2
2
0
Lately I've seen a lot of discussions on rally point about Iraq and how the country is being taken over by isis most recently Ramadi. Several veterans and civilians are upset about it and faulting the government and our leaders. Putting it objectively, We ousted captured and killed Saddam, collapsed a militant government, reestablished the government, created a democratic society, rebuilt infrastructure, raised an army and police force and trained and equipped them. Some leaders say we pulled out prematurely. However our collapsing economy and approval rating for the war were horrible.
The sacrifices of our fallen heroes is not in question. Our heroes served their country honorably.
I'm not asking should we engage Isis. I'm questioning how long we were expected to defend Iraq borders with American lives.
So, how long did we truly expect to stay in Iraq. More importantly how long are we expected to protect a country with no ties to the United States.
All opinions are welcome, I truly want to see all sides of this. Please keep it professional
The sacrifices of our fallen heroes is not in question. Our heroes served their country honorably.
I'm not asking should we engage Isis. I'm questioning how long we were expected to defend Iraq borders with American lives.
So, how long did we truly expect to stay in Iraq. More importantly how long are we expected to protect a country with no ties to the United States.
All opinions are welcome, I truly want to see all sides of this. Please keep it professional
Posted in these groups: 
Iraq
Iraq
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
The better questions are does ISIS pose a threat to the US homeland? Does ISIS pose a significant threat to the strategic goals/equities/position of the US in the middle east to the extent that their existence will have a significant negative effect on the US?
If the answer to those questions is no, then I think the argument can be made that we have no obligation other than using our power to stop a situation that is verging on genocide/ethnic cleansing. There is a historical precedent for the US using military power simply to help those who cannot help themselves.
If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we are obligated to defeat ISIS because it is in the US's strategic interest to do so.
The time is irrelevant.
If the answer to those questions is no, then I think the argument can be made that we have no obligation other than using our power to stop a situation that is verging on genocide/ethnic cleansing. There is a historical precedent for the US using military power simply to help those who cannot help themselves.
If the answer to those two questions is yes, then we are obligated to defeat ISIS because it is in the US's strategic interest to do so.
The time is irrelevant.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Defeating Isis is another question. I am trying to avoid that area because at the time of our departure from Iraq, Isis posed no threat. It's a splinter cell, with no ties and no regards.
But my question ties specifically to Iraq. Should we have stayed with no objective or strategic value to the US.
But my question ties specifically to Iraq. Should we have stayed with no objective or strategic value to the US.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Well SFC (Join to see) .... We are still in Europe, Japan, the Pacific and Korea... Change takes time.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You are correct but I've responded to others the same. Those areas all hold significantly strategic positions and interest for the United States. Whereas history has shown both Iraq and Afghanistan hold no permanent value.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Do you want the political answer, or one based in reality?
In reality, we're going to be there 3+ generations (30-50 years). We're going to be there until they become Pseudo-Americans.
When we stop thinking of them as Foreigners, and they stop thinking of us as Foreigners, that's when it will be time to leave, but by then we will be so entrenched it won't matter anymore.
When we toppled the regime, we took on a duty to protect them. Not for a year, or a decade, or a set period or time. We just took on a duty. We overthrew a Sovereign Nation. Sure we had a good reason. But we can't undo that.
In reality, we're going to be there 3+ generations (30-50 years). We're going to be there until they become Pseudo-Americans.
When we stop thinking of them as Foreigners, and they stop thinking of us as Foreigners, that's when it will be time to leave, but by then we will be so entrenched it won't matter anymore.
When we toppled the regime, we took on a duty to protect them. Not for a year, or a decade, or a set period or time. We just took on a duty. We overthrew a Sovereign Nation. Sure we had a good reason. But we can't undo that.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MSgt James Mullis In a few other threads, I've made comment that we're STILL in Germany/Japan/Korea. When we do this, we have to have the willingness to do it, essentially forever.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Very good discussion. I very much so agree to our obligations to protect their nation to a degree. But the reality behind your mentioned areas was significantly different. Germany, Japan and Korea were all strategic military positions and they remain that way to this day. It is in the interest of the United States to maintain those footprints.
Unfortunately as shown in the past. Iraq and Afghanistan hold no strategic value to the US. Saddam was a threat to American interest. Primarily Kuwait and the potential for alliance with other nations. We pushed Russia out of Afghanistan because it threatened U.S. interest.
So in reality since it holds no significant future interest remaining in or regaining Iraq... At least for now, would be ineffective without some type of gain other than the moral high ground.
Unfortunately as shown in the past. Iraq and Afghanistan hold no strategic value to the US. Saddam was a threat to American interest. Primarily Kuwait and the potential for alliance with other nations. We pushed Russia out of Afghanistan because it threatened U.S. interest.
So in reality since it holds no significant future interest remaining in or regaining Iraq... At least for now, would be ineffective without some type of gain other than the moral high ground.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) Iraq certainly does hold strategic interest to the US. It's geographical position alone makes it a strategic interest. When you add in it's natural resources, it shines even brighter. Look back before Sadam and study US/ Iraq relations and you will find we have always had an interest in Iraq. As for future value, having another friend in the ME, especially one situated next to Iran and Syria, and with enough political pull in OPEC, is an absolute necessity. Jordan and Lebanon are nice to have, but neither hold weight when it comes to oil.
As for Afghanistan, you might want to look at why Afghanistan has always been at war. From Alexander the Great to the Russian invasion, Afghanistan is a highly sought after region. With Afghanistan, Russia could control the flow of oil from the Middle East into the Black Sea region. Our future interests in Afghanistan lie in it remaining a sovereign country, preferably free of Russian and Iranian influence. We can deal with Pakistani influence to a point.
As for Afghanistan, you might want to look at why Afghanistan has always been at war. From Alexander the Great to the Russian invasion, Afghanistan is a highly sought after region. With Afghanistan, Russia could control the flow of oil from the Middle East into the Black Sea region. Our future interests in Afghanistan lie in it remaining a sovereign country, preferably free of Russian and Iranian influence. We can deal with Pakistani influence to a point.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) very good points however, being a landlocked country, holding Iraq have no permanent value unless we control something. The SOFA agreement put in place provided the U.S. with nothing. The acquisition of natural resources went to other nations and the government we helped implement is not friendly to the U.S. or our interest. So do we maintain that protection and risk American lives for potential resource deals.
Afghanistan is significantly different and you are correct. Which is why there was so much NATO involvement (note the lack of involvement in Iraq) but our interests and the world's is to maintain it as a sovereign nation. That entails self protection and help as needed, requested (see Israel). It is also important to note that we don't control actions in Afghanistan that power resides with NATO
Afghanistan is significantly different and you are correct. Which is why there was so much NATO involvement (note the lack of involvement in Iraq) but our interests and the world's is to maintain it as a sovereign nation. That entails self protection and help as needed, requested (see Israel). It is also important to note that we don't control actions in Afghanistan that power resides with NATO
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google