[Luis Dias]

Going back to the ways of Kissinger is something I will not ever agree with. Not. Ever.

I'd also like to add that I find what jr2 posted absolutely wrong headed. Not only Iraq didn't want American presence in there, the resolutions that established american troops would be out of there was signed by none other than Bush. It's also a moot point in the sense that if anyone here really believes that if 'Murica troops presence would have prevented ISIS from forming then they should disillusion themselves. American troops were the rallying target of every radical muslim, be them shia or not. They were not helping matters at all while being in there.

Now that they have to defend themselves against this new threat, they have to define themselves, they have to start thinking what they are actually a part of or not. It's an identity crisis that Iraq has and should have. If Uncle Sam goes in again, it will only get worse long term.

[Beskargam]

I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens

[666maslo666]

I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens

We should not really support them as much as tolerate them and not get involved. Because any opposition is usualy tied to radical islamists and sectarian violence in some way and that WILL come back to bite us much more than a dictator could. Examples: Afghanistan (Soviets), Iran (Shah), Iraq (Saddam), Syria (Assad), Libya (Kaddafi). All these countries would be better off with their autocrats staying in power. This is actually one of the few rules that does seem to hold even in such a chaotic place as middle east.

If a revolution happens on its own, like in Egypt, then let them have it, but it should happen completely on its own and not be helped in any way at all by the west.

[Col.Hornet]

I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens

Syria without Assad= total destruction of the country. Forget about any form of democracy in that region.
 Secular opposition is a fiction. After FSA's "moderate" leaders were eliminated. At the beginning of the war (when it was really a civil war, not a clash between gov forces and foreign hordes of jihadists) I was quietly standing behind the opposition. But I stopped when I realised that there is no candidate for a leader, no plan, nothing!
 In current situation Syrians don't have much of a choice. Assad or Islamists. And sadly in this war there will be no winner among Syrians. For now the only winner of this conflict is Israel. Who's potential opponent's army is now reduced to ashes. 

[Lorric]

I'd also like to add that I find what jr2 posted absolutely wrong headed. Not only Iraq didn't want American presence in there, the resolutions that established american troops would be out of there was signed by none other than Bush. It's also a moot point in the sense that if anyone here really believes that if 'Murica troops presence would have prevented ISIS from forming then they should disillusion themselves. American troops were the rallying target of every radical muslim, be them shia or not. They were not helping matters at all while being in there.

Remember though we were supposed to be making Iraq strong enough to stand on their own with their own army. But instead of setting a goal for the strength of the Iraqi army required for Iraq to stand on their own, instead, an arbitrary time was set. The job wasn't done. If Iraq had been strong enough, they would have thrown IS back.

[Luis Dias]

I'm not going to argue with you that the whole Post-Saddam management was a ****ing FUBAR ****fest of biblical proportions. But that started way back in 2003. By 2011, there was very little you could do, corruption and anti-americanism was as abundant as oil.

[Dragon]

Remember though we were supposed to be making Iraq strong enough to stand on their own with their own army. But instead of setting a goal for the strength of the Iraqi army required for Iraq to stand on their own, instead, an arbitrary time was set. The job wasn't done. If Iraq had been strong enough, they would have thrown IS back.

I don't think so. The problem with Iraq was not only its army's strength. It was corruption and general ineptitude of the entire government, not only the military. The goal should not be Iraq's army being able to stand on its own, but Iraq in general being able to stand on its own. Which was a chancy proposition after Saddam got deposed.

I disagree very strongly that we should support secular autocrats. It always comes back to bite us later. And such autocrats are usually unpopular and eventually revolution happens

So far, the last time the region had relative peace and stability was under the autocrats. Getting rid of them seems to come back to bite us more than working with them. Seeing what the Islamists are doing to the place, I'd rather have those self-absorbed dictators than them. Or perhaps what I always suggested: legitimate monarchy, like in Jordan and other Arabic kingdoms. I've checked that once, the only country in which monarchy doesn't work out quite the way I'd like it to is Saudi Arabia (and that's only because they've got a bloody old pervert for a king), and even it is very stable, if overtly religious (in fact, Wahhabism started there). On the other hand, the story of every democracy in the region I seen so far seems to end in "Islamists get to power and terror ensues".

