All things Middle East related

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by That Guy

you say obama, but you should be saying obama/bush, at the very least. isis is on the decline though, recruiting is down by over 80% over last year, and their money is drying up, leading to a lot of awol soldiers.

...
and hillary is an interventionist, so in all likelyhood, yes, she will meddle in places against good advice. better than trump, but she'll (probably) continue our 16 year tradition of terrible foreign policy decisions.

For god's sake, its been almost eight years since Bush II was president. It's pathetic how much criticism of Obama, especially on his second term, is deflected by throwing Bush in the discussion. So when the next prez is elected, is Bush still gonna be held just as accountable?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

For god's sake, its been almost eight years since Bush II was president. It's pathetic how much criticism of Obama, especially on his second term, is deflected by throwing Bush in the discussion. So when the next prez is elected, is Bush still gonna be held just as accountable?

yes, he invaded a country under false pretenses and got 180k+ people killed, so he will always be accountable for that... that's how accountability works. if you think i'm deflecting blame from obama, you're really not paying attention.

[Chico23231]

Yeah, Obama took a bad situation and made it much worse. Ashame he's leaving the country in a much worse position internationally since Jimmy Carter.

[CRedskinsRule]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-def...171416200.html

Ok, so just to clarify the situation.

Yemen is firing ballistic missiles at Saudi Arabia.
Russia, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all have troops in harms way in Syria.
We have boarded Iranian vessels checking for weapons.
Iran has detained our sailors.
Europe has had multiple bomb attacks.


GOOD EFFING THING WE AREN'T AT WAR

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-def...171416200.html

Ok, so just to clarify the situation.

Yemen is firing ballistic missiles at Saudi Arabia.
Russia, the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all have troops in harms way in Syria.
We have boarded Iranian vessels checking for weapons.
Iran has detained our sailors.
Europe has had multiple bomb attacks.


GOOD EFFING THING WE AREN'T AT WAR

well, we are at war though. the millitary is still issuing global war on terror service pins. obama stopped calling it that in 2013, but it never actually ended. we're 4 months away from 15 years of continuous war.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

well, we are at war though. the millitary is still issuing global war on terror service pins. obama stopped calling it that in 2013, but it never actually ended. we're 4 months away from 15 years of continuous war.

No we aren't "at war", if we were, we would have battalions on the ground, a clear strategic and tactical plan, and we would have alliances formed that prevent our enemies from hiding in plain sight. What we are is in the 2016 version of the early Vietnam quagmire, with "advisors" going into hostile territory, and special forces conducting pin prick raids.

If we were trying to win, we would take ground from the enemy and pacify the area and build bases to stabilize the region. We would work to create safe zones and expand those. AND most importantly, we would maintain those bases with the expressed intent of staying as long as it takes to end the regional threats. People call the 2nd war a failure, but the true failure was the turning away and leaving a vacuum for power to shift around in. MOST of that was due to the Democratic party's backing away from the initial all in that was expressed on all sides.

But we aren't at war, and we aren't trying to win, instead this Commander in Chief, and Republican congress have abrogated their Constitutional duties and put our military in the no win situation of trying to fight without fighting.

And for the record, if the politicians want to wash their hand and say this isn't the US's fight, I'm ok with that, and let's get our troops out of harms way. The world would probably be surprised by how self sufficient we really would be if the decision was made.

I'm also ok with a declaration of war, and a consolidated NATO/METO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Middle East Treaty Organization-to be created) Defense structure, IF having that declaration, and organizations, means that we are going to truly fight a coherent battle with the objective of being bringing a stable regional peace to a land that has never really known it. Europe hadn't known peace since Roman times, so it's possible to accomplish great things, but the cost should be acknowledged up front.

What aggravates me, and I personally am not ok with, is politicians using the ME to support falsehoods and platitudes, while military and civilian death tolls rise with the US population oblivious.

[That Guy]

wow, there is just soo much wrong with what you've said here.

first, i'm glad you feel like you're the sole arbiter of whether we are or are not at war, but you're wrong. 100% wrong. we are at war and have been since 2001, and that's just facts.

now, when you declare a war against an abstract like terrorism, it's not like declaring a war on a state actor. there's no actual victory condition, which is why it was and still is a bad idea.

2nd you're line of thinking is part of why we're still fooling around aimlessly in the middle east. we can take ground and kill people all day every day, if the population doesn't want us there interfering, it's just inviting more unrest. everything you're talking about has already been done in iraq and it hasn't solved shit. most of that was due to bush/rumsfeld/et al deciding to unemploy the entire iraqi military and every organization involved with running iraq's day to day.

the vacuum was self created and then filled with a very sectarian ex-pat leader that basically did everything he could to destabilize the country.

