roman Empire collapsed. That period came to be known as the Dark Ages and it lasted for centuries...
The state system imposed on the Middle East as well as North and sub Saharan Africa by Western colonial powers is breaking down wholesale.
Literally, civilization is crumbling in a very large part of the world and the power vacuum is being filled by tribes and warlords, just as happened in Europe when the Roman Empire collapsed. That period came to be known as the Dark Ages and it lasted for centuries...
44
Replace the term warlords with the term caliphs. and one reason why a modern Dark Ages can happen becomes clear. Religious war.
No. The beginning of the Third World War will be when the first mushroom clouds appear in the Middle East in the not too distant future. Then the "Dark Ages" will be upon us once again, darker than ever before, and much longer-lasting. And not just in the Middle East. The weapons are available all over the world if the price is right. Just you wait.......
I think the editorial board has missed a key point. In the Militia and Iranians failing to take Tikrit and then being bailed out by the Americans their influence is weakened.Obama as in other cases is playing a canny game.
5
" without providing a shred of evidence showing how it could advance American interests."
Have you lost your mind? Ask the family of Kayla Jean Mueller whether ending ISIS advances American interests.
You guys really need to get out more.
Have you lost your mind? Ask the family of Kayla Jean Mueller whether ending ISIS advances American interests.
You guys really need to get out more.
14
Although I sympathize with the Mueller family, I doubt they would be cheering the U.S. bombing campaign. There are a great many victims in this conflict (civilians, etc.) I don't want American military personnel to be either responsible for making more victims -- or being a victim themselves. Leave the Middle East.
Here are some reasons to fight ISIL. They have slit American throats online for the world to see. Is that not enough. They have violated even the very smidgens of decency that even many of our enemies hold. They are a growing force that has, with its successes, attracted young people throughout many countries to radicalize and other militant groups to join. They may be relatively small now, but so were the Nazis at one time. The Nazis got somewhere with their brutality and convinced people they should get aboard, whether because they caught the nationalistic fever or they were afraid. What we need to do, as much as possible with foreign troops, is utterly demolish them. They are not a country and I don't know why we should take many prisoners. If we want this to end, we have to make them and people who would join them think it is a really bad idea. I don't why, but degrade and destroy sounds too tentative. Let's go right to destroy. Even though it will cost a lot of money.
5
How naive! Kill them and you send them straight to heaven and help ISIS
do their recruitment. Your comments are only vengeful and parochial. ISIS
is to be reckoned with but it is a doomed cause. How would it ever overthrow every Muslim government in the Middle East, nations armed to the teeth with US weapons? And notice how frozen the line has become in Syria and Iraq now that they have advanced into greater populated areas that also are, in Iraq, more Shi'a. Scary, fanatical, dangerous ISIS is but they are to the larger Muslim population than even to you. As editorial says, with our entering the scene by bombing Tikrit we are losing the Sunni forces in the Iraqi army. We
will again pay the cost of that. It was excluding the Sunni Bathists of Saddam Hussein's regime that gave birth to ISIS. You advocate the same counterproductive, if not stupid, mistake again.
do their recruitment. Your comments are only vengeful and parochial. ISIS
is to be reckoned with but it is a doomed cause. How would it ever overthrow every Muslim government in the Middle East, nations armed to the teeth with US weapons? And notice how frozen the line has become in Syria and Iraq now that they have advanced into greater populated areas that also are, in Iraq, more Shi'a. Scary, fanatical, dangerous ISIS is but they are to the larger Muslim population than even to you. As editorial says, with our entering the scene by bombing Tikrit we are losing the Sunni forces in the Iraqi army. We
will again pay the cost of that. It was excluding the Sunni Bathists of Saddam Hussein's regime that gave birth to ISIS. You advocate the same counterproductive, if not stupid, mistake again.
For the ongoing sake of civilization, and for humanitarian reasons, it is necessary to defeat ISIS. The world cannot tolerate a genocidal caliphate.This action against ISIS in Tikrit is exactly what the U. S. should be doing. It is not an "escalation" because the U. S. has been using air power in many sectors of Syria and Iraq.
Congress authorized the elimination of Al Queda and its affiliates. Clearly ISIS is a direct descendant of Al Queda even if various factions are at each other's throats. While it is a shame that Congress cannot get its act together to take a vote on a new authorization, it also has not abrogated the past authorization.
The New York Times has no plan to deal with ISIS. The President is taking prudent action while others sit on the sidelines and complain without presenting an alternative.
Congress authorized the elimination of Al Queda and its affiliates. Clearly ISIS is a direct descendant of Al Queda even if various factions are at each other's throats. While it is a shame that Congress cannot get its act together to take a vote on a new authorization, it also has not abrogated the past authorization.
The New York Times has no plan to deal with ISIS. The President is taking prudent action while others sit on the sidelines and complain without presenting an alternative.
17
It was the Arab Spring promoted by Obama that caused the power vacuum which allowed these terrorist groups to surge. Now, Obama doesn't know what to do, with whom to side, and where to fight. Granted the previous dictators were cancers, but, in removing them, the cancer has metastascized--there is death and destruction all over the region. This was completely foreseeable and forecasted by many. Obama helped cause this, and, he continues to make poor decisions. He is an absolute disaster for the world.
Alternatives were given, but, his egomania would not allow him to consider them. His ignorance of the history of the ME is inexcusable, and his complicity in this mess is undeniable.
Alternatives were given, but, his egomania would not allow him to consider them. His ignorance of the history of the ME is inexcusable, and his complicity in this mess is undeniable.
That the military industrial complex now runs the nation in it's permanent war state is the only answer.
12
It should be clear by now that the Executive is not in control of the military and has not been since Bush I. The naïve and fearful baby boomers we have had for over twenty years had no military experience and little courage to confront this internal scourge. I hope the next generation can face the Generals down.
12
Excuse me, but the "fearful baby boomers" you mention had almost 10
years experience in Vietnam. That's not enough? The real force controlling
the military (and the rest of the country) is the armaments industry and its
affiliates.
years experience in Vietnam. That's not enough? The real force controlling
the military (and the rest of the country) is the armaments industry and its
affiliates.
The New York Times needs evidence that driving ISIL from Tikrit and eventually from Iraq is the right thing to do? How about the fact that 4000 Americans died to secure that ground? Is it the New York Times position that they died in vain? That we have no moral or humanitarian obligations in Iraq?
After World War II the United States left a residual force of 200,000 soldiers for half a century in Germany to keep the peace. We could easily have left 75,000 in Iraq for a decade or two to achieve the same goal. Iraq's location in the heart of the Middle East makes it strategically the most important country in the region, which is on the verge of collapsing into anarchy and unprecedented bloodshed because the United States has not acted responsibly and honored its obligations in the region. The Obama Administrations performance in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and now Yemen has been abysmal and yet we see the NYT editorial board advocating that they act even more stupidly than they have already.
Obama is not leading from behind. A policy of neglect is not leading at all.
After World War II the United States left a residual force of 200,000 soldiers for half a century in Germany to keep the peace. We could easily have left 75,000 in Iraq for a decade or two to achieve the same goal. Iraq's location in the heart of the Middle East makes it strategically the most important country in the region, which is on the verge of collapsing into anarchy and unprecedented bloodshed because the United States has not acted responsibly and honored its obligations in the region. The Obama Administrations performance in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and now Yemen has been abysmal and yet we see the NYT editorial board advocating that they act even more stupidly than they have already.
Obama is not leading from behind. A policy of neglect is not leading at all.
3
No talk of impeachment, for unauthorized use of military force? Between backing down on the nuclear weapon verification requirements and allowing them to take over Iraq, we've ceded authority for dominating the region to Iran. The consequences of this irresponsibility will be devastating to the USA.
"...the Americans and Iraqis will need to bring security and ensure there is a government that respects the rights of all citizens. That should involve reaching out to leading Sunnis and assuring them that they will be central to rebuilding, securing and governing their city."
Has not the New York Times learned anything in the past 10 years? There is not going to be any multi-ethnic Iraqi government that respects the rights of all citizens. That is an American delusion, one of many.
It's quitting time. Let the Iraqis on the ground partition the country as their relative force determines.
Has not the New York Times learned anything in the past 10 years? There is not going to be any multi-ethnic Iraqi government that respects the rights of all citizens. That is an American delusion, one of many.
It's quitting time. Let the Iraqis on the ground partition the country as their relative force determines.
12
Dear NYT Editorial Board,
It would seem that after going on 7 years of an Obama Middle East Policy that seems to be nothing more than a mismanaged version of the Prior Administration's final policy, you would realize that the current "Amateurs" are resorting to the "wack a mole" (Bomb a Mole in this case) policy because they really are clueless as what to do. Syria is in flames, Libya is in flames, Iraq is in flames, Yemen is in flames and Iran is calling the shots in the "agreementliss negotiations"
Today the Secretary of State made comments to the press that were virtually identical to those made after Munich! All that need be done is change a few names to fit the location difference!
Which part of "The war in the Middle East is turning hot" don't you get? Not only is it turning hot it will likely go nuclear before it's through if it is not stopped really soon. The Saudis have money, Pakistan has nukes and no principals. Iran and Turkey could have nukes in a very short time as well.
Yemen, not Iraq is where there is a problem. Yemen is the Saudis "Poland" they must defend it as they are doing and unlike Obama's "coalition" where everyone stands around and watches us do the heavy lifting, the Saudis friends are sending troops!
It would seem that after going on 7 years of an Obama Middle East Policy that seems to be nothing more than a mismanaged version of the Prior Administration's final policy, you would realize that the current "Amateurs" are resorting to the "wack a mole" (Bomb a Mole in this case) policy because they really are clueless as what to do. Syria is in flames, Libya is in flames, Iraq is in flames, Yemen is in flames and Iran is calling the shots in the "agreementliss negotiations"
Today the Secretary of State made comments to the press that were virtually identical to those made after Munich! All that need be done is change a few names to fit the location difference!
Which part of "The war in the Middle East is turning hot" don't you get? Not only is it turning hot it will likely go nuclear before it's through if it is not stopped really soon. The Saudis have money, Pakistan has nukes and no principals. Iran and Turkey could have nukes in a very short time as well.
Yemen, not Iraq is where there is a problem. Yemen is the Saudis "Poland" they must defend it as they are doing and unlike Obama's "coalition" where everyone stands around and watches us do the heavy lifting, the Saudis friends are sending troops!
3
Perhaps, given that invading Iraq never made sense, there might not be any options that make sense even years later. US policy in the Middle East is indeed grasping at straws, in the dark, doing what has failed again and again.
No surprise given that we are doing and plan to do, from drones to Tikrit to Afghanistan are all so limited by the challenges at hand as to not make much of a difference --aside, of course, of putting our soldiers in the line of fire and waste of our treasury. After all, America is not willing to send most of their sons and daughters into combat, impose a war tax, and truly force a Pax Americana via great sacrifice.
All of the current military actions are nothing more than pro-forma propaganda that hides the fact that our current policies have failed, and that unless we fully commit total war, impose the draft, and make the Levant a colonial outpost, we cannot dictate the destinies of the Middle East. And even if we tried so, we might very well fail.
No surprise given that we are doing and plan to do, from drones to Tikrit to Afghanistan are all so limited by the challenges at hand as to not make much of a difference --aside, of course, of putting our soldiers in the line of fire and waste of our treasury. After all, America is not willing to send most of their sons and daughters into combat, impose a war tax, and truly force a Pax Americana via great sacrifice.
All of the current military actions are nothing more than pro-forma propaganda that hides the fact that our current policies have failed, and that unless we fully commit total war, impose the draft, and make the Levant a colonial outpost, we cannot dictate the destinies of the Middle East. And even if we tried so, we might very well fail.
8
"Perhaps, given that invading Iraq never made sense, there might not be any options that make sense even years later."
Perhaps those who thought it made sense then could tell us? That would be Friedman, Cohen, and much of the rest of the NYT. So what made sense then which does not make sense now?
Or is the comment correct, it NEVER made sense? I go with that, but then I was never a supporter of this war, and the NYT was.
Perhaps those who thought it made sense then could tell us? That would be Friedman, Cohen, and much of the rest of the NYT. So what made sense then which does not make sense now?
Or is the comment correct, it NEVER made sense? I go with that, but then I was never a supporter of this war, and the NYT was.
3
The fiction that air power can substitute for a well planned, all-out
military campaign (see the Powell Doctrine) has been laid bare over
and over again in history.
Almost uncontested airpower in Vietnam for nearly a decade did not
win that war. More recently the air strikes in Libya did nothing but
render Libya a failed state embroiled in factional warfare.
Even in World War II, after being pounded by American and British
airstrikes, the German army was able to seriously threaten the
advances made after the Normandy landings in the Battle of the
Bulge. And even with defeat staring them in the eyes, many
Germans fought on until they were overrun by the Russians in the
East and by the other Allied forces in the West. Boots, not bombs
ultimately won the war.
President Obama somehow thinks that U. S airstrikes will halt ISIS and all the other anti-western forces in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and
__________ (you pick a place).
Furthermore, he seems to think that a marriage of convenience
between the U. S. and Iran will do the trick in turning back ISIS.
Mr. Obama is dreaming on both counts. He has no actual policy in
the Middle East, other than to attempt to legitimize Iran, which is
beyond any sane person's comprehension.
Once again, this rookie president, with his "rational" thinking process
honestly believes he can both extricate the U. S. from the region and at the same time dictate diplomatic solutions. He lives in fantasyland.
military campaign (see the Powell Doctrine) has been laid bare over
and over again in history.
Almost uncontested airpower in Vietnam for nearly a decade did not
win that war. More recently the air strikes in Libya did nothing but
render Libya a failed state embroiled in factional warfare.
Even in World War II, after being pounded by American and British
airstrikes, the German army was able to seriously threaten the
advances made after the Normandy landings in the Battle of the
Bulge. And even with defeat staring them in the eyes, many
Germans fought on until they were overrun by the Russians in the
East and by the other Allied forces in the West. Boots, not bombs
ultimately won the war.
President Obama somehow thinks that U. S airstrikes will halt ISIS and all the other anti-western forces in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and
__________ (you pick a place).
Furthermore, he seems to think that a marriage of convenience
between the U. S. and Iran will do the trick in turning back ISIS.
Mr. Obama is dreaming on both counts. He has no actual policy in
the Middle East, other than to attempt to legitimize Iran, which is
beyond any sane person's comprehension.
Once again, this rookie president, with his "rational" thinking process
honestly believes he can both extricate the U. S. from the region and at the same time dictate diplomatic solutions. He lives in fantasyland.
3
Our air power can work, if it is part of a full effort where others provide the rest. That happened with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, when we took the place.
So now, it is the Iranians. The problem of course is that we deny that reality, and do all in our power to subvert ourselves.
Meanwhile the source of those we fight, the Sunni core, is our big "ally" the Saudis whom we are even today helping start another war.
We demonstrate no understanding of our own interests. Our "leaders" are serving other interests, or just their own.
So now, it is the Iranians. The problem of course is that we deny that reality, and do all in our power to subvert ourselves.
Meanwhile the source of those we fight, the Sunni core, is our big "ally" the Saudis whom we are even today helping start another war.
We demonstrate no understanding of our own interests. Our "leaders" are serving other interests, or just their own.
3
I think we have learned that 'No Drama Obama' sometimes acts with Drama and emotion. Furthermore, the veneer that all WH decisions are well studied has been smashed. Next we will perhaps begin to believe that he isn't a brilliant negotiator.
8
AMany neo-cons would have the United States send another army into a part of the world they neither understand nor could hope to ultimately control. Please let's not prove that the United States fits the definition of insanity. Repeating our mistakes in the Mideast will not lead to different outcome. The bad outcome will just continue to escalate.
11
Don't look now, but we are repeating Bush's mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also in Obama's new wars in Libya, Syria and soon to be Yemen.
1
Those who are concerned with the World must be concerned with the World. But the Mercurial State will always ordain - those in leadership positions who sacrifice their sanity for the unity of the state will always preordain the state.
The only winner of war is those who can best encourage the sacrifice of the people who belong to the state to a higher power than the state.
"So can Iran, whose fitness for rejoining the international community will be judged by its willingness to cooperate on security in the region," supersede the current Western Order by joining the Chinese mercurial state.
Iran, China and Russia have already decided on this mercurial cultural union, and the West, the NWO, and the EU have no idea in heaven or hell how to disband it.
The only winner of war is those who can best encourage the sacrifice of the people who belong to the state to a higher power than the state.
"So can Iran, whose fitness for rejoining the international community will be judged by its willingness to cooperate on security in the region," supersede the current Western Order by joining the Chinese mercurial state.
Iran, China and Russia have already decided on this mercurial cultural union, and the West, the NWO, and the EU have no idea in heaven or hell how to disband it.
The NY Times is a little late. Our "dangerous escalation in Iraq" happened 12 years ago.
137
Hear! Hear! Hear! Articulately to the point. Precisely.
Thanks.
jfm
Thanks.
jfm
3
"The strikes are part of a campaign that from the outset has been waged without the authorization from Congress required by the Constitution."
Yes, Yes, lets get the Republicans involved since they have been so successful in resolving Iraq's problems. If I remember correctly, it was a Republican congress that voted to start the war in Iraq. I compare it to setting a house on fire and then complaining that the firefighters are doing a poor job. Better to put the fire out before it spreads to other houses and destroys the whole neighborhood.
Yes, Yes, lets get the Republicans involved since they have been so successful in resolving Iraq's problems. If I remember correctly, it was a Republican congress that voted to start the war in Iraq. I compare it to setting a house on fire and then complaining that the firefighters are doing a poor job. Better to put the fire out before it spreads to other houses and destroys the whole neighborhood.
15
Am I the only Democrat who has the nagging fear that President Obama has no idea what he's doing? Or that he ever has?
30
For me, the fear is that he won't or can't stand up to the Permanent State of neocons left in place by Bush. Hillary and her use of people like Victoria Nuland to start yet more troubles on top of more like the Libya and Syria adventures and the failure to end Iraq and Afghanistan and Gitmo suggest the neocons never lost effective power.
Obama is not demonstrating an ability to stop them. It may not be him, it may be what we have built, the house that Bush built.
Obama is not demonstrating an ability to stop them. It may not be him, it may be what we have built, the house that Bush built.
3
Yeah, I think so. The middle east situation is secondary to Democratic politics. Keeping the home fires burning is the goal.
It has long been apparent that no amount of American military assistance alone can save Iraq if the country’s leaders continue to marginalize the Sunnis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You summed up the crux of the problem there. It is unfortunate that Obama has unwisely chosen to engage our military and escalate airstrikes that will only further the sectarian divide in that country.
Obama ended the Iraq war before he unended it. That is not a fine legacy for the guy who was given the peace prize.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You summed up the crux of the problem there. It is unfortunate that Obama has unwisely chosen to engage our military and escalate airstrikes that will only further the sectarian divide in that country.
Obama ended the Iraq war before he unended it. That is not a fine legacy for the guy who was given the peace prize.
9
Obama is playing both ends against the middle. He's bombing Sunnis in Takrit to support Iranian proxies (Shiite militias) while providing intel for Saudis to bomb Iranian proxies (Shiite Houthis) in Aden. It's a measure of the pragmatism that has marked his presidency: cast consistency to the wind and do what seems best in any given situation. He understands that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, including those who criticized his erasure of the red line in Syria to seize the opportunity to eliminate Syria's chemical munitions.
52
"(c)asting consistency to the wind" is how Americans arms end up in the hands of friends one day, friends who try to kill Americans the next day with weapons we provided. You can't turn the Titanic every 30 seconds.
3
The saying is "a foolish consistency." Foolish. Some consistency is necessary, not foolish. Otherwise, we act randomly without purpose.
4
Padraig Murchadha ° Lionville, Pennsylvania
Agreed, but conditionally, since you omit that Obama, as he knows, is about a dangerous enterprise. Saying that the enemy of my enemy is a friend works as a cliche, but as Churchill and Roosevelt found out when WWII ended, it was one thing to support Stalin against the great satan, Germany, and quite another to strike cooperation with when the war ended.
Sláinte. Eirinn go brach.
Sean Proinsias Mac giolla Brighde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caomh%C3%A1nach
.
Agreed, but conditionally, since you omit that Obama, as he knows, is about a dangerous enterprise. Saying that the enemy of my enemy is a friend works as a cliche, but as Churchill and Roosevelt found out when WWII ended, it was one thing to support Stalin against the great satan, Germany, and quite another to strike cooperation with when the war ended.
Sláinte. Eirinn go brach.
Sean Proinsias Mac giolla Brighde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caomh%C3%A1nach
.
It advances American interests because Raytheon is an American company! You really had to ask?
15
AS I read this article it strikes me that Iran can do nothing right in the eyes of the Sunnis Arabs and the US even when they put their lives on the line so to save the Sunnis from ISIS.
ISIS, Al-Qaida and the folks in Tikrit and Mosul are all Sunni Arabs and we all know that the Iraqi Army or any other professional Army including the US for that matter can not fight a "Guerrilla War" as we have seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan by the failure of the US and the Soviets and then again US recently.
THE only strategy that works against the Guerrillas is engaging "Militia Fighters" and it seems Iran has perfected that art as they helped the Iraqi Kurds who are Sunnis and are organized as Militias to hold their own against the ISIS.
SO instead of complaining, the Iraqi Sunnis need to roll up their sleeves, form Militias and go at the ISIS along with the Iraqi Army or the US needs to put 30 to 50 thousand "Special Forces" on the ground who can fight Guerilla War to do the job.
THE Iraqi Shia Militias and the Iranians are doing the Iraqi Sunnis a favor and getting all the abuse and I am not surprised they are no longer willing to fight and get trashed by ungrateful Sunnis in Iraq and the region at large.
ISIS, Al-Qaida and the folks in Tikrit and Mosul are all Sunni Arabs and we all know that the Iraqi Army or any other professional Army including the US for that matter can not fight a "Guerrilla War" as we have seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan by the failure of the US and the Soviets and then again US recently.
THE only strategy that works against the Guerrillas is engaging "Militia Fighters" and it seems Iran has perfected that art as they helped the Iraqi Kurds who are Sunnis and are organized as Militias to hold their own against the ISIS.
SO instead of complaining, the Iraqi Sunnis need to roll up their sleeves, form Militias and go at the ISIS along with the Iraqi Army or the US needs to put 30 to 50 thousand "Special Forces" on the ground who can fight Guerilla War to do the job.
THE Iraqi Shia Militias and the Iranians are doing the Iraqi Sunnis a favor and getting all the abuse and I am not surprised they are no longer willing to fight and get trashed by ungrateful Sunnis in Iraq and the region at large.
2
"without providing a shred of evidence showing how it could advance American interests"
"its liberation from ISIS control could make it easier to liberate Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, which is now also under the control of the Islamic State."
I think you have your answer.
"its liberation from ISIS control could make it easier to liberate Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, which is now also under the control of the Islamic State."
I think you have your answer.
4
Sorry, but I think ISIS has to be stopped at all costs. This should have happened much sooner.
1
It's not just the complicated battle for Tikrit in Iraq that is a "dangerous escalation," but the simultaneous U.S. involvement on the side of Saudi Arabia to provide "logistical and intelligence support" as they attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen backed by Iran. There seems to be little sense in all this when the U.S. is also engaged in intense negotiations in Switzerland with Iran to curtail their nuclear program. Both of these military actions risk drawing us into to an even larger regional war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran while providing the hard-liners in Iran with the leverage to walk away from the negotiations that could result in a nuclear arms race between these regional powers.
4
What is so funny is that Obama is basically being the Air Force for the Iranians but yet he is condemning them in Yemen. Can we all just admit Obama is clueless and Iran is just dragging him along with their whims.
10
When you say "clueless", do you mean like George W. Bush in Iraq? THAT kind of clueless??
I'm a little surprised by your claim that President Obama has not shown "evidence" how this helps American interests. I kind of thought us Americans see a real thread from ISIS. I'm thinking we can challenge them in Tikrit or wait till they get to Park City, UT, and battle them in my backyard. ISIS needs to be stopped before they become more of a threat to the free world. I believe we need to challenge and stop them now, wherever they are.
1
Another victory for the military industrial establishment at the expense of the United States citizens.
14
That part of the world is such a mess right now it is hard to tell whether the enemy of our enemy is a friend or a foe. So what’s the point of this exercise?
It is better to sit on the sidelines than siding with one group or another, only to have them turn around and attack us, as happened with the Afghanistan Mujahedin who the U.S. supported in their fight against the Russians.
It is better to sit on the sidelines than siding with one group or another, only to have them turn around and attack us, as happened with the Afghanistan Mujahedin who the U.S. supported in their fight against the Russians.
3
Obama is above the law and does not need to provide a shred of evidence to anyone.
This is the type of presidency liberal wanted.
Why are the editors all of a sudden upset when Obama rules by decree?
This is the type of presidency liberal wanted.
Why are the editors all of a sudden upset when Obama rules by decree?
5
Well, would you prefer George W and Cheney? They cost us thousands of lives of our young military people. Is that what you want?
If the New York Times believes they are correct in their assessment of Obama's actions, they should have the fortitude to call for his impeachment even though they know the House Republicans would not impeach him.
4
I'm confused. Republicans say he's not doing enough in Iraq, but won't approve anything he wants. But if he does anything Democrats say he should stay out. But if he stays out, then ISIS murders innocents by the thousand and we don't want that. The Arab countries don't want that either, but only Iraqis have a stake or will to fight. So no matter what he does, Obama is doing too little or too much. Can he ever do anything right? Ever?
6
I have to wonder what the presidents intentions are in the Mid-East. He has turned on Israel. He is bombing sites in Iraq, and now I am reading, from other news sources, that he is caving on inspections of nuclear sites in Iran, and effectively capitulating to the Iranians. Didn't the current crop of liberal Democrats (including the president) learn anything from President Carter's experiences with Iran? There are days when I have to wonder who's side the President is on, that of the American people or? God (or Allah) help us!
3
Forget Carter ... any Republicans learn anything from President Reagan? You know, arming the Iranian Mullahs (with the help of the government of Israel) - then officially designated State Sponsors of Terrorism. That was 2 years AFTER the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut, made possible because of Iranian support of Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah. Osama bin Laden learned some lessons watching these events. We are still dealing with the aftermath.
Republicans running even now for president look to Reagan as "the one" to model themselves after - in particular my governor Scott Walker. I wonder ... who's side are they on?
Republicans running even now for president look to Reagan as "the one" to model themselves after - in particular my governor Scott Walker. I wonder ... who's side are they on?
US actions over 62 years coming home to roost.
Eisenhower deposes Mossadecq which leads to the Rule of The Mullahs in Iran.
Reagan arms the Afghan fundamentalists who change their name to Taliban and give bin Laden sanctuary and AQ an entire country.
Bush the Least "leads" The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, unleashing sectarian war unseen in the modern Middle East.
Mission Accomplished America.
Eisenhower deposes Mossadecq which leads to the Rule of The Mullahs in Iran.
Reagan arms the Afghan fundamentalists who change their name to Taliban and give bin Laden sanctuary and AQ an entire country.
Bush the Least "leads" The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, unleashing sectarian war unseen in the modern Middle East.
Mission Accomplished America.
64
Carter started arming the Afghans.
We should have never let BiBi talk us into invading Iraq to begin with.
37
The president knows that if Iraq is to avoid the failed state fates of some of its neighbors its army, humiliated by ISIL last year, must regain some credibility. And he knows we almost certainly cannot hope for any better partner in Baghdad than Prime Minister al-Abadi. We still run the risk of sending good money after bad in a country that has cost us so much in the last twelve years (and counting), though.
Bush-era policies all but pushed Iraq into Iran's arms and now we're living with the consequences. We should not obsess over Iran's growing influence, however, for even if the mullahs privately chortle at our struggles now, they will have their own issues soon enough if they keep meddling outside their borders. It is not up to us--not that we have the capacity, either--to resolve the Shiite-Sunni dispute.
Bush-era policies all but pushed Iraq into Iran's arms and now we're living with the consequences. We should not obsess over Iran's growing influence, however, for even if the mullahs privately chortle at our struggles now, they will have their own issues soon enough if they keep meddling outside their borders. It is not up to us--not that we have the capacity, either--to resolve the Shiite-Sunni dispute.
3
The editorial board needs to re-examine its use of "escalation" to describe any act taken in Iraq.
In the context of what amounts to unending conflict since this nation nearly single handedly destroyed the fragile complex political structure in Iraq in 2003, "escalate," "escalating," and "escalation" have no application.
We killed, maimed, tortured, displaced, and otherwise psychologically traumatized several millions of human beings, including our own sons and daughters for totally absurd suppositions.
How can anything since, especially in consideration of ISIS own extravagant application of mayhem, be "escalation."
I say too often in these pages what I learned about war in Vietnam 45 years ago, but even that's pointless.
This nation lost its moral compass a long time ago; write about that. I mean, come on guys, for gawd's sake, there are conservatives in this nation who, with Israeli leaders, would be willing to try to destroy Iran to prevent them from having nuclear energy, despite the fact that Britain, France, Israel, China, Pakistan, India, Russia and the U.S., and formerly South Africa, all posses hydrogen bombs, in the thousands.
Buy a clue you guys.
Barack is just another player in the insanity and we've never washed our hands of the Machiavellian war spiral that is the absurdity of the politics and religion of East meets West meets Christianity meets Judaism meets Democracy meets Islam meets Sharia....
Escalation. That's rich.
.
In the context of what amounts to unending conflict since this nation nearly single handedly destroyed the fragile complex political structure in Iraq in 2003, "escalate," "escalating," and "escalation" have no application.
We killed, maimed, tortured, displaced, and otherwise psychologically traumatized several millions of human beings, including our own sons and daughters for totally absurd suppositions.
How can anything since, especially in consideration of ISIS own extravagant application of mayhem, be "escalation."
I say too often in these pages what I learned about war in Vietnam 45 years ago, but even that's pointless.
This nation lost its moral compass a long time ago; write about that. I mean, come on guys, for gawd's sake, there are conservatives in this nation who, with Israeli leaders, would be willing to try to destroy Iran to prevent them from having nuclear energy, despite the fact that Britain, France, Israel, China, Pakistan, India, Russia and the U.S., and formerly South Africa, all posses hydrogen bombs, in the thousands.
Buy a clue you guys.
Barack is just another player in the insanity and we've never washed our hands of the Machiavellian war spiral that is the absurdity of the politics and religion of East meets West meets Christianity meets Judaism meets Democracy meets Islam meets Sharia....
Escalation. That's rich.
.
183
... and yes, of course, North Korea.
935 lies by the Bush Administration to get us into another fine mess was escalation. That's why we're here to begin with.
Now we're issuing apologies and medals to veterans we lied to about chemical weapons in iraq as if those are in and of themselves somehow sufficient while that same broken moral compass allows our Conservatives, and some Democrats, to ratchet up the budget to finance hundreds of billions in new, worthless, expensive weapons systems we don't need so that their friends in industry can continue to enrich themselves while we divest our neediest citizens of safety nets.
And I misspoke: the nation hasn't lost it's moral compass. But many of our "leaders" have. They politic and campaign on their planks of religiosity while plotting world mayhem.
And none of that is escalation, either. That's status quo.
.
935 lies by the Bush Administration to get us into another fine mess was escalation. That's why we're here to begin with.
Now we're issuing apologies and medals to veterans we lied to about chemical weapons in iraq as if those are in and of themselves somehow sufficient while that same broken moral compass allows our Conservatives, and some Democrats, to ratchet up the budget to finance hundreds of billions in new, worthless, expensive weapons systems we don't need so that their friends in industry can continue to enrich themselves while we divest our neediest citizens of safety nets.
And I misspoke: the nation hasn't lost it's moral compass. But many of our "leaders" have. They politic and campaign on their planks of religiosity while plotting world mayhem.
And none of that is escalation, either. That's status quo.
.
112
Admirable sentiments John.
So do we all become Francophiles and hand responsibility of a fair world to Germany. Let them take responsibility for both inaction and action??
The reality is that the Middle East is the Middle East responsibilty but they have become callous and immune to torture and despicable acts and unless its in their face or threatens their hierarchy nothing will happen.
I agree let's walk away...or ?
So do we all become Francophiles and hand responsibility of a fair world to Germany. Let them take responsibility for both inaction and action??
The reality is that the Middle East is the Middle East responsibilty but they have become callous and immune to torture and despicable acts and unless its in their face or threatens their hierarchy nothing will happen.
I agree let's walk away...or ?
Just a minor correction. We're in Iraq now because President Obama singlehandedly brought us back in. Let's be clear about it.
We were out in 2011, ending the AUMF of 2002, ending the President's Commander in Chief designation. He currently has no authority to attack and bomb any sovereign country with our military forces, even if said country wants him to. He's acting in a blatant unconstitutional manner and we can't blame it on Bush much as I'd like to.
We were out in 2011, ending the AUMF of 2002, ending the President's Commander in Chief designation. He currently has no authority to attack and bomb any sovereign country with our military forces, even if said country wants him to. He's acting in a blatant unconstitutional manner and we can't blame it on Bush much as I'd like to.
2
As a consistent critic of the administration for its policyless policy, this editorial gives me sympathy for it.
First, the assumptions of the editorial are contradicted by the reporting of the NYT. Is it going the way of the WSJ, with editorials disconnected from reality?
Second the administration drifts in part from fear of Shia slaughtering sunni and so refused to Shia militia offensive support.
The NYT piously writes, as if it is the Onion,
"Relief aid, including electricity and water, should be delivered immediately to Tikrit. The militias must be marginalized or their fighters integrated into Iraqi institutions like the army and the police so that they serve the state rather than a warlord or faction. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the senior leader of the Shiite world, can have an important function in making the case for a more inclusive government. So can Iran, whose fitness for rejoining the international community will be judged by its willingness to cooperate on security in the region."
Must? You and whose army will enforce must? There are wars on. The criminal death gang daesh will last as long as we and others allow and no longer. Sistani has already spoken up. Hundreds are not holding off thousands, the claim embarrasses those who make it. The issue is sunni/Shia.
Either the U.S. uses hard power to bring about its goals or it should drop the musts, drop its pieties about no ethnic cleansing, shut up, go home, and live with the consequences.
First, the assumptions of the editorial are contradicted by the reporting of the NYT. Is it going the way of the WSJ, with editorials disconnected from reality?
Second the administration drifts in part from fear of Shia slaughtering sunni and so refused to Shia militia offensive support.
The NYT piously writes, as if it is the Onion,
"Relief aid, including electricity and water, should be delivered immediately to Tikrit. The militias must be marginalized or their fighters integrated into Iraqi institutions like the army and the police so that they serve the state rather than a warlord or faction. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the senior leader of the Shiite world, can have an important function in making the case for a more inclusive government. So can Iran, whose fitness for rejoining the international community will be judged by its willingness to cooperate on security in the region."
Must? You and whose army will enforce must? There are wars on. The criminal death gang daesh will last as long as we and others allow and no longer. Sistani has already spoken up. Hundreds are not holding off thousands, the claim embarrasses those who make it. The issue is sunni/Shia.
Either the U.S. uses hard power to bring about its goals or it should drop the musts, drop its pieties about no ethnic cleansing, shut up, go home, and live with the consequences.
39
'will last as long as we and others allow and no longer' Who made us the judge and jury over there. We can't even run our own country with massive crime, drugs, gangs, poverty, corruption, bankrupt cities and a dysfunctional government in Washington. But we as a Christian nation know what's best for the Muslims and if they don't want it? we bomb them into the stone age. How long are we gonna living off winning WWII - how long?.
1
The point is Daesh is a symptom of statelessness and the state of nature.
I am dubious you get the point or the fundamental western concept of the state of nature. I guarantee Sisi does and is furious about it as he should be.
I am dubious you get the point or the fundamental western concept of the state of nature. I guarantee Sisi does and is furious about it as he should be.
In the battle with Iran for the hearts and minds of Iraq Obama is bringing to bear all his skills as a community organizer. The Obama Middle East Policy in general and his actions in Syria and against ISIS in particular have been feckless. Heck he even lost the battle to call the jihadis iS instead of iSIS.
Time to stop dropping $250K missiles on $20K pickup trucks and get our allies, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, to stop funding ISIS and start fighting them. With less dependency on foreign oil the time is ripe to put the screws to our friends who fund our enemies.
Time to stop dropping $250K missiles on $20K pickup trucks and get our allies, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, to stop funding ISIS and start fighting them. With less dependency on foreign oil the time is ripe to put the screws to our friends who fund our enemies.
44
This editorial wanders all over the troubled map of Iraq. Beginning with a claim of a dangerous and unauthorized war escalation by the US, it then highlights the terrible aftermath of previous Shiite militia led counteroffensives, inflicted on local Sunni civilians. Finally, it prescribes further policing actions the US should take to protect minorities. I'm not sure what the Editorial is calling for: evacuate, escalate or just sink further into the mire of Middle Eastern sectarian strife.
I heard a top US general today say he was happy to have the Shiite militias leave the Tikrit fight to the Sunnis. Without the incompetent, corrupt generals appointed by al Maliki, they might actually be able to make progress against ISIS.
I heard a top US general today say he was happy to have the Shiite militias leave the Tikrit fight to the Sunnis. Without the incompetent, corrupt generals appointed by al Maliki, they might actually be able to make progress against ISIS.
27
What a mess! The U.S. is now assisting Shiites in a battle against a Sunni organization taking place in a Sunni town. None of which makes any sense. What we out to do is convince the Shiite government in Baghdad that Tikrit and Mosul and all other Sunni-majority regions should no longer be regarded as constituent parts of Iraq. The only way to end this continuing soap-opera is for the U.S. and its allies to push for the creation of Sunni and Kurdish states spanning the borders of those areas in Iraq and Syria in which Sunnis and Kurds are predominant. Let those people- who at present have little to fight for- fight the ISIS barbarians, with as much assistance from the U.S. (excluding ground forces) as they're willing to accept. Conceivably the Turks and some of the Sunni Arab nations would see fit to join the fight once it's made clear that neither Iran nor its client in Damascus could possibly profit by their involvement. Let the Shiites have a rump state in Iraq and the Alawites a rump state in Syria. Let the Sunnis and the Kurds have the rest and let America come home and stay there.
62
Creating a bunch of micro-states that hate each other won't solve anything. It'll just mean decades of Palestinian/Isreali type conflict... the modern equivalent if WWI trench warfare.
Ethnically fractious societies are only peaceful when they assimilate or become dominated by one side. The nightmare scenario here is that one side gains dominance with nuclear weapons...
Ethnically fractious societies are only peaceful when they assimilate or become dominated by one side. The nightmare scenario here is that one side gains dominance with nuclear weapons...
1
We could have established a three state solution in Iraq when we helped them form their government. Giving each religious sect their own state to govern as they see fit. With or without a central government. But, the Bush administration was not concerned with a democratic government in Iraq, they just wanted the OIL and revenge for Daddy Bush.
4
I like that part about "let America come home and stay there."
4
The US is helping Iran & Iraq battle ISIS in Iraq.
It is helping Jordan and Saudia Arabia battle ISIS, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran in Syria, although the Saudis were originally funding ISIS.
In Yemen, it is providing logistics to a 10 nation Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia against the Iran backed Shia rebels in Yemen and Iran.
It's nuts but there might be a silver lining. For the first time, an Arab coalition is doing the fighting in a sectarian conflict that the US should never have gotten involved in.
They're all sick of the conditions President Obama puts on US action. Good. Let them fight it out themselves - Sunni/Shia, Iran/Saudi Arabia. It's their battle, not ours. This might be our way out.
It is helping Jordan and Saudia Arabia battle ISIS, Assad, Hezbollah and Iran in Syria, although the Saudis were originally funding ISIS.
In Yemen, it is providing logistics to a 10 nation Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia against the Iran backed Shia rebels in Yemen and Iran.
It's nuts but there might be a silver lining. For the first time, an Arab coalition is doing the fighting in a sectarian conflict that the US should never have gotten involved in.
They're all sick of the conditions President Obama puts on US action. Good. Let them fight it out themselves - Sunni/Shia, Iran/Saudi Arabia. It's their battle, not ours. This might be our way out.
99
Mary Scott - in general I agree with your points.
We have, since creating the instability in Iraq - as a consequence of our invasion - opened the fault line between the Shia Muslim world and the Sunni Muslim world. How that conflict will play out is anyone's guess.
It is becoming obvious that our foreign policy needs clarity in regards to what our strategic interests are. Perhaps a timely topic given the upcoming presidential elections, but I am pessimistic enough to realize the debate at home will be more about guns and abortion rather what our president should do with foreign policy. What s/he should do, that is, other than get involved in another Middle East quagmire.
We have, since creating the instability in Iraq - as a consequence of our invasion - opened the fault line between the Shia Muslim world and the Sunni Muslim world. How that conflict will play out is anyone's guess.
It is becoming obvious that our foreign policy needs clarity in regards to what our strategic interests are. Perhaps a timely topic given the upcoming presidential elections, but I am pessimistic enough to realize the debate at home will be more about guns and abortion rather what our president should do with foreign policy. What s/he should do, that is, other than get involved in another Middle East quagmire.
1
From your mouth to Obama's ears or rather from you typing to Obama's eyes.
1
The Times Editorial Board has given the Americans, the Iranians, and the Iraqis a very tall order. The Americans have been repudiated by their supposed allies.
The Iranians are probably not very willing to power share with the Sunnis. The Sunnis justifiably worry about Shia militias that are in all likelihood sworn on revenge against Sunni ISIS and Sunni "collaborators." No party can accept this order for its own reasons. It would have been better if the Editorial Board had simply asked for the administration to withdraw from this mess and let the chips fall where they may.
The Iranians are probably not very willing to power share with the Sunnis. The Sunnis justifiably worry about Shia militias that are in all likelihood sworn on revenge against Sunni ISIS and Sunni "collaborators." No party can accept this order for its own reasons. It would have been better if the Editorial Board had simply asked for the administration to withdraw from this mess and let the chips fall where they may.
87
Our hubristic (narcissistic?) President Obama is sadly overwhelmed and dangerously incompetent in his job as commander in chief.
None dare ask it. But his best and closest advisors need to request the President turn over management to his cabinet secretaries, especially his Secretary of Defense, and to the Pentagon.
And won't his better angels persuade him, please, to dump the authorization of any further war, anywhere, in the lap of Congress as required by the Constitution. No more red lines. No more Putin showdowns. No more shenanigans with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, or other rogue terrorist nations that have taken President Obama's measure.
This is just way out of hand. I voted for him, twice. I'm embarrassed I did and embarrassed for his incompetence.