[Phantom Hoover]

i can't be bothered reading dragon's posts in this thread but i'll just post the inevitably necessary response:

no dragon, a monarchy will not magically solve the middle east's problems, please stop suggesting it every time the topic comes up

[Lorric]

I'm not going to argue with you that the whole Post-Saddam management was a ****ing FUBAR ****fest of biblical proportions. But that started way back in 2003. By 2011, there was very little you could do, corruption and anti-americanism was as abundant as oil.

I'm not saying IS would have never happened. I'm saying it wouldn't have been able to conquer territory (or at least nowhere near as much) in Iraq. IS took advantage of Iraq's weakness and the chaos in Syria to carve out this Islamic State of theirs.

I don't think so. The problem with Iraq was not only its army's strength. It was corruption and general ineptitude of the entire government, not only the military. The goal should not be Iraq's army being able to stand on its own, but Iraq in general being able to stand on its own. Which was a chancy proposition after Saddam got deposed.

Yes, of course. But you don't need an army to run a stable government. The best government in the World could be toppled by a bunch of barbarians with no army there. America wouldn't need army boots on the ground to help with getting a stable government running Iraq.

[Dragon]

Yes, of course. But you don't need an army to run a stable government. The best government in the World could be toppled by a bunch of barbarians with no army there. America wouldn't need army boots on the ground to help with getting a stable government running Iraq.

But you do need a stable (or at least strong) government to run an army. The greatest army in the world could be defeated by a bunch of barbarians without a competent government as it's helm. It happened a quite few times through history, in fact. If Iraq had a large, well equipped army and government like the one it has now, chances are that soon, IS would have a large, well equipped army. IS recruiting foreigners is a big topic, but they also have a large popular support in the Middle East itself, causing, among other things, defections among soldiers fighting them. Iraq would not only need an army, but a government capable of holding it together. Having one without the other would make them last longer than they did, but would not be good for much in the end.

i can't be bothered reading dragon's posts

Nor anyone else's, it might seem. You've contradicted me, your job is done in this thread, thankyouverymuch. Don't bother backing up your position, you don't need to do that on internet (nor indicate sarcasm, fortunately. or capitalize, for that matter).

[Lorric]

But you do need a stable (or at least strong) government to run an army. The greatest army in the world could be defeated by a bunch of barbarians without a competent government as it's helm. It happened a quite few times through history, in fact. If Iraq had a large, well equipped army and government like the one it has now, chances are that soon, IS would have a large, well equipped army. IS recruiting foreigners is a big topic, but they also have a large popular support in the Middle East itself, causing, among other things, defections among soldiers fighting them. Iraq would not only need an army, but a government capable of holding it together. Having one without the other would make them last longer than they did, but would not be good for much in the end.

Hmmm, well I don't rate IS highly enough or Iraq's government low enough to think that would have happened, but I still get what you're saying and that there are ways Iraq's army or at least parts of it could have ended up becoming IS's army.

[jr2]

You know, we could always pull a Rome and just make them our subjects. 

--They would actually all probably be better off, and we could make them pay tribute in oil .  But we wouldn't stand for it.  (Even though we could eventually give them their freedom in 50-100 or more years after the dust settles.)   /s

They're just... so evil.  And they won't go away on their own (violent, radical, expansionist Islam).  I dunno why the Iraqi army had such a hard time, the Kurds don't seem to. 

[Lorric]

They'd cause more trouble than Judea did Rome I think if that was done.

Good luck trying to make them say the pledge of allegiance.

[jr2]

That were why the /s tag. 

[Luis Dias]

Why have the burden of taking care of them if we already have what we want from them, i.e., the oil flowing?

I mean, it's flowing. Doesn't matter much if it's ISIS that is selling it, what matters is that it is flowing.

[jr2]

Doesn't matter much if it's ISIS that is selling it,

Read that a few times and tell me what the flaw is in this logic.

[Luis Dias]

There is no flaw in "this" logic. Oil is a fungible commodity. Read that sentence a few times until you get it.

[jr2]

:headdesk:  So, millions (maybe eventually more?) of $$ per year to terrorists who want us all to die writhing in agony, and don't really care if they die in the process, doesn't trip any alarm bells? 

[Luis Dias]

That doesn't connect to what I was referring to at all. You do know that they are selling their oil to get their **** together I hope.

[jr2]

Are you referring to ISIS?  "Getting their **** together", for ISIS, also entails prepping their next wave of terror and expansion.  Or were you thinking they were using the profits solely for humanitarian goals?  They wish to rule the world (eventually).