I agree that you should never start a war without very clear/concise objectives and a viable exit strategy. that's what happens when people without any military leadership or general knowledge thereof are put in charge though. they have a hammer and everything looks like a nail, but dropping US forces in a place doesn't magically make all the ethnic and political divisions on the ground go away. and a foreign military that's conducting night raids and walking around in body armor and carrying automatic rifles isn't the best instrument to use if you want to win hearts and minds.

[That Guy]

the bigger issue is that no one holds anyone accountable here (ie by voting) for terrible foreign policy decisions. it doesn't really affect most americans in a very concrete way, so i don't think a lot of politicians really spend enough time considering the long term effects of what they're doing (or they don't care, since it doesn't help their next election cycle).

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

wow, there is just soo much wrong with what you've said here.

first, i'm glad you feel like you're the sole arbiter of whether we are or are not at war, but you're wrong. 100% wrong. we are at war and have been since 2001, and that's just facts.

now, when you declare a war against an abstract like terrorism, it's not like declaring a war on a state actor. there's no actual victory condition, which is why it was and still is a bad idea.

2nd you're line of thinking is part of why we're still fooling around aimlessly in the middle east. we can take ground and kill people all day every day, if the population doesn't want us there interfering, it's just inviting more unrest. everything you're talking about has already been done in iraq and it hasn't solved shit. most of that was due to bush/rumsfeld/et al deciding to unemploy the entire iraqi military and every organization involved with running iraq's day to day.

the vacuum was self created and then filled with a very sectarian ex-pat leader that basically did everything he could to destabilize the country.

I agree that you should never start a war without very clear/concise objectives and a viable exit strategy. that's what happens when people without any military leadership or general knowledge thereof are put in charge though. they have a hammer and everything looks like a nail, but dropping US forces in a place doesn't magically make all the ethnic and political divisions on the ground go away. and a foreign military that's conducting night raids and walking around in body armor and carrying automatic rifles isn't the best instrument to use if you want to win hearts and minds.

Show me a declaration of war enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. We can discuss the rest after that

edit. for the sake of adding thoughts:

We aren't at war, we are in a state of continual undeclared "war". The difference is huge in the political capital spent and gained by the use of imagery and fear tactics. You can declare war against non-state players, by declaring war against the non-state player AND any states that aid them.

You and I absolutely disagree on the cause of the vacuum, it was not self-created, it was created when Democrats who supported the initial war actions turned away from dealing with the cost of the war in human lives. We didn't win WW1 or WW2 by "winning the hearts and minds" we won it, by beating the opponents will to fight. You can do that even with the most die hard believers. The Japanese would have died to the last man for the Emperor at the start of WW2. Suicide bombers are no different than the Kamikaze's of that war. IED's were as prevalent in Germany at the end as they were in Iraq. War is hell, and to win it you have to go to hell and back. In Iraq the second time, we got to hell, then the politicians bailed because they couldn't stand the heat.

Winning the hearts and minds loses wars. Beating the opponent until they yield wins them. We didn't do that, and for the past 8 years the President and Congress have gotten away with overseeing a world where 10's of thousands of innocents die annually, and they posture and prance about as they smile and wave and send more US Soldiers to die in an unwinnable undeclared "war".

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the bigger issue is that no one holds anyone accountable here (ie by voting) for terrible foreign policy decisions. it doesn't really affect most americans in a very concrete way, so i don't think a lot of politicians really spend enough time considering the long term effects of what they're doing (or they don't care, since it doesn't help their next election cycle).

I agree with this, and that was the main part of the making the politicians declare their intentions.

[That Guy]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-1...-107publ40.htm

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-...resolution/114


you realize that if we drop troops into yemen/syria/etc to try and "beat them" jihadi recruitment skyrockets right? and i'm not saying we have to win hearts and minds just that at one point that was bush's "goal" and a foreign military isn't the best way to make that happen (especially with the torture problems etc).

after we "beat them" all the political factions that couldn't agree in the first place resurface, killing a bunch of people doesn't really change that. WWII is a bad example, germany and japan's populations weren't sectarian or tribal in nature and that was a very nationalist war, whereas this is mainly being perpetrated by stateless actors.

you also seemly weirdly adamant that all the world's problems are 100% caused by democrats. they don't control congress and they didn't start down this path. not saying their blameless by any means, but that fact that you need to mention it in every post just leads to the impression of bias.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-1...-107publ40.htm

