Islamic militants are preparing to march on Baghdad after seizing Takrit. The Iraq civil war has begun in earnest. The question is, what should we do? Here is the link:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/06/12/ISIS-militants-plan-to-march-on-Baghdad.html
And now Iran is involved as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/iraq-gets-international-help-iran-032015782.html
Tony Abbott the Australian Prime Minister is in Washington and met the Pres yesterday. Usual back slapping and vows of friendship. The feeling here is that US will but boots on the ground and as always Australia will be with you. Interestingly, we have rapport between Left wing Pres and Right wing Aussie leader. Why the bloody hell are you blokes unable to find common ground.
ReplyDeleteOn TV here today I heard Sen. McCain mouthing off at the Pres and the House Rebub leader accusing the Pres of taking a nap. Nancy Pelosi also having a bit to say.
Cheers from Aussie
Obama puts our people back in after leaving with his tail between his legs and our military could very well perform a mutiny. I do not advocate what McCain does but after leading from behind our leader has been shown for what he is. Our emperor has no clothes.
Delete""The expressions The Emperor's new clothes and The Emperor has no clothes are often used with allusion to Andersen's tale. Most frequently, the metaphor involves a situation wherein the overwhelming (usually unempowered) majority of observers willingly share in a collective ignorance of an obvious fact, despite individually recognising the absurdity. A similar twentieth-century metaphor is the Elephant in the room.
The story is also used to express a concept of "truth seen by the eyes of a child", an idea that truth is often spoken by a person too naïve to understand group pressures to see contrary to the obvious. This is a general theme of "purity within innocence" throughout Andersen's fables and many similar works of literature.
"The Emperor Wears No Clothes" or "The Emperor Has No Clothes" is often used in political and social contexts for any obvious truth denied by the majority despite the evidence of their eyes, especially when proclaimed by the government. ""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
DeleteThe agreement to leave Iraq was signed in November of 2008 by George W Bush. The agreement stated that all US forces would withdrawal from Iraq by Dec 31 2009. If Iraq would have given us a status of forces agreement at that time to legally protect our troops from the Iraqi civil and criminal system we would have kept a small force there. But they wouldn't how soon you forget the real facts William. And this is the problem the president has. The laws in force between the two countries at the time required that the troops be withdrawn. Obama followed the law in place at the time. And he's damned for that same as allegedly breaking the law on almost every issue of disagreement between the two parties when the repubs don't get their way. He can't win either way. That's why he just does what he wants to do.
In hind sight if we would have left the country of Iraq alone Saddam Hussein would be there to ruthlessly quell this current insurrection.
DeleteHind sight. Might say the same for Egypt and Libya.
DeleteAs Iran enters the fray, the civil war becomes a holy war, Shiite vs Suni. The question is not what we did wrong then, but what do we do now? Anyone have any good ideas?
ReplyDeleteWhen the ISIS militants attacked Mosul the Iraqi soldiers turned and ran, offering no resistance. This brings up the question, will arming the Iraqi forces do any good, if they refuse to fight? The stated goal of ISIS is to take over the entire Middle East and establish the new Caliphate. Is this the beginning of WWIII? Will Iran become our new allies in Iraq?
ReplyDeleteAnd will we join Russia on the side of Assad?
Deletehttp://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/assad-says-west-shifting-position-syria-20146128166985488.html
Where the hell are the Kurds? They are usually willing to fight.
DeleteI talked with a friend who is a retired General and had served in Iraq. He said that the Kurds are tough and shrewd and are ready to fight anyone to keep their oil rich territory. I believe they are keeping a defensive posture for now but will enter the fray when and if their interests are threatened.
DeleteIsn't Mosul their city? Didn't the ISIS take it from the Iraqi's
DeleteMosul in predominately Sunni. It is on the Southern border of the Kurdish Autonomous Region.
DeleteRussia on the side of Assad? Hadn't thought of that one. Given US-Russian relationships, it seems unlikely but, suppose Russia agreed to give up their claims on Ukraine in exchange, very interesting idea. Assad is no friend of ISIS as the militants are a threat to his rule.
ReplyDeleteRussia controls the main port in the Black Sea, The Crimia. Russia controls the main port in the Eastern Mediterranean, in Syria. Russia has been supporting Assad for a long time. Russia provides technology support to the Iranian nuclear program.
DeleteMitt Romney did not share our President's view that Russia was a benign actor and he was laughed off the debate stage by our brilliant media minds. Our president travels to California for some fund raising and golf this weekend while our embassy in Baghdad hangs on the thread of civilization.
Ain't the Hillary/Obama leading from behind foreign policy grand.
Keep in mind Mick that we sided with communist USSR against Hitler.
DeleteIs the caliphate more dangerous than Hitler?
Islamic fascism perhaps is in the long run.
Of course, Russia was a major ally in WWII as they controlled Germany's Eastern front. Neither the US nor Britain trusted them, but they were necessary. And after the way we gave them Eastern Europe, including half of Germany. I read this morning that the firebrand cleric Al Sadr is raising a militia (again) to fight ISIS. I believe it is religious fanaticism, not fascism that is the greater danger at this time.
DeleteIt's all about re establishment of the Islamic Caliphate and always has been.
DeleteThe Shia and Sunni factions started fighting shortly after Mohammed's death. The Shia wanted his son in law Ali to take over while the Sunni wanted to establish a group of Caliphs to secede the Prophet. They have been fighting for hundreds of years now. The Sunni oppose the Caliphate.
DeleteThe groups first diverged after the Prophet Muhammad died in 632, and his followers could not agree on whether to choose bloodline successors or leaders most likely to follow the tenets of the faith.The group now known as Sunnis chose Abu Bakr, the prophet’s adviser, to become the first successor, or caliph, to lead the Muslim state. Shiites favored Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law. Ali and his successors are called imams, who not only lead the Shiites but are considered to be descendants of Muhammad. After the 11th imam died in 874, and his young son was said to have disappeared from the funeral, Shiites in particular came to see the child as a Messiah who had been hidden from the public by God.The largest sect of Shiites, known as “twelvers,” have been preparing for his return ever since.How did the violence start?In 656, Ali’s supporters killed the third caliph. Soon after, the Sunnis killed Ali’s son Husain.Fighting continued but Sunnis emerged victorious over the Shiites and came to revere the caliphate for its strength and piety.Shiites focused on developing their religious beliefs, through their imams.
DeleteHere's today's news. The aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush will move into the Persian Gulf by Saturday evening, where it will be accompanied by a guided-missile cruiser and destroyer, according to statement by Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby.
ReplyDeleteExactly what will these ships do besides help evacuate our Baghdad embassy?
DeleteIs this a civil war? So many fighters are from outside countries. I'd call it a religious war that's been going on for about eight centuries.
DeleteIraqi Sunni have been excluded from government by the Shiite regime, hence the rebellion. In that sense it is a civil war. However, outside followers of both sects have now joined the fray, making it a religious war as well. As for the ships, that is just saber rattling. It is unlikely we will attack the regime we put in place.
ReplyDelete