Syria, in or out
Jim
Carafano makes sense to me:
[B]y the end of Bush’s term, we had put a lot of pressure on al-Qaeda and groups like ISIS. And the threat of transnational terrorism subsided significantly.
President Obama benefited [from that when he] came in office. And about halfway through his first term, he basically kind of decided the war on terror was over. So he pulled the troops out of Iraq. We backed off in a lot of areas, and basically what we saw is, if you think of those scenes where there’s a forest fire and then the fire’s out and everybody leaves and then the sparks flare up and the forest fire kicks in again, that’s exactly what happened.
So we went from a very high level of terror, global terrorist threat, to a low level, to essentially walking away from the problem and see it reignite. And when Trump came back in office, we did a significant job of kind of putting the forest fire out again.
The challenge now is we have to watch the embers. I’m sympathetic of what Sen. Graham says, if we walk away from worrying about transnational terrorism, it’ll definitely come back. Where I would differ is what’s the most efficacious way to do that? …
There’s an argument [of] let’s have American troops everywhere doing everything. There’s a better argument, I think, which the president has made, which is, there are things that we should be doing, there are things that our friends and allies should be doing, and we should all be working at keeping watch to make sure the fire doesn’t come back together.
In the end, that’s more sustainable and will also be more effective. So I’m not sure that Sen. Graham’s right, that the answer is we put American troops everywhere all the time because we’re worried about forest fires.
10 comments:
"So he pulled the troops out of Iraq."
Carafano left out that the government of Iraq refused to sign a status of forces agreement and we weren't staying without one. Or would he like US troops subject to Iraqi law? Somebody should bring that up every time he starts down the path of intervention overseas.
Well, one claim on that is Obama didn't really try to get a status of forces agreement. He wanted out and made sure the status of forces negotiations failed so he'd have an excuse to get out ASAP. Someone should bring that up whenever the topic comes up as well.
In fact one might very specifically bring up that the person in charge of negotiating a status of forces agreement was one Hillary Clinton, who completely failed to bring the Iraqis around even though it was her #1 job as Secretary of State at that time. That's an important point that shouldn't be forgotten, especially as she is making noise about standing for President again.
Indeed, one Joe Biden -- also standing for President -- had an important role to play in Iraq at that time. He said it was going to be remembered as one of the administration's greatest accomplishments. As well it might have been, if they'd managed to get the Iraqis to agree to a stabilizing American force presence located in bases outside the cities. All they had to do was not lose what we had won there when I left in 2009.
Trump is terrible at thinking about war; he just doesn't have the background for it. But he's not the only one who is bad at this particular business. It is his fault that he hasn't succeeded in keeping advisers who are better at it, and heeding their advice. On the other hand, it's hard to trust your advisers when many of them prove, over and over again, to be involved in plots to have you removed from office.
As for whether we should go or not, we don't have a choice. Trump's pretense that he is making a decision is a face-saving deception. Erdogan is making a choice. We had nowhere near the force structure on the ground to deter Turkey, let alone to repel them. Nor could we move such a structure there now in time to stop Erdogan. We'd have to deploy to Iraq, and then fight our way back in -- i.e., start a major war with what is on paper a NATO ally.
In any case, we deploy troops and we pull them out. The guiding principle can't be that the country has a more dismal future without us than with us, any more than it can be an insistence on zero casualties among our armed forces. One principle would have us in full strength in nearly every country in the world indefinitely, while the other would prevent our ever taking military action anywhere. They're empty words.
Joe Biden -- also standing for President -- had an important role to play in Iraq at that time. He said it was going to be remembered as one of the administration's greatest accomplishments. As well it might have been, if they'd managed to get the Iraqis to agree to a stabilizing American force presence located in bases outside the cities.
Joe also verbally supported the idea of a free and independent Kurdistan. Presumably carved from pieces of Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Joe wasn't scared of =pissing off allies and rivals all alike. But, possibly, he was trying the correct thing to accomplish from a Wilsonian viewpoint. "Every little language needs a nation of its own, and all that." And in a fantasy best case scenario, a free Kurdistan could have become a US-supported, Switzerland-like, dipolmatic buffer between the Turks, Persians, and Arabs -- none could war against the other without the Kurds (and the US military) in the way.
So, the public should be asking the candidate, if you had this great policy goal and couldn't accomplish it -- why should we think you and your leadership team can accomplish greater or lesser goals like climate control or e-cigarette bans, now?
That is true. Biden was right about partitioning Iraq, though he was shouted down by everyone in the room at the time.
Weren't the Kurds the ones that were left high and dry under the Bush pullout after Desert Storm, with Secretary Baker et al having made quite a few promises for their protection and development, only to have these promises revoked? They are always used to illustrate the tragic fate of betrayed loyal allies. But are they really? I understand they are an ethnic enclave that is subject to the kind of brutal persecution that is de rigueur in Islamic paradises like Iraq and Turkey. But are they really so aligned to the US that we need to park troops there for their protection? Truly don't know the answer, but it seem obvious that the region is a poor match for anything but Strongman leaders.
Saddam punished them harshly for having supported the US, which didn't end up overthrowing him during the Gulf War (and the CIA lost its whole network in Iraq during the Clinton administration, which Saddam rolled up and tortured to death, similar to what Iran and China would later do as well). They were under the protection of 5th Group, US Special Forces, and the reason for the no fly zone that existed forever between the Gulf War and the Iraq War.
During the Iraq War their peshmerga were our only reliable allies for a long time, until the Sunni Awakening. Even then, the Kurds were more reliable.
They're riven by political infighting between two major families in Iraq, and disorganization (and more infighting) in the other Kurdish regions. But they fight hard, are fairly honest and reliable on average, and exhibit very low levels of religious radicalism (enough to tolerate Zoroastrianism as well as the Yazidi in spite of Islam being prominent).
I like them, those I've met and those I've come to know well.
Partitioning Iraq would weaken the central government. Casey and other military head dogs didn't seem to like that.
But, chaotic people do, because we don't particularly like "centralized government" to begin with. Especially the ones going around confiscating civilian owners of AK 47s.
Don't worry about the Kurds. They have been fighting Turks for thousands of years by my count so far.
They won't be wiped out so easily.
Especially if they can hold for a few more years, reinforcements from the Fleet will be here.
They are closer than even the best of us, may expect.
How powerful is this fleet, is it like a bunch of Somali pirate trawlers? It's closer to the Host of Heaven as mentioned by one Yeshua bin Joseph. A power that is beyond the combined total military firepower of NATO, and every other two bit alliance on earth, combined.
Post a Comment