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-...resolution/114


you realize that if we drop troops into yemen/syria/etc to try and "beat them" jihadi recruitment skyrockets right? and i'm not saying we have to win hearts and minds just that at one point that was bush's "goal" and a foreign military isn't the best way to make that happen (especially with the torture problems etc).

after we "beat them" all the political factions that couldn't agree in the first place resurface, killing a bunch of people doesn't really change that. WWII is a bad example, germany and japan's populations weren't sectarian or tribal in nature and that was a very nationalist war, whereas this is mainly being perpetrated by stateless actors.

you also seemly weirdly adamant that all the world's problems are 100% caused by democrats. they don't control congress and they didn't start down this path. not saying their blameless by any means, but that fact that you need to mention it in every post just leads to the impression of bias.

First, and you know this, neither of those links are the Constitutional Declaration of War as was made against Germany or Japan.US Declaration of War History In fact, they are the very definition of using the War powers of the US military, without taking the active and assertive case of a Declaration of War. In authorizoring war powers, without actually declaring war against specific states that are the specific bad actors, we allow Congress and the President to politicize and evade the facts of what War really is.

For the record, I blame the President and Congress equally in all my posts.

Beating the opponent until they yield wins them. We didn't do that, and for the past 8 years the President and Congress have gotten away with overseeing a world where 10's of thousands of innocents die annually,

But we aren't at war, and we aren't trying to win, instead this Commander in Chief, and Republican congress have abrogated their Constitutional duties

My point about the democrats is that they (many) went from actively supporting the initial involvement to blaming Bush and actively setting an agenda against the "at all costs" mindset that was spouted at the beginning of the 2003 campaign. You can see that as bias, I just see it as factual.

I absolutely see both parties as co-conspirators when it comes to using the undeclared war as political mush, and not treating it as seriously as I personally think it should be.

We will just disagree on the nature of WWII, but I will one more time point out that Japan's culture was as idiomatic and religiously fervent as any Islamic State actor, and Germany after the first WW had the same creation of factions that is in the Middle East now. Human nature isn't infinitely vast, and within realms of thoughts and behaviours, the Middle East is very similar to Europe between WWI and WW2, I would argue the similarities are striking if you take out the location based differences.

[That Guy]

when japan and germany were beaten, the nations were very homogeneous. germany had differing groups between ww1 and 2, but afterwards that, um, wasn't the case. you didn't have the shia/sunni/kurd/yazidi/etc divides, and you also didn't have 42 different tribes and organizations with 42 different agendas operating in the same regional space.

our military presence doesn't change that, and when we leave, barring some miracle, those divisions will become immediate flash points for continued problems. that's what happens when your country is given artificial borders.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

when japan and germany were beaten, the nations were very homogeneous. germany had differing groups between ww1 and 2, but afterwards that, um, wasn't the case. you didn't have the shia/sunni/kurd/yazidi/etc divides, and you also didn't have 42 different tribes and organizations with 42 different agendas operating in the same regional space.

our military presence doesn't change that, and when we leave, barring some miracle, those divisions will become immediate flash points for continued problems. that's what happens when your country is given artificial borders.

I agree with everything you said, but the bolded point is the key. We shouldn't have left. We should have stayed and strengthened the coalition that we had fairly successfully unified around Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. If it was known that the US presence was there and not leaving then the Iraq government could have matured under our protection and we could have guided them to be more inclusive. Sure there would have been losses by IED's and I'm definitely not pie in the sky thinking that it would be an easy peace to win. but Instead we fled and left a vacuum. That vacuum has led us to where we are.

I do agree about artificial borders - to a degree. Ultimately, every border is artificial, and the only true way to bring about peaceful resolution is to create systems that respect and account for the localized differences. The US has been fortunate to be established in that principle and have enjoyed a pretty amazing run internally thanks to it. We have, by way of NATO, created a similar safe zone within the European continent, and it's my strong belief that a strong ME equivalent would be able to (over time) actually lead to regional peace. But the leadership of the US uses the ME for politics, not actual solutions. That statement is directed at both parties.

[That Guy]

well, we're still in iraq, just not an maximum levels, the problem is the iraqi security forces are heavily dominated by shia extremist, and that's part of why the sunni's hate us there so much and let isis move in fairly unopposed.

seriously, iraqi government troops march under the banners of iran's ayatollahs. we're paying/leveraging one extremist group against another. regardless of who wins, we still have a